Israeli’s Helping Fatah!
Israel smashing Hamas!
Israel – It is action Time,
To Crush An Islam Model!
Gaza madness has a Goal,
Gaza Model For Islam Rule,
Jihad Worldwide Arab Goal,
Gaza conflict reveals Future,
Islamic takeovers like Hamas,
A Conservative Radical Choice,
With Its Controlling Sharia Law,
Is winning Middle East Students,
Islamization of European Nations,
Is now in full bloom of its Creation!
It is not just an overnight Sensation,
But an Ancient Koran Based Relation,
To Lead A Society into Allah Ruination,
Whose end is God’s eternal Damnation!
European Christianity is now Frustrated,
Because its Catholicism will be Eliminated,
Since its claim as true Church is Overrated,
When Islam is Caliphate world no Debating!
January 6, 2009
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Islamic Extremist Elements of the Worldwide Jihad Movement, within the Muslim Society, will not cease their gradual chewing away of any other mindset, until a massive Caliphate under Islamic Law stretches from Morocco to India. This is a long series of six excerpts from a variety of sources. If you will take the time to read it, it will being you up to date on current Gaza Strip happenings, and how what is now happening in the Strip is so important to future worldwide Islamic plans.
Begin Excerpt 1 from Jerusalem Post
We’re fed up with empty gestures’
January 6, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday that United Nations Security Council discussions on a cease-fire in Gaza should not be taking place at the moment because an opportunity must be given for an effective, regional Middle East process that all countries involved would be fully committed to in order to prevent attacks on Israeli civilians.
Speaking during a Jerusalem meeting with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, Czech Republic Foreign Minister Karl Schwarzenberg and Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, the prime minister said Israel would only agree to a cease-fire in exchange for concrete measures that ensure immediate security for southerners.
“This is the time for action not words. We are fed up with empty gestures,” he said, according to Army Radio.
Olmert told the three foreign ministers that while he respected the UN and its institutions, an immediate, unconditional cease-fire would not be the right way to bring about a solution to the Gaza situation. He said the IDF operation would force Hamas to stop firing rockets.
Nevertheless, the prime minister said Israel would agree to a request to set up a joint humanitarian situation room with the European Union, Israel Radio reported.
On Monday night, Olmert urged French President Nicolas Sarkozy to prevent the UNSC from bringing to the floor a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, telling the French leader that Israel was forced into launching Operation Cast Lead out of a desire to defend the lives of its southern citizens.
“The goal of the operation is not to destroy the Hamas leadership, even though we are able to do this, as well,” Olmert told Sarkozy. “We defined from the very beginning a limited goal – to change the security situation in the South and to free thousands of citizens from the threat of terror.”
“In view of the diplomati
c developments, it would be unwise to pass a resolution on the matter, since past experience has proven that Israel cannot afford restricting its freedom to act against terrorism – today Hamas, tomorrow Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaida,” he continued.
“Sometimes the need to find a compromise in the UN comes at Israel’s expense,” the premier said, adding that Israel has “experience in this matter.”
Olmert also expressed his opposition to a cease-fire agreement similar to the one which was accepted in June, implying that the first arrangement may have created a more perilous situation for Israel.
“I am a man of compromise,” he began. “I have conducted two negotiations in an effort to bring about compromise. However, on one thing I cannot compromise, and that is the security of Israeli citizens.”
“We will not be able to come to a compromise when Hamas is able to fire in another month or two on the Israeli population,” the prime minister said. “Before the ceasefire, Hamas had rockets that could reach as far as 20 kilometers.
After the ceasefire, the range of their rockets grew to 40 kilometers, threatening the lives of a million Israelis.”
“We cannot reach a compromise that would enable Hamas to fire at yet more cities and towns in Israel,” he added.
Olmert reiterated US President George W. Bush’s statement, according to which the end result of the Gaza operation must be that Hamas “not only stops firing, but also lose its ability to fire in the future.”
The UNSC is set to meet on Tuesday to discuss the situation in the Gaza Strip, and France is currently residing as its president.
Similarly, opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu called on France to thwart the cease-fire initiative, telling Sarkozy on Tuesday that the conditions were not yet right.
Netanyahu said that as long as weapons smuggling via the Philadelph Corridor continued, Hamas would easily succeed in replenishing its rocket supply.
Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev has indicated that Israel would consider not abiding by a resolution calling for an end to the Gaza operation, Army Radio said.
