Ballast
I started to read a pro-Israel article this morning that I found very persuasive -- and then had to rush off to college for my opinion writing exam. I had though it was in The Guardian, but remembering now, I think it was actually in The Times.
In search of it, however, I've found a couple of other articles which articulate the Israeli position very solidly.
First up an article with two prongs. The first is the perenniel question of why do killings of Palestinians by the IDF garner so much more protest than other killings. (My response is that, for various reasons, I think it has less to do with knee-jerk anti-Israeli positions than some would think. Not that it's not a factor, but that it's not the only or even the most important factor. But this would be a post in itself.)
The second thing the article addresses is just how bad Hamas actually is. If what it says is true, there is new information in there for me, and it is shocking.
This one reminds us again of the disgusting comments from the Hamas leadership that the death of children in Gaza legitimises the killing of Israeli children "all over the world." By pointing out what that must mean -- ie the killing of Jewish children "all over the world" -- the full horror of this statement is drawn out. Not that I didn't find it horrifying anyway, but this author has managed to hit me afresh with it. For those who don't think they can take such a read on a Friday afternoon, he ends on a hopeful note about interfaith dialogue here in the UK.
And here'sThe Times article -- I was right, it was The Times. I am generally sceptical of claims that any particular regional struggle/unrest by people who (or in this case, some of whom) happen to be Muslim is part of a worldwide Islamist conspiracy, but by examining the ramifications of the Hamas/Fatah split and the links between Hamas, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (although this is all a bit odd, and I'd love to read a history of it, as the Muslim Brotherhood are Sunni and Iranians are Shi'ite) this guy has me considering his argument.
(Of course, if some other commentators are correct to say that Hamas would actually consider a unity government with Fatah, even after all that's happened (and some commentators are saying that) then how quickly would Iran's influence wane? Maybe it wouldn't. The optimist in me still hopes there could be a way out of this without a continued siege of the strength that would be required to render Hamas inoperative. Because I imagine that sort of operation couldn't happen quickly -- and that this fighting could go on for a long time if that's the goal.)
Finally, just so it isn't all black and white -- invasion and all to do with it justified vs invasion and all to do with it unjustified. Some people have opinions falling in between these two extremes! Here's a commentator who thinks the offensive was 100% justified but does not support bombing targets where large numbers of civilians are known to be, even to bomb out fighters.
In search of it, however, I've found a couple of other articles which articulate the Israeli position very solidly.
First up an article with two prongs. The first is the perenniel question of why do killings of Palestinians by the IDF garner so much more protest than other killings. (My response is that, for various reasons, I think it has less to do with knee-jerk anti-Israeli positions than some would think. Not that it's not a factor, but that it's not the only or even the most important factor. But this would be a post in itself.)
The second thing the article addresses is just how bad Hamas actually is. If what it says is true, there is new information in there for me, and it is shocking.
This one reminds us again of the disgusting comments from the Hamas leadership that the death of children in Gaza legitimises the killing of Israeli children "all over the world." By pointing out what that must mean -- ie the killing of Jewish children "all over the world" -- the full horror of this statement is drawn out. Not that I didn't find it horrifying anyway, but this author has managed to hit me afresh with it. For those who don't think they can take such a read on a Friday afternoon, he ends on a hopeful note about interfaith dialogue here in the UK.
And here'sThe Times article -- I was right, it was The Times. I am generally sceptical of claims that any particular regional struggle/unrest by people who (or in this case, some of whom) happen to be Muslim is part of a worldwide Islamist conspiracy, but by examining the ramifications of the Hamas/Fatah split and the links between Hamas, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (although this is all a bit odd, and I'd love to read a history of it, as the Muslim Brotherhood are Sunni and Iranians are Shi'ite) this guy has me considering his argument.
(Of course, if some other commentators are correct to say that Hamas would actually consider a unity government with Fatah, even after all that's happened (and some commentators are saying that) then how quickly would Iran's influence wane? Maybe it wouldn't. The optimist in me still hopes there could be a way out of this without a continued siege of the strength that would be required to render Hamas inoperative. Because I imagine that sort of operation couldn't happen quickly -- and that this fighting could go on for a long time if that's the goal.)
Finally, just so it isn't all black and white -- invasion and all to do with it justified vs invasion and all to do with it unjustified. Some people have opinions falling in between these two extremes! Here's a commentator who thinks the offensive was 100% justified but does not support bombing targets where large numbers of civilians are known to be, even to bomb out fighters.