Mission Accomplished.

[Edited by - BASKETBALLJONES on 07-15-2006 00:26]

Yep.. You are right.

Companies get their money, mothers get their coffins, soldiers their artificial legs and hands, and we get the fat energy bill.

Mission Accomplished.

I dont think it is Mr. Bush fault.
However...

What Are They Fighting For
By Prof. Tanya Reinhart
Source: Information Clearing House

– Whatever may be the fate of the captive soldier Gilad Shalit, the Israeli army’s war in Gaza is not about him. As senior security analyst Alex Fishman widely reported, the army was preparing for an attack months earlier and was constantly pushing for it, with the goal of destroying the Hamas infrastructure and its government. The army initiated an escalation on 8 June when it assassinated Abu Samhadana, a senior appointee of the Hamas government, and intensified its shelling of civilians in the Gaza Strip. Governmental authorization for action on a larger scale was already given by 12 June, but it was postponed in the wake of the global reverberation caused by the killing of civilians in the air force bombing the next day. The abduction of the soldier released the safety-catch, and the operation began on 28 June with the destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the mass detention of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank, which was also planned weeks in advance. (1)

In Israeli discourse, Israel ended the occupation in Gaza when it evacuated its settlers from the Strip, and the Palestinians’ behavior therefore constitutes ingratitude. But there is nothing further from reality than this description. In fact, as was already stipulated in the Disengagement Plan, Gaza remained under complete Israeli military control, operating from outside. Israel prevented any possibility of economic independence for the Strip and from the very beginning, Israel did not implement a single one of the clauses of the agreement on border-crossings of November 2005. Israel simply substituted the expensive occupation of Gaza with a cheap occupation, one which in Israel’s view exempts it from the occupier’s responsibility to maintain the Strip, and from concern for the welfare and the lives of its million and a half residents, as determined in the fourth Geneva convention.

Israel does not need this piece of land, one of the most densely populated in the world, and lacking any natural resources. The problem is that one cannot let Gaza free, if one wants to keep the West Bank. A third of the occupied Palestinians live in the Gaza strip. If they are given freedom, they would become the center of Palestinian struggle for liberation, with free access to the Western and Arab world. To control the West Bank, Israel needs full control Gaza. The new form of control Israel has developed is turning the whole of the Strip into a prison camp completely sealed from the world.

Besieged occupied people with nothing to hope for, and no alternative means of political struggle, will always seek ways to fight their oppressor. The imprisoned Gaza Palestinians found a way to disturb the life of the Israelis in the vicinity of the Strip, by launching home-made Qassam rockets across the Gaza wall against Israeli towns bordering the Strip. These primitive rockets lack the precision to focus on a target, and have rarely caused Israeli casualties; they do however cause physical and psychological damage and seriously disturb life in the targeted Israeli neighborhoods. In the eyes of many Palestinians, the Qassams are a response to the war Israel has declared on them. As a student from Gaza said to the New York Times, “Why should we be the only ones who live in fear? With these rockets, the Israelis feel fear, too. We will have to live in peace together, or live in fear together.” (2)

The mightiest army in the Middle East has no military answer to these home-made rockets. One answer that presents itself is what Hamas has been proposing all along, and Haniyeh repeated this week - a comprehensive cease-fire. Hamas has proven already that it can keep its word. In the 17 months since it announced its decision to abandon armed struggle in favor of political struggle, and declared a unilateral cease-fire (“tahdiya” - calm), it did not participate in the launching of Qassams, except under severe Israeli provocation, as happened in the June escalation. However, Hamas remains committed to political struggle against the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. In Israel’s view, the Palestinians elections results is a disaster, because for the first time they have a leadership that insists on representing Palestinian interests rather than just collaborating with Israel’s demands.

Since ending the occupation is the one thing Israel is not willing to consider, the option promoted by the army is breaking the Palestinians by devastating brutal force. They should be starved, bombarded, terrorized with sonic booms for months, until they understand that rebelling is futile, and accepting prison life is their only hope for staying alive. Their elected political system, institutions and police should be destroyed. In Israel’s vision, Gaza should be ruled by gangs collaborating with the prison wards.

