NO!!!!!! Not the UN!!!

Bert Raphael, in the Globe and Mail, praises Lewis MacKenzie for an insane idea:

Finally a voice of reason and logic from someone who has been there and knows the facts on the ground: I refer to the article by retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie suggesting that a solution to the Israeli-Hamas war is the deployment of a strong and armed UN force in Gaza (What Is The UN Waiting For? Deploy A Strong Force To Gaza - Jan. 6). If the United Nations gave the force the power to disarm Hamas and ensure that only humanitarian goods and not guns entered Gaza, the current problems would be solved.

I'm not sure what is more dizzyingly ludricous: suggesting that the UN would pass a resolution to protect Israel against Hamas when their man on the ground is Richard Falk , or anyone with a memory longer than a week would suggest that the son of Oil-for-food would be a good idea.

MacKenzie notes that:

Hamas makes no secret that, aided and abetted by Iran, it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Any idea of a ceasefire in the current fighting leading to a change in Hamas's dedication to Israel's elimination is naive to the extreme.

and he is right but what is also extremely naive that an organization that would put 17 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the 47 Member Hunam Rights Council has no true mandate to represent any solution leading to peace in the Middle East and will certainly not make any effort to guarantee the continued existance of Israel. MacKenzie is right on one point and his article would have been adequate if he had left it at:

"The UN Security Council and member states should be ashamed."

How Dare the Israelis Bomb a Mosque

Because it was a Munitions Depot!!!!

Islamic University of Gaza

Why would the Israelis target an institution of higher learning in a supposed operation against Hamas?

This is the type of question asked by Fulbright Scholar, Dr. Akram Habeeb, who tells us "that IUG is an academic institution which embraces a wide spectrum of political affinities".

This is where kidnapped Israeli soldier Cpl Gilad Shalit spent months before being relocated. Fatah themselves reported that in February 2007 the Palestinian Presidential Guard stormed the university and "confiscated weapons and ammunition. Palestinian TV aired footage of dozens of rocket-propelled grenade launchers, rockets, and assault rifles, as well as thousands of bullets, that Mr. Abbas’s officials said had been found inside the university."

Far from the war crime that it has been painted in The Nation with groups of students being hit trying to find a way home from the University (Note that "There were no casualties, as the university was evacuated when the Israeli assault began on Saturday" was reported by a BBC Jounalist in Gaza though reference to that statement seems to have disappeared from the BBC Site) the IUG is an established arms factory and depot and is an obvious military target.

And let's talk about that The Nation article by the cretin Richard Falk, but later...

Proportional Response

I have just decided that I need to change my position on "Proportional Response". I have, until now believed that Proportional Response would be a totally irresponsible policy for Israel that would be equivalent to trading death for death until only one side is still standing. I realized today that proportional response is nothing like that and it is reasonable with the following guidelines:

• Base "proportional" on the inverse of Article 7 of the Hamas Charter (related by al-Bukhari and Muslem): "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Cedar tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
• End the "proportional response" when the inverse of the Hamas goal (expressed by Hamas leader Fathi Hammad in Gaza on 2 January  2009) is met: "We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity"
  

This was expressed well by (nom de plume) Higgs Boson at Daniel Pipes site (responding to Pipes "Israel's War on Hamas: A Dozen Thoughts" as:

Proportional Response --

• Hamas' stated goal : Total destruction of Israel and death of all Jews.
• Israel's stated goal : Total destruction of Hamas

/ Q.E.D.

There is No Such Thing as "Truce" for Israel

“BY THE time we’re finished, there won’t be a Hamas building left standing in Gaza.”
Israel’s deputy chief of staff, General Dan Harel, to a group of mayors from towns close to the Gaza Strip on 29 December 2008 (The Economist)

There are protests by Palestinian sympathizers, most of them of Palestinian or Arab extraction, around the world against the disproportionate force employed over the last few days in Gaza. DISPROPORTIONATE?!?!?! What the hell is proportionate to the indiscriminate use of Qassam rockets at Israeli towns for years? Every time I have heard a Palestinian or Arab speaker talk of this on the radio the speak of Fireworks being shot into Israel. Bullshit. Qassam may not be Tomahawk missiles but they are definitely not fireworks.
Why would the Israelis agree to a truce with Hamas? Hamas doesn't believe in Truce for any reason other than regrouping and rearming when they are losing. Whenever Israel unilaterally tries to disengage they see a dramatic incease in attacks.
Note that the August 2005 Unilateral Disengagement was closely followed by the highest levels of Qassam activity to date and that has been maintained to the present day. What is the incentive for Israel to make concessions or agree to a "truce".
No. Israel must rebuff calls for a Gaza Truce. The onus is on Hamas to stop firing rockets as a first step to peace and that is unlikely. The only way that they will have a moment of peace is to drive Hamas into the ground. They will then have to take it upon themselves to keep Hamas down because the rest of the world has shown a distinct lack of resolve to do so.