Begin Excerpt 2 from Jerusalem Post
Analysis: Battling toward the collapse of the Hamas regime
January 4, 2009
Martin Kramer , THE JERUSALEM POST
Israel’s long-term strategic goal is the elimination of Hamas control of Gaza. This is especially the goal of the Kadima and Labor parties, which are distinguished by their commitment to a negotiated final-status agreement with the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas.
The Hamas takeover in Gaza reduced Abbas to a provincial governor who no longer represents effective authority in all the areas destined for a future Palestinian state.
Hamas rule in Gaza is a bone in the throat of the “peace process” – one Israel is determined to remove.
But how? After the Hamas takeover in June 2007, Israel imposed a regime of economic sanctions on Gaza, constricting the flow of goods and materials into Gaza via its border crossings. The idea was gradually to undermine the popularity of Hamas in Gaza, while at the same time bolstering Abbas.
Israel enjoyed considerable success in this approach. While the diplomatic “peace process” with Abbas didn’t move very far, the West Bank enjoyed an economic boomlet, as Israel removed checkpoints and facilitated the movement of capital, goods, workers and foreign tourists. So while Gaza languished under sanctions, with zero growth, the West Bank visibly prospered – reinforcing the message that “Islamic resistance” is a dead end.
Hamas, from the outset, sought to break out of what it has called the Israeli “siege” by firing rockets into Israel. Its quid pro quo was an end to Hamas rocket fire in exchange for a lifting of the Israeli “siege.” When Israel and Hamas reached an agreement for “calm” last June, Hamas hoped the sanctions would be lifted as well, and Israel did increase the flow through the crossing points, by about 50 percent. Fuel supplies were restored to previous levels.
But Hamas was fully aware that sanctions were slowly eroding its base and contradicting its narrative that “resistance” pays. This is why it refused to renew the “calm” agreement after its six-month expiration, and renewed rocket fire.
Were Israel to lift the economic sanctions, it would transform Hamas control of Gaza into a permanent fact, solidify the division of the West Bank and Gaza, and undermine both Israel and Abbas by showing that violent “resistance” to Israel produces better results than peaceful compromise and cooperation. Rewarding “resistance” just produces more of it. So Israel’s war aim is very straightforward, and it is not simply a total cease-fire. At the very least, it is a total cease-fire that also leaves the sanctions against Hamas in place. This would place Israel in an advantageous position to bring about the collapse of Hamas rule sometime in the future – its long-term objective.
THE ISRAELI operation is meant to impress on Hamas that there is something far worse than the sanctions – that Israel is capable of hunting Hamas on air, sea and land at tremendous cost to Hamas and minimal cost to Israel, while much of the world stands by and parts of it (including some Arabs) quietly applaud.
Many Western and Arab governments see the logic of this.
They would like to see Abbas and the Palestinian Authority back in authority over Gaza, thus restoring credibility to the “peace process.” Because they wish to see Hamas contained if not diminished, they have moved slowly or not at all to respond to calls for action to stop the fighting.
The question now is how Israel turns its military moves into political moves that achieve the shared objectives of this coalition of convenience.
A hint of the solution Israel envisions comes from a senior Israeli diplomatic source: “Israel cannot agree that the only party responsible for implementing and regulating the cease-fire be Hamas.”
Israel’s objective is to put another player on the ground in Gaza, which over time would be positioned to undermine Hamas. And since the objective is gradually restoring Gaza to control by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, it seems logical to assume that this mechanism will be designed to enforce Hamas submission to that authority. Hamas would swallow the pill in the name of “national unity,” but it would become beholden to the PA.
It is the PA, for example, that could be reinserted at the Egyptian border crossing at Rafah (as already demanded by Cairo). It is the PA that could be given exclusive control of reconstruction budgets to repair damaged and destroyed ministries, mosques and homes. (In the eventual reconstruction boom, Israel will hold all the cards: Gaza has no construction materials, and gravel, aggregate and cement must be trucked in from Israel.) The premise is that if economic sanctions are to be lifted – and post-war Gaza will be desperately in need of all material things – it must only be through the agency of the PA.
Finally, PA security forces could be reintroduced in a police capacity, as part of the “national” reconciliation. An envelope for this restoration of the PA could be provided by the international community.