The Israeli army is hungry for war. It would not let concerns for captive soldiers stand in its way. Since 2002 the army has argued that an “operation” along the lines of “Defensive Shield” in Jenin was also necessary in Gaza. Exactly a year ago, on 15 July (before the Disengagement), the army concentrated forces on the border of the Strip for an offensive of this scale on Gaza. But then the USA imposed a veto. Rice arrived for an emergency visit that was described as acrimonious and stormy, and the army was forced to back down (3). Now, the time has finally came. With the Islamophobia of the American Administration at a high point, it appears that the USA is prepared to authorize such an operation, on condition that it not provoke a global outcry with excessively-reported attacks on civilians.(4)

With the green light for the offensive given, the army’s only concern is public image. Fishman reported this Tuesday that the army is worried that “what threatens to burry this huge military and diplomatic effort” is reports of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Hence, the army would take care to let some food into Gaza. (5) From this perspective, it is necessary to feed the Palestinians in Gaza so that it would be possible to continue to kill them undisturbed.
A shorter version of this article was scheduled to appear Thursday, July 13 in Yediot Aharonot, but postponed to next week because of the developments in Southern Lebanon. (*)

*Parts of this article were translated from Hebrew by Mark Marshall.

(1) Alex Fishman, Who is for the elimination of Hamas, Yediot Aharonot Saturday Supplement, June 30, 2006. See also Alex Fishman, The safety-catch released, Yediot Aharonot June 21, 2006 (Hebrew), Aluf Benn, An operation with two goals, Ha’aretz, June 29 2006.

(2) Greg Myre, Rockets Create a ‘Balance of Fear’ With Israel, Gaza Residents Say. The New York Times, July 9, 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/world/middleeast/09rockets.html?ex=1310097

(3) Steven Erlanger, “U.S. Presses Israel to Smooth the Path to a Palestinian Gaza”, New York Times, August 7 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/international/middleeast/07israel.html?ex=1281067200&en=82f12ac7eed5ee24&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss The planned July 2005 offensive is documented in detail in my The Road Map to Nowhere - Israel Palestine since 2003, Verso, September 2006.

(4) For a detailed survey of the U.S. administration’s present stands, see Ori Nir, U.S. Seen Backing Israeli Moves To Topple Hamas, The Forward, July 7, 2006. http://www.forward.com/articles/8063

(5) Alex Fishman, Their food is finished, Yediot Aharonot, July 11, 2006.

Copyright Tanya Reinhart http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/

Israel is a facist state, there is no way around that fact.

Posted by Killa4luv:

What Are They Fighting For
By Prof. Tanya Reinhart
Source: Information Clearing House

– Whatever may be the fate of the captive soldier Gilad Shalit, the Israeli army’s war in Gaza is not about him. As senior security analyst Alex Fishman widely reported, the army was preparing for an attack months earlier and was constantly pushing for it, with the goal of destroying the Hamas infrastructure and its government. The army initiated an escalation on 8 June when it assassinated Abu Samhadana, a senior appointee of the Hamas government, and intensified its shelling of civilians in the Gaza Strip. Governmental authorization for action on a larger scale was already given by 12 June, but it was postponed in the wake of the global reverberation caused by the killing of civilians in the air force bombing the next day. The abduction of the soldier released the safety-catch, and the operation began on 28 June with the destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the mass detention of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank, which was also planned weeks in advance. (1)

In Israeli discourse, Israel ended the occupation in Gaza when it evacuated its settlers from the Strip, and the Palestinians’ behavior therefore constitutes ingratitude. But there is nothing further from reality than this description. In fact, as was already stipulated in the Disengagement Plan, Gaza remained under complete Israeli military control, operating from outside. Israel prevented any possibility of economic independence for the Strip and from the very beginning, Israel did not implement a single one of the clauses of the agreement on border-crossings of November 2005. Israel simply substituted the expensive occupation of Gaza with a cheap occupation, one which in Israel’s view exempts it from the occupier’s responsibility to maintain the Strip, and from concern for the welfare and the lives of its million and a half residents, as determined in the fourth Geneva convention.

