(no subject)
Okay, so just a quick recap:
*Since Wednesday, about 40 Qassam/Grad rockets were fired from Gaza to Israel every day. 1 civilian and 2 soldiers were killed.
*The IDF has bombed Gaza from the air and entered on foot and by tank, killing all in all over 100 Palestinians, many of whom were civilians.
*The IDF withdrew last night.
Can you please explain to me how Hamas can possibly claim this as a victory?
"The enemy has been defeated," a Hamas spokesman said. Israel Radio broadcast a news bulletin from Hamas radio, in which the group said the IDF had failed in its efforts to curb Palestinian rocket fire against Negev towns.
You know what, yeah, suppose the IDF failed in curbing the rocket fire. The operation only caused terror and trauma and over 100 deaths in five days. So Hamas's logical conclusion is... "we won, let's keep doing it"? Because it's only, you know, hundreds of lives on the line? And apparently that is the consensus, because hey, Al Jazeera poll says 87% of people who took the poll support continuing the Qassam attacks.
I still haven't organized my thoughts concerning the big picture, and am basically just hanging on to little details that drive me mad.
I'll tell you this, though: I'm glad the IDF withdrew, because we need to take a step back and cool down and think, because rushing into Big Operations (tm) is what happened in Lebanon and that was a big mess, because going into Gaza at the spur of the moment is getting sucked into a muddy swamp that pulls you in and doesn't let go.
Because when I think of our soldiers in Gaza,
IDF soldiers searching the sand for body parts of their friends from two APCs that blew up, 2004
is what I think of, and the look on a friend of mine's face when her boyfriend called her that day and told her he was one of the guys in the picture, and that is what scares me about going back to Gaza. It's amazing; the older I get, the younger these soldiers are, and it's entirely self-centered, but if you asked me whether my main reason for not wanting to re-enter Gaza were the ten potential dead Israeli soldiers or the 200 potential dead Palestinians, my answer'd be the former.
By the way, if you're wondering what's the general sentiment amongst Israelis, at least from what I've gathered, about the IDF operation - including my roommate's, who votes for the leftiest party we have (and whose grandmother happens to live in Ashkelon, but I actually don't think that's related) - well, Sorkin phrased it best:
[JCS Chairman Percy] Fitzwallace: All three scenarios are comprehensive, meet the obligations of proportional response and pose minimal threat to U.S. personal and assets. To turn our attention to scenario one, or Pericles One, to use its code name…
[President Jed] Bartlet: What is the virtue of a proportional response?
Fitzwallace: I’m sorry?
Bartlet: What’s the virtue of a proportional response? Why’s it good? They hit an airplane, so we hit a transmitter, right? That’s a proportional response.
Fitzwallace: Sir, in the case of Pericles…
Bartlet: They hit a barracks, so we hit two transmitters?
Fitzwallace: That’s roughly it, sir.
Bartlet: It’s what we do. I mean this is what we do.
[Chief-of-Staff Leo] McGarry: Yes sir, it’s what we do, it’s what we’ve always done.
Bartlet: Well, if it’s what we do, if it’s what we’ve always done, don’t they know we’re going to do it?
McGarry: Sir, if you would turn your attention to Pericles One.
Bartlet: I have turned my attention to Pericles One, it’s two ammo dumps, an abandoned railroad bridge and a Syrian intelligence agency.
Fitzwallace: Those are four high rated military targets, sir.
Bartlet: But they know we’re going to do that, they know we’re going to do that. Those areas have been abandoned for four days. We know that from the satellites. We have the intelligence.
McGarry: Sir…
Bartlet: They did that, so we did this, it’s the cost of doing business, it’s been factored in, right?
McGarry: Mr. President…
Bartlet: Am I right or am I missing something here?
Fitzwallace: No sir, you’re right sir.
Bartlet: Then I ask again, what is the virtue of a proportional response?
Fitzwallace: It isn’t virtuous Mr. President. It’s all there is sir.
Bartlet: It is not all there is.
McGarry: Sir… Admiral Fitzwallace…
Fitzwallace: Excuse me Leo, but pardon me Mr. President, just what else is there?
Bartlet: A disproportional response. Let the word ring forth from this time and this place, you kill an American, any American, we don’t come back with a proportional response, we come back [bangs fist on table] with total disaster!
(from the West Wing episode "A Proportional Response")
In addition - I am confused enough about my own opinions and skilled enough at being my own Devil's Advocate that I've looked at every angle I could think of for the whole situation --> my own confusion. This post has been all about the gut feelings. But if there's anything you want to point out/disagree with/whatever, I'm listening.