It isn’t impossible that Israel would go beyond its declared aims and bring Hamas down if the Islamist movement appeared sufficiently damaged by initial ground operations. If Israeli forces were positioned to do this, and Hamas began to unravel, the impetus to finish the job would be strong. This could make for a much quicker handoff to the PA, via some internationalized body. Israeli disavowals of interest in this outcome, at this time, should be taken with a grain of salt. Israel won’t miss an opportunity if it presents itself.
WHAT COULD go wrong with this scenario? A lot. Hamas assumes (probably correctly) that its Palestinian opponents fed Israel with much of the intelligence it needed to wage precision warfare against Hamas. There is likely to be a vicious settling of scores as soon as a cease-fire is in place, if not before, and which could approximate a civil war. This could open space for small groups like Islamic Jihad and other gangs, which could shoot off rockets at their own initiative (or that of Iran).
If something can go wrong in Gaza, there is a good chance it will. Much of the aftermath will have to be improvised, and much will depend on how thoroughly Israel has degraded the capabilities of Hamas.
If Hamas remains a player, the biggest risk to Israel is that the mechanism created through diplomacy to “implement and regulate” ends up legitimating Hamas. The temptation to “engage” Hamas has grown in Europe, and even among some Americans, ever since the Hamas victory in the 2006 legislative council elections.
As diplomats work to put together a cease-fire mechanism, Hamas will work hard to tempt governments to talk to it, persuading them to skirt the Quartet’s insistence that Hamas not be “engaged” until it accepts past PA-Israel agreements, recognizes Israel and renounces armed struggle.
Legitimation of Hamas could seal the fate of the “peace process” and give “resistance” the reputation of a truly winning strategy. The United States will have to assure that all contact with Hamas runs exclusively through the Egyptians, the Saudis, the Turks, and above all, the PA. Europe and the United States must stay well out of the diplomatic reach of Hamas until it meets the Quartet conditions – a highly improbable prospect.
As with any multi-stage plan, Israel’s appears clearer at the outset and fuzzier in the later stages, where consensus dissipates. In particular, the opposition Likud has less confidence in Abbas and the “peace process” as presently configured. While it is adamant about ending Hamas rule in Gaza, it would be much less concerned with restoring the unity of the Palestinians. As Israel achieves its military aims, underlying political differences, now suppressed, are bound to surface, especially as elections are only a month away.
But for now, Israel is united in pursuing its war of demolition against Hamas.
Its aim is not only to stop the rockets from falling in southern Israel, but to move a long stride forward toward a change of regime in Gaza.
The writer is senior fellow at the Shalem Center’s Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies in Jerusalem. He is also the Wexler-Fromer fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a senior fellow at the Olin Institute, Harvard University.
Begin Excerpt 3 from the Star Online – World Udates
January 6, 2oo9
The Star Online – Worldupdates
Tuesday January 6, 2009
Iran wants to show regional power over Gaza crisis
By Edmund Blair
TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran wants to send a message to the new U.S. administration and Arab governments that it is a power to be reckoned with in the region by championing the cause of its Palestinian ally, Hamas, in its fight with Israel.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, expected to seek re-election in June, may also have found a cause to muzzle criticism of his economic management and tumbling oil revenues, analysts say.
But Tehran’s outspoken support for Hamas and criticism of the response by some Arab states could backfire if it wins over the Arab public but, in doing so, pushes wary Arab governments closer towards the United States in its dispute with Iran.
Washington accuses Tehran of seeking a nuclear bomb, which Iran denies. The row is likely to be near the top of President-elect Barack Obama’s foreign policy in-tray, though Gaza may now trump it bringing another benefit to Iran from the crisis.
“The message from the Iranians (to Washington) is there is give and take. We can help you in Afghanistan, we can help you in Iraq, we can help you with Lebanon and Palestine, if you have good relations with us,” said Iranian analyst Baqer Moin.
“We are a regional power and you have to acknowledge that and talk to us on that level if you want us to be cooperative on issues where you need us,” the London-based analyst said.
Gaza’s plight — more than 560 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli attacks — has drawn sympathy from Iranians frustrated like many other Muslims at what they see as a limited international response to end fighting.
But hardliners have been most vocal backing the Palestinian cause, a pillar of the Islamic Republic since the revolution and a way Iran has fashioned itself a leader of the Muslim world although it is mainly Shi’ite and most Muslims are Sunni.