Israel does not need this piece of land, one of the most densely populated in the world, and lacking any natural resources. The problem is that one cannot let Gaza free, if one wants to keep the West Bank. A third of the occupied Palestinians live in the Gaza strip. If they are given freedom, they would become the center of Palestinian struggle for liberation, with free access to the Western and Arab world. To control the West Bank, Israel needs full control Gaza. The new form of control Israel has developed is turning the whole of the Strip into a prison camp completely sealed from the world.

Besieged occupied people with nothing to hope for, and no alternative means of political struggle, will always seek ways to fight their oppressor. The imprisoned Gaza Palestinians found a way to disturb the life of the Israelis in the vicinity of the Strip, by launching home-made Qassam rockets across the Gaza wall against Israeli towns bordering the Strip. These primitive rockets lack the precision to focus on a target, and have rarely caused Israeli casualties; they do however cause physical and psychological damage and seriously disturb life in the targeted Israeli neighborhoods. In the eyes of many Palestinians, the Qassams are a response to the war Israel has declared on them. As a student from Gaza said to the New York Times, “Why should we be the only ones who live in fear? With these rockets, the Israelis feel fear, too. We will have to live in peace together, or live in fear together.” (2)

The mightiest army in the Middle East has no military answer to these home-made rockets. One answer that presents itself is what Hamas has been proposing all along, and Haniyeh repeated this week - a comprehensive cease-fire. Hamas has proven already that it can keep its word. In the 17 months since it announced its decision to abandon armed struggle in favor of political struggle, and declared a unilateral cease-fire (“tahdiya” - calm), it did not participate in the launching of Qassams, except under severe Israeli provocation, as happened in the June escalation. However, Hamas remains committed to political struggle against the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. In Israel’s view, the Palestinians elections results is a disaster, because for the first time they have a leadership that insists on representing Palestinian interests rather than just collaborating with Israel’s demands.

Since ending the occupation is the one thing Israel is not willing to consider, the option promoted by the army is breaking the Palestinians by devastating brutal force. They should be starved, bombarded, terrorized with sonic booms for months, until they understand that rebelling is futile, and accepting prison life is their only hope for staying alive. Their elected political system, institutions and police should be destroyed. In Israel’s vision, Gaza should be ruled by gangs collaborating with the prison wards.

The Israeli army is hungry for war. It would not let concerns for captive soldiers stand in its way. Since 2002 the army has argued that an “operation” along the lines of “Defensive Shield” in Jenin was also necessary in Gaza. Exactly a year ago, on 15 July (before the Disengagement), the army concentrated forces on the border of the Strip for an offensive of this scale on Gaza. But then the USA imposed a veto. Rice arrived for an emergency visit that was described as acrimonious and stormy, and the army was forced to back down (3). Now, the time has finally came. With the Islamophobia of the American Administration at a high point, it appears that the USA is prepared to authorize such an operation, on condition that it not provoke a global outcry with excessively-reported attacks on civilians.(4)

With the green light for the offensive given, the army’s only concern is public image. Fishman reported this Tuesday that the army is worried that “what threatens to burry this huge military and diplomatic effort” is reports of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Hence, the army would take care to let some food into Gaza. (5) From this perspective, it is necessary to feed the Palestinians in Gaza so that it would be possible to continue to kill them undisturbed.
A shorter version of this article was scheduled to appear Thursday, July 13 in Yediot Aharonot, but postponed to next week because of the developments in Southern Lebanon. (*)

*Parts of this article were translated from Hebrew by Mark Marshall.

(1) Alex Fishman, Who is for the elimination of Hamas, Yediot Aharonot Saturday Supplement, June 30, 2006. See also Alex Fishman, The safety-catch released, Yediot Aharonot June 21, 2006 (Hebrew), Aluf Benn, An operation with two goals, Ha’aretz, June 29 2006.

