What exactly is the criterion by which one measures the proportion of more than a thousand missiles shot at innocent civilians against the measures that were taken by the State of Israel in the last few days?
Can one measure the anxiety, the fear, the shocks, the lack of security of tens of thousands of people living day-in and day-out for almost a year under the constant threat of missiles shot at them?
When was the last time that the European Union condemned this shooting and suggested measures, effective measures to stop it? We were waiting and waiting and waiting and everyone knows that Israel pulled out entirely from Gaza precisely in order to try and establish a new basis of cooperation and understanding with the Palestinians, when there can be no claim for any territory by the Palestinians in the south part of the country.
And the response was terror and terror and terror and terror again. So at some point Israel had no choice but to take some measures in order to stop this threat.
Wall Street Journal se, u svom uredničkom prilogu od 14. srpnja osvrće na ovaj lajtmotiv, a nakon sve glasnijih poziva na izraelsko suzdržavanje:
Israel 's military invasion and naval blockade of Lebanon is being denounced in European capitals and at the United Nations as a "disproportionate" response to the kidnapping this week of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah. Israel's decision late last month to invade Gaza in retaliation for the kidnapping of another soldier by Hamas was also condemned as lacking in proportion. So here's a question for our global solons: Since hostage-taking is universally regarded as an act of war, what "proportionate" action do they propose for Israel?
In the case of Hamas, perhaps Israel could rain indiscriminate artillery fire on Gaza City, surely a proportionate response to the 800 rockets Hamas has fired at Israeli towns in the last year alone. In the case of Hezbollah, it might mean carpet bombing a section of south Beirut, another equally proportionate response to Hezbollah's attacks on civilian Jewish and Israeli targets in Buenos Aires in the early 1990s.
We aren't being serious, but neither is a feckless international community that refuses to proportionately denounce the outrages to which Israel is being subjected. That goes also for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who says "all sides must act with restraint." But Israel 's current problems result in part from an excess of restraint in responding to previous Hamas and Hezbollah provocations.
Omri Ceren na Mere Rhetoric prevodi značenje diplomatske riječi suzdržavanje: Suzdržavanje zapravo znači Izraelu nije dozvoljeno djelovanje. :
There's this reflex among journalists and diplomats to urge restraint on both sides right after an attack occurs. Which would be reasonable, if it wasn't almost always the case that the first attack is committed by Israel's enemies. So in the actual context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "urging restraint" is in almost every case "urging Israeli restraint".
And why would people be "urging Israeli restraint"? Usually because Israel is about to let go of that restraint in response to attack or atrocity.
Con Coughlin, piše u The Telegraphu da libanonska vlada može kriviti jedino sebe u slučaju izraelskog nesuzdržavanja:
The Lebanese can protest that the Israelis are guilty of a massive over-reaction in their response to the plight of two kidnapped soldiers, but the Beirut authorities have only themselves to blame for allowing Hizbollah to maintain a permanent armed presence in southern Lebanon. . . .
For all the goodwill that attended the emergence of the first truly independent Lebanese government for more than 30 years, the Lebanese have singularly failed to rein in Hizbollah, despite repeated requests from the United Nations and Israel to curb the radical Shia Muslim militia's activities in southern Lebanon. . . .
Certainly the Israelis are well within their rights to hold Beirut accountable for Hizbollah's provocative presence on their northern border, which has effectively become Iran's front line in a country it disparagingly describes as "the Zionist entity".
Na kraju, pročitajte analizu Davida Horovitza Izrael u ratu i nakon toga nešto u kontekstu.
0 comments
Objavi komentar