Sunday, 4 January 2009

Israel must have an achievable endgame in mind to justify its actions

Thus far I had refrained from commenting on Israel’s ongoing action in Gaza. It is an issue which tends to draw the worst type of immoderate opinion from supporters of both sides. On one hand we have cretins like Annie Lennox, in league with long term terror apologist and anti-Semite Ken Livingstone, who seem to believe Israel shouldn‘t exist in the first place, on the other we have trite celebrations of the violence, typified by this venomous article from A Tangled Web.

On the Young Unionist blog Rick Cairns has written a more nuanced piece which explores something of the background to Israel’s action. And Iain Dale has penned a well argued article upholding Israel’s right to defend its citizens.

I have a lot of sympathy for their point of view, but I wonder, as ground troops move into Gaza, what endgame the Israelis foresee for this conflict? Short of killing every member of Hamas, it is difficult to envisage Israel’s actions undermining Gazan support for that terror organisation. If, by bombing and invading, Hamas’ ability to sling rockets into Israel at will can be stopped, action is entirely defensible.

If on the other hand, Israel believes a short war can realise regime change, or cause Palestinians to reconsider their tactics, I suspect a lot of lives will be lost to little effect.

1 comment:

Stonemason said...

I posted with BBC blogger Betsan Powys earlier .....

It was Gandhi who said "you cannot shake hands with a clenched fist", there is little point in assigning blame, what has gone has gone, both sides need to open their fists before peace can be given a chance.

Both sides have clenched fists I'm afraid.