INFLUENCE
Israel accuses Iran of stoking the violence by supplying arms to Hamas. Tehran, which does not recognise Israel, says it gives moral and financial support to the group that has been isolated by much of the Arab world and international community.
Analysts say it is not clear whether Iran encouraged Hamas not to renew its truce with Israel in December or pushed it to fire the rockets that Israel says it is trying to stop.
But, whatever Iran’s role, the violence has set back peace moves between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and Syria — initiatives, analysts say, Iran fears may undermine its allies.
“They feel the way to maintain influence in this region is by having a strong Hezbollah and strong Hamas,” said one Western diplomat, adding that if either Hamas’s or Hezbollah’s conflict with Israel were resolved “it would be a strategic catastrophe (for Iran)”.
Iranian officials compare the battle Hamas is waging to Hezbollah’s resistance to Israeli attacks in 2006. Iran claimed victory after the Lebanese group emerged battered but in tact.
Moin said the conflict in 2006 “must have encouraged Iranians that if Hamas stay put … they are not going to lose.”
Iran’s top authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wears a Palestinian scarf, has criticised some Arabs for not doing enough and urged Muslims to do what they can to help.
Hardline Iranians have demonstrated outside the Jordanian and Egyptian missions. Both have peace treaties with Israel.
‘RISKY GAME’
But criticising Arab governments carries risks. Tehran may win over an Arab public frustrated at their own governments, but it may make Arab leaders even more wary of Tehran.
“They wanted to use this (cause) to prevent any Shi’ite- Sunni rift in the region, and to put some pressure on Sunni governments not to be too antagonistic to Iran. You could argue that the result is the complete opposite,” said the diplomat.
An Iranian analyst said: “It is a very risky game. Arab governments would realise they have to take Iran very seriously but at the same time it could push them towards the United States if they gradually … lose support of their own people.”
The Gaza crisis has offered a diversion for Ahmadinejad whose government is likely to have to cut spending in this presidential election year after oil prices fell from $147 a barrel in July to below $50, slashing Iran’s main source of revenue.
“You see how radicals and Ahmadinejad are using this to divert attention from the economic situation to prevent critics from opposing the government,” said the diplomat.
Tehran University professor Hamidreza Jalaiepour said Israel’s actions were playing into the hands of hardliners in Iran and the region, pushing moderates “to the margins”.
But he said falling oil earnings could, in the longer run, push Iran to moderate its foreign policy because it will have less cash to splash out on its favoured regional causes.
“Reducing revenues of a state would certainly influence foreign policy, especially those countries that have policies … based on slogans and populism,” Jalaiepour said.
Begin Excerpt 4 from International Herald Tribune
Young Jordanians rebel, embracing conservative Islam
By Michael Slackman
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
AMMAN, Jordan: Muhammad Fawaz is a very serious college junior with a stern gaze and a reluctant smile that barely cloaks suppressed anger. He never wanted to attend Jordan University. He hates spending hours each day commuting.
As a high school student, Fawaz, 20, had dreamed of earning a scholarship to study abroad. But that was impossible, he said, because he did not have a “wasta,” or connection. In Jordan, connections are seen as essential for advancement and the wasta system is routinely cited by young people as their primary grievance with their country.
So Fawaz decided to rebel. He adopted the serene, disciplined demeanor of an Islamic activist. In his sophomore year he was accepted into the student group affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Jordan’s largest, most influential religious, social and political movement, one that would ultimately like to see the state governed by Islamic law, or Shariah.
Now he works to recruit other students to the cause.
“I find there is justice in the Islamic movement,” Fawaz said one day as he walked beneath the towering cypress trees at Jordan University. “I can express myself. There is no wasta needed.”
Across the Middle East, young people like Fawaz, angry, alienated and deprived of opportunity, have accepted Islam as an agent of change and rebellion. It is their rock ‘n’ roll, their long hair and love beads. Through Islam, they defy the status quo and challenge governments seen as corrupt and incompetent.
These young people – 60 percent of those in the region are under 25 – are propelling a worldwide Islamic revival, driven by a thirst for political change and social justice. That fervor has popularized a more conservative interpretation of the faith.
“Islamism for us is what pan-Arabism was for our parents,” said Naseem Tarawnah, 25, a business writer and blogger, who is not part of the movement.