(2) Greg Myre, Rockets Create a ‘Balance of Fear’ With Israel, Gaza Residents Say. The New York Times, July 9, 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/world/middleeast/09rockets.html?ex=1310097

(3) Steven Erlanger, “U.S. Presses Israel to Smooth the Path to a Palestinian Gaza”, New York Times, August 7 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/international/middleeast/07israel.html?ex=1281067200&en=82f12ac7eed5ee24&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss The planned July 2005 offensive is documented in detail in my The Road Map to Nowhere - Israel Palestine since 2003, Verso, September 2006.

(4) For a detailed survey of the U.S. administration’s present stands, see Ori Nir, U.S. Seen Backing Israeli Moves To Topple Hamas, The Forward, July 7, 2006. http://www.forward.com/articles/8063

(5) Alex Fishman, Their food is finished, Yediot Aharonot, July 11, 2006.

Copyright Tanya Reinhart http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/

Israel is a facist state, there is no way around that fact.

You know what Killa? If you want to believe this article go right ahead. I've lived in Israel and I know for a fact that most of this article is pure falsehood. Ask the author of this piece about the holocauset, I wonder what they would say.

After 9/11, I was in favor of the US cleaning out the Bekka Valley of terrorists rather than invading Iraq. It would have done far more toward furthering the goals of winning the war on terrorism and promoting peace in the Middle East.

Posted by firefly:

Democratic countries dont target ordinary people on the street. Terrorists do.

Firefly, you certainly can't believe that to be true. Generally, most modern democratic countries are relatively hesitant to kill civilians but the reality is that "democratic" countries have targeted civilians, as in the case of the US dropping nukes on Hiroshima & Nagasaki in WW II, if they determine that that is the way to end a conflict. Fortunately, most countries are hesitant to drop nuclear bombs because of the political ramifications of such an action.

However, one could argue that launching missiles or any other kind of strong military incursion into heavily populated areas (by civilians) via a given state is related to the justification for the past nuclear attacks. The problem is that so-called "terrorist" groups reside, for their own reasons, in these areas purposely as to make states like Israel and the US -- who are unpopular with locals -- look bad. Why do they stay there? Well, those who hate these "terrorist" groups see this as a way of "unfairly" bringing those who are "innocent" into the conflict and manipulate locals hatred of Israel and the US to their advantage. The reason groups like Hezbollah do this is because they cannot match Israel militarily so they use other tactics where they have an advantage, like propaganda/perception with their public.

I'm not saying I approve of Hezbollah's' tactics, but I don't necessarily see them as "terrorists." Terrorists is a dirty word in the West, which demeans Hezbollah's goals, and are arguably just as defensible as Israel's right to exist as a state and use force to maintain it. Do I think it's reasonable to say Israel should seize to exist now? Not really, but they are hardly innocent, nor are the Western powers who helped create the state of Israel and use Eastern European Jews for their own strategic/economic agenda, nor are the Arab nations who have used/neglected the Palestinians and Lebanese for their own political reasons.

Let's not turn this into a oversimplistic fight of "good" (democratic nations) against "evil" ("terrorists") because there is very little evidence to support such a sophomoric argument regarding the constant conflict of that region, and does little towards resolving it.

Posted by Rich:

Dropping the bomb during WWII saved lives by shortening the war. It was a cost/benefit calculus.

Yes, that's the argument presented by proponents of dropping the bomb in WW II (of which is not the consensus as there are respected historians who disagree with this assessment), but that does not take away the fact that the target of "the bomb" was civilians. The idea of targeting civilians had a purpose, as you outlined in your post, to end the war and "save" (American) lives. The killing of civilians by "terrorist organizations" also, usually, has an expressed goal in mind. In the case of Hezbollah, their attacks of military and civilian targets purpose is to eliminate the state of Israel.



[Edited by - PresIke on 07-16-2006 12:29 AM]

the casulty of war and the lost of innocent life has become the human standard in the middle east.....very very sad.

israel is the superpower in the middle east. watch how they surgically isolate lebanon