[Is Gaza the next deployment zone for the NATO Imperial Army? -jlt]
Many have asked in the wake of Israel’s attack on Gaza, how Hamas, if it saw the consequences of ending the ceasefire — and Hamas did foresee the likelihood of disproportionate Israeli military action — nonetheless could have acquiesced to the inevitable bloodshed — bloodshed that an Israeli army, fixated on restoring its deterrence after its failed 2006 war with Hesballah, would visit on the citizens of Gaza. Some may read into this decision the cynicism of a movement that prioritises resistance; but to do so would be to misread how Hamas analyses their situation and understands the nature of resistance.
| Security officials have made clear that Israel will not permit fresh elections in Palestine — for fear that Hamas will win; and whereas the West probably will continue to bestow Mahmoud Abbas with the trappings of legitimacy after his term in office expires on 9 January 2009, he will enjoy no such legitimacy amongst Palestinians. |
At one level, the six month ceasefire simply had failed to satisfy two key litmus tests: The circumstances of life of the Gazan people continually had deteriorated, and the ceasefire was not seen to be taking the Palestinian people any closer to a political solution. On the contrary, Hamas saw a settlement receding further into the distance.
Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post
2 comments:
Jim, I believe strongly in a role for international peacekeepers to separate the adversaries in Gaza and the WestBank but NATO has lost its moral authority to take that on. We have quite willingly become America's Foreign Legion. In Muslim eyes we're not only Infidels but Crusaders, Israel's enablers.
Too bad. The Canada I spent the first five decades of my life in would have been an ideal "honest broker" for this essential role.
I think Canada still might, but not as a member of NATO.
Post a Comment