The long-term implications of this are likely to complicate American foreign policy calculations, making it more costly to continue supporting governments that do not let secular or moderate religious political movements take root.
Washington will also be likely to find it harder to maintain the policy of shunning leaders of groups like the Brotherhood in Egypt, or Hamas in Gaza, or Hezbollah in Lebanon, which command tremendous public sympathy.
Leaders of Muslim countries have tried to appease public sentiment while doing all they can to discourage the West from engaging religious movements directly. They see the prospect of a thaw in relations with the West, and see these groups as a threat to their monopoly on power.
Begin Excerpt 5 from Jerusalem Post
‘We have to win war against Islam’
December 15, 2008
brenda gazzar , THE JERUSALEM POST
Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders screened his controversial film Fitna in Jerusalem on Sunday, calling on Europe to restrict immigration “from backward Islamic countries” and describing Islam as a totalitarian ideology “full of hate, violence and submission.”
“Europe is in the process of ‘Islamization.’ We need to fight it,” Wilders said. “We have to win the war against Islam. If we don’t… we will lose our cultural identity, our rule of law, our liberties and our freedom.”
Wilders made the comments at a conference in Jerusalem organized by MK Arye Eldad, who founded the new Hatikva Party, entitled “Facing Jihad.” Wilders’s comments, as well as the screening of the film, drew strong criticism from Arab-Israeli leaders, who defended Islam and argued that the film did not represent an accurate picture of the fastest-growing religion in the world.
“We are talking about a distorted film that distorts the image of the Islamic religion and particularly our prophet, Muhammad,” said MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta’al) in a telephone interview Sunday. Wilders “is trying to exploit the ‘Islamophobia’ that there is in the world… It’s a film that is motivated by hatred of Arabs and Muslims as well.”
The 17-minute film, which shows a selection of verses from the Koran interspersed with media clips and newspaper clippings, argues that the Koran and Islam encourage acts of terrorism, anti-Semitism and violence against women and homosexuals.
“Without placing all Muslims in the same category, I think I have succeeded in showing that the Koran is not some dusty, old book, but that it’s still used today as a source of inspiration for, and justification of, hatred, violence and terrorism all over the world,” Wilders said during the conference, which was held at the Begin Heritage Center.
MK Ibrahim Sarsour (UAL-Ta’al) called Wilders “one of the most nasty enemies of Islam,” arguing that the Dutch parliamentarian knew nothing “about the greatest and most marvelous history of Muslims for more than 1,400 years. Islam has contributed a lot to the building of human principles, human charters, human technology, human development, human prosperity, stability, security and peace for all those generations of nations who sought these greatest values.”
One of the goals of Islam, Sarsour said, “is to cooperate, to know each other, not to fight and hate each other, and the only instrument to judge people… is whether this individual or this group contributes to the building of a humanistic society.”
Wilders also argued that “not all cultures are equal” and that “our Christian-Judeo culture is far better than the Islamic culture.”
Israel, he said, was not fighting a territorial war, but an ideological one, in which Islam “aims for dominance over non-Muslims.” He said there was no such thing “as moderate Islam.”
Tibi said the Jewish population should be worried about the apparent cooperation “between European fascists and Jewish fascists in Israel,” adding that “when we’re talking about a meeting of fascists, hate and racism are the consequence.”
Tibi also said the film, its creator and Eldad deserve “condemnation and nothing more.”
Eldad, whose new party opposes the formation of a Palestinian state, told conference attendees that if Islam is practiced as it is practiced today, “the chance that we will see real peace with [the Palestinians] is very slim.”
Eldad said a new set of emergency bills were needed in the Knesset “to help us stop the invasion,” preserve Israel as a Jewish state and guard against “the enemy within.” The legislation, which he said he planned to introduce in the next Knesset, would require all Israeli citizens to pledge an oath of allegiance to the State of Israel as “a Jewish democratic state.” It would also require all citizens to serve in the military or do national service in order to receive certain benefits, and would crack down on “illegal building” and acquisition of land.
Most Arab leaders in Israel oppose obligatory national or military service, though many say they would favor a national service system not run by the state.
Sarsour said he hoped members of the next Knesset would “courageously face” the increasing deterioration between the State of Israel and its Arab population by voting against the package.
“Whether this package will be accepted or not, that will not change the fact that we are an indigenous minority in Israel,” he told the Post last week.
