Contact Me

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

unilateral cease-fire?

Gaza Cease-Fire Negotiations Stall, January 11, 2009

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99220483&ft=1&f=1001

Abbas at UN, appeals for mutual Gaza cease-fire, January 7, 2009

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053237.html

*********

On the unilateral cease fire as of January 17 or 18:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911718127624660.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6668742

Israel achieved its objectives and more?? What were the objectives anyway? Deterrance? Inspire fear in the hearts of those who dare to support leaders Israel doesn't approve of (smacks of terrorism, doesn't it?)? Regime change? Revenge or rocket attacks? Whatever goal they claim they accomplished, what's the "and more"?? Was the civilian death toll an added bonus? 400 children dead just a perk on the side of the greater goal?

So sly of them to plan this so-called retaliation for rocket attacks for the period between the election and the inaugration. What a coincidence that the siege fell ever so neatly into that timeframe. Israel declared its ceasefire just in time for inauguration weekend. I'm sure they could have attacked during Obama's administration and still been able to kill just as many as during the Bush administration. Perhaps Obama may dare to give them a slap on the wrist (at least until AIPAC lays down the law and tells him who really runs the show in Washington), but they'll still of course be able to do whatever and kill whomever they want with our money. They will still be able to flout international law, steal our technology and sell it back to us, keep the apartied- like conditions and still be called a democracy and friend and beneficiary.

Also convenient is the unilateral ceasefire after ceasefire negotiations stalled. The negotiations would have given Israel responsibilites it really doesn't want- pull out, blockade ending, etc. When you case such a high level of human suffering, why on earth would you want to clean it up or take responsibility in any way? As with the unilateral Gaza pull out of 2005 (I think that was the year for political formaldehyde?), they think they can sidestep the law and do it their way. The US set a pretty good example for this with Iraq, so you know the Bush admin couldnm't say anything lest they have to admit any fault. Why negotiate and talk to people when you can just do it your way?

No comments:

Post a Comment