*Since Wednesday, about 40 Qassam/Grad rockets were fired from Gaza to Israel every day. 1 civilian and 2 soldiers were killed.
*The IDF has bombed Gaza from the air and entered on foot and by tank, killing all in all over 100 Palestinians, many of whom were civilians.
*The IDF withdrew last night.
Can you please explain to me how Hamas can possibly claim this as a victory?
"The enemy has been defeated," a Hamas spokesman said. Israel Radio broadcast a news bulletin from Hamas radio, in which the group said the IDF had failed in its efforts to curb Palestinian rocket fire against Negev towns.
You know what, yeah, suppose the IDF failed in curbing the rocket fire. The operation only caused terror and trauma and over 100 deaths in five days. So Hamas's logical conclusion is... "we won, let's keep doing it"? Because it's only, you know, hundreds of lives on the line? And apparently that is the consensus, because hey, Al Jazeera poll says 87% of people who took the poll support continuing the Qassam attacks.
I still haven't organized my thoughts concerning the big picture, and am basically just hanging on to little details that drive me mad.
I'll tell you this, though: I'm glad the IDF withdrew, because we need to take a step back and cool down and think, because rushing into Big Operations (tm) is what happened in Lebanon and that was a big mess, because going into Gaza at the spur of the moment is getting sucked into a muddy swamp that pulls you in and doesn't let go.
Because when I think of our soldiers in Gaza,
IDF soldiers searching the sand for body parts of their friends from two APCs that blew up, 2004
is what I think of, and the look on a friend of mine's face when her boyfriend called her that day and told her he was one of the guys in the picture, and that is what scares me about going back to Gaza. It's amazing; the older I get, the younger these soldiers are, and it's entirely self-centered, but if you asked me whether my main reason for not wanting to re-enter Gaza were the ten potential dead Israeli soldiers or the 200 potential dead Palestinians, my answer'd be the former.
By the way, if you're wondering what's the general sentiment amongst Israelis, at least from what I've gathered, about the IDF operation - including my roommate's, who votes for the leftiest party we have (and whose grandmother happens to live in Ashkelon, but I actually don't think that's related) - well, Sorkin phrased it best:
[JCS Chairman Percy] Fitzwallace: All three scenarios are comprehensive, meet the obligations of proportional response and pose minimal threat to U.S. personal and assets. To turn our attention to scenario one, or Pericles One, to use its code name…
[President Jed] Bartlet: What is the virtue of a proportional response?
Fitzwallace: I’m sorry?
Bartlet: What’s the virtue of a proportional response? Why’s it good? They hit an airplane, so we hit a transmitter, right? That’s a proportional response.
Fitzwallace: Sir, in the case of Pericles…
Bartlet: They hit a barracks, so we hit two transmitters?
Fitzwallace: That’s roughly it, sir.
Bartlet: It’s what we do. I mean this is what we do.
[Chief-of-Staff Leo] McGarry: Yes sir, it’s what we do, it’s what we’ve always done.
Bartlet: Well, if it’s what we do, if it’s what we’ve always done, don’t they know we’re going to do it?
McGarry: Sir, if you would turn your attention to Pericles One.
Bartlet: I have turned my attention to Pericles One, it’s two ammo dumps, an abandoned railroad bridge and a Syrian intelligence agency.
Fitzwallace: Those are four high rated military targets, sir.
Bartlet: But they know we’re going to do that, they know we’re going to do that. Those areas have been abandoned for four days. We know that from the satellites. We have the intelligence.
McGarry: Sir…
Bartlet: They did that, so we did this, it’s the cost of doing business, it’s been factored in, right?
McGarry: Mr. President…
Bartlet: Am I right or am I missing something here?
Fitzwallace: No sir, you’re right sir.
Bartlet: Then I ask again, what is the virtue of a proportional response?
Fitzwallace: It isn’t virtuous Mr. President. It’s all there is sir.
Bartlet: It is not all there is.
McGarry: Sir… Admiral Fitzwallace…
Fitzwallace: Excuse me Leo, but pardon me Mr. President, just what else is there?
Bartlet: A disproportional response. Let the word ring forth from this time and this place, you kill an American, any American, we don’t come back with a proportional response, we come back [bangs fist on table] with total disaster!
(from the West Wing episode "A Proportional Response")
In addition - I am confused enough about my own opinions and skilled enough at being my own Devil's Advocate that I've looked at every angle I could think of for the whole situation --> my own confusion. This post has been all about the gut feelings. But if there's anything you want to point out/disagree with/whatever, I'm listening.