“We were here before Eldad and his parents came to the country, and we will go on living peacefully within the limitations of the Israeli law.”
Arab-Israelis, he said, are loyal in that they accept and respect Israel’s laws. “But those who endanger the presence and the future of the State of Israel are Eldad and his allies, who push the Israeli state to the edge of confrontation.”
Begin Excerpt 6 from the UK Guardian
Gazans need to choose peace over extremism
Israel’s operation seeks to restore calm and stability to a region that lacks both due to Hamas’s acts
Shai Hermesh
The Guardian,
Tuesday 6 January 2009
The signing of the Oslo agreements between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat in 1993 raised hopes for peace on both sides of the Israel-Gaza border. Tens of thousands of Palestinians found work in Israel. Along with their Israeli neighbours, mostly farmers who have cultivated fields adjacent to the border, a shared dream of peace and prosperity was woven.
In those days I served as mayor of the regional council that stretches along the Gaza-Israeli border. The optimism of the time provided me and my Palestinian neighbours with an opportunity to develop a multifaceted relationship: hundreds of young Gazans studied in our academic college; women’s organisations joined forces in summer camps for Israeli and Palestinian children; Israeli environmental experts assisted the mayor of Dir el-Balakh in the strip in dealing with sewage flowing into the sea; and, with the help of European countries, a large plant was designed to provide purified water for agriculture on both sides of the border. Many personal friends from Gaza spent their weekends at the swimming pool in my kibbutz, while I used to dine with my family at the excellent fish restaurants in the neighbouring city.
Things seemed like a dream. At the time we asked ourselves why we had wasted so many years on a bloody and futile conflict. But the time of good neighbourly relations ended abruptly in September 2000, when Yasser Arafat decided to launch the second intifada and drag us all into the bloody whirlpool that extracts an intolerable price from us all to this day.
Even the bold decision, made by prime minister Ariel Sharon, to uproot 7,500 Israeli settlers and raze their homes, in addition to the withdrawal of nearly 15,000 soldiers from the Gaza Strip, did not halt the fire. The targeting of farmers working in the fields, the bombardment of their houses and families, only increased. The rise of Hamas to power following the 2006 Palestinian elections severed the last connections remaining with authorities in Gaza, while at the same time Hamas intensified its actions against members of Fatah.
On a Sabbath evening last May, families in the kibbutz, all dressed in white, headed toward the communal dining hall for the traditional supper. The hall was brightly lit, white tablecloths covered the tables, and candles were placed at the centre of the room. As children and parents calmly made their way, a heavy bombardment of mortar rounds rained into the heart of the kibbutz.
Jimmy Kedoshim, 48, father of three young children, was killed by one of the bombs in front of his wife and children.
During those fatal seconds, many people were torn between the need to assist a friend and their obligation to seek shelter for their children and themselves.
The violent death of Jimmy is one aspect of the long and complicated saga we have endured in the last eight years. Thousands of families living near the Gaza border have been affected by the daily bombardment of their communities. Even more have endured this reality in recent days. Over eight years, children have been born into the sound of exploding rockets, and carry these experiences with them every moment. Post-traumatic symptoms have become widespread among children and adults, whose only wish is to lead life in peace.
The time has come for a responsible government to regain its sovereignty and provide its citizens with the personal security they deserve. The Israeli government does not seek to adopt Hamas’s tactics. The Islamist organisation has indiscriminately fired over 8,000 missiles, rockets and mortar rounds into a civilian population over the last eight years. During that time the Israeli military has gone above and beyond to minimise the damage inflicted on the Palestinian population, at times placing Israeli soldiers and civilians at risk.
It is important to remember that the operation taking place in Gaza is not aimed at the Palestinian population with whom we have had close relations in the past, nor is it a punitive act. The operation seeks to restore calm and stability to a region that lacks both due to Hamas’s acts. Peace is a mutual interest. The Palestinians chose to elect an extremist group that has inflamed hatred and suffering instead of investing in education and reducing poverty.
As the battles subside, Israeli forces will return to their bases. We will return to cultivate our fields. The people of Gaza will have to decide whether to maintain a radical and suppressive regime, or whether to seize the opportunity to establish a peace-seeking leadership that will help us all bring back the days of good neighbourly relations.
T
he choice is theirs.
Shai Hermesh is a Kadima member of the Knesset and longtime resident of Kibbutz Kfar Aza near the Gaza Strip
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.