My reaction and commentary is based on this article by Associated Press writer Matti Friedman.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) accused Palestinians of planting and detonating a bomb targeting an IDF patrol near the borders. Before that, an IDF ship has apparently shelled Palestine along the borders, killing a few farmers. Opening fires on this latest ceasefire, proving that these two forces are somewhat the hardest headed states in the world now (rivaling perhaps India and Pakistan).
Reading this article, I see the futility of peace in the Middle Eastern region. Peace cannot exist, simply because (depending on one's point of view) Israel or Palestine exists, and both have legitimate - to an extent - claim through ancestral lands and culture. The latest ceasefire was heavily in favor of Israel; the military blockade of their troops of the Palestinian borders have not been lifted yet. This lop-sided policy was probably a smart move on their part, almost guaranteeing the retaliation of Palestinian freedom fighters. The ceasefire has lasted a grand total of nine days (sooner, if one would consider the almost immediate small-arms conflict between IDF troops and pockets of resistance of Hamas).
Formally, there is a ceasefire, but that term has been rendered a joke by the actions of both Hamas and the IDF. In my opinion, the 'lasting peace' so craved by the world for this tumultuous region will only happen once one or the other completely leaves the area, and I am betting it will not be the Palestinians, should push come to shove.
Conclusion: Ceasefires are just words to these two parties. Jay~
Article can be found here.
Israel has declared a unilateral ceasefire. The terms are that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) will halt offensives against Hamas, but its troops will still remain in Gaza. If Hamas breaks the ceasefire, then Israel will "continue to defend itself" and relaunch its stinging offensive against Hamas.
I think that this is a very smart move on Israel. They have been condemned (myself included) for reacting unfairly to Hamas' rocket attacks. They have struck any and all targets suspected of harboring Hamas militants, even if the targets were UN-controlled facilities. I have a feeling that Hamas (for some reason unfathomable to a reasonable man) will continue to launch its rockets against Israel. None of Hamas' terms were met, which are that Israel halts all attacks and leaves Gaza immediately, and to lift the blockade on Gaza's borders. Israel will only pull out if all tunnels to and from Egypt (where Hamas gets their military hardware) are closed and closely monitored.
The ceasefire required the help of Egypt, because it is through Egypt's porous borders that Hamas gets their equipment. The United States have agreed to provide surveillance and detection equipment for the monitoring of the borders. A snag in the ceasefire is that Egypt has refused to be bound by the USA-Israeli agreement on the ceasefire. Egypt's agreement is vital.
The next few days will be interesting. For the sake of the Palestinian civilians (and for the Middle East), I sincerely hope Hamas will respect this ceasefire, and use the lull to collect and pay proper respects to the Palestinian dead.Jay~
Article can be found here.
The article, written by Brian Murphy of the Associated Press, discusses the 'nasty' face of urban warfare (FIBUA - fighting in built-up areas), and I have to agree that this new face of war - with urban settings more and more becoming battlefields - will definitely increase the likelihood of increasing civilian casualties, as have been seen in the Gaza War. More than 1100 Palestinians have been killed (over half are civilians), compared to 13 Israeli casualties, 3 of them civilians.
Military strategists the world over are already analyzing how the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which is superior to Hamas in almost every way, has handled the urban war that Hamas has sucked them into. One thing is clear: civilian casualties were horrific. Even neutral forces, like the United Nations and the Red Cross have suffered casualties (due to the IDF). It also did not help (or helped, depending on one's point of view) that the war was for the whole world to see, what with the media having live Internet feeds of the conflict.
I have also noticed something about the war that Murphy touched on: a vastly inferior group does not necessarily need to win a victory outright; if they can hold the superior group in an urban area and hit them where they are vulnerable (like alleys, streets, and tight squares), then chipping at the stronger opponent would likely wear out said opponent. While the IDF may want a total victory, they would need to combat the stealthy tactics that Hamas is employing (yes, hiding behind civilians, while cowardly, is a tactic).
It doesn't need hard imagination to see what a disaster urban fighting can be to a modern army. Just watch Blackhawk Down. Jay~
Article can be found here.
What shocks me most about this article by Ibrahim Barzak and Christopher Torchia of the Associated Press is that there was apparently no explanation from the Israeli army as to why they shelled the United Nations compound. The compound housed food supplies, and I can only assume that the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) shelled it because it was giving aid to Palestinians. This is a direct and utter insult to the authority of the United Nations. In fact, as was stated in the article, John Ging, head of Gaza operations for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, said that the IDF's claim that "militants fired on IDF.. and IDF were only returning to the source of fire" as "total nonsense" and "typical misinformation". The IDF is "currently investigating" this incident. That, in my book, reeks of "guilty".
This is not the first time the IDF has struck directly on UN-controlled compounds. Not too long ago, a UN-ran school was hit by bombardment, killing over 40 civilians. IDF may face a war crimes tribunal for this incident.
Ging mentioned that his UN staff told the IDF leaders that there were no militants in the compound. Apparently, this was not good enough for Israel, as they shelled a supposedly neutral territory. No evidence was given as to whether or not there were Hamas militants in the headquarters.
The shelling of the UN headquarters killed an important Hamas leader, Said Siam, and Siam's brother and his brother's family were also killed in the attack. There was no evidence to suggest that they were inside the compound. I see this as Israel willing to kill as many Palestinians as possible for one Hamas militant member, never mind that they could be endangering civilians in the process.
What bothers me the most about this particular attack was that the UN, under no coercion, gave the coordinates of every UN-controlled compound to the IDF, in an effort to prevent the deadly shelling of a school which killed over 40 civilians. The IDF, therefore, had complete knowledge of the nature of their target, yet chose an aggressive - and as it turned out, very damaging to the UN relief efforts - mode of action. This, in my opinion, is unforgivable.
The United States and Egypt are forging a possible cease-fire, but neither Israel nor Hamas are making concessions at the moment.Jay~
Over the past two weeks, I have closely followed the developments on the Israeli-Hamas war that has sparked international condemnation of the actions of the Israeli government. With that in effect, I will be posting updates here on my blog, as well as my reaction to various news reports from Time, The Guardian, Associated Press, Yahoo News, and various other agencies.
My stance on the issue (currently) is that Israel's response to Hamas' attacks are exaggerated and uncalled for. However, from a realist's perspective, Israel is indeed doing what any nation state would do. In this century though, I would have expected a nation state as technologically, strategically, tactically, and economically more superior power to practice restrain when dealing with a threat to its sovereignty.
This is an interesting development in world events, as Israel has shown again and again its contempt to the United Nations and the International Law of Human Rights, in its reactions against the general Palestinian populace. As it stands, over a thousand Palestinians lay dead; more than half are civilians, as compared to the thirteen Israeli dead, with ten of those being soldiers.
I fear that this is a prelude to the next great world war. I will not be a doomsayer, but the Great War of the early 20th Century and the Second World War concerned mostly tangible points of contention, i.e. the sovereignty of states; territory. This war is pitting two great religions against each other, and wars of religion are probably the most vicious of them all, and in today's world, the situation in the Middle East region of Palestine dictate that the first shots have been fired. If peace is attained, I doubt it will last until either the Palestinians or the Israelis leave the area, something highly implausible in my opinion.
Expect regular updates. I will blog from University if need be.Jay~
