Israel’s Attack

December 30th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

A lot has been said, including at this blog, about the Israeli air attacks against Hamas targets in Gaza, but I think that one point has not received the attention it deserves: the timing.

Some argue that the Israeli government decided to attack Hamas because the group declared it would not respect the ceasefire between the two sides any longer. After the ceasefire ended Hamas fired hundreds of rockets at Israel thereby endangering the civilian populations of towns near Gaza. As a result, these people say, Israel attacked.

This is not the true reason for the attack, however. Hamas has been firing rockets at Israel for many months, despite the official ceasefire. The real reason for the timing of the attack is: Israelis will go to the polls soon to vote for Parliament and, thus, for their new government. Likud, the right wing party, is currently leading in the opinion polls making it likely that Benjamin Netanyahu becomes Israel’s new leader. Kadima, the party of Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni will have to take the backseat.

One of the main reasons Likud does so well in the polls is that Israelis fear that the policies of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, aimed at withdrawing from some areas and destroying some Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas, has proved useless, perhaps even counterproductive. Where Israelis opted for a more conciliatory approach several years ago, they are now once again of the opinion that a more hawkish and aggressive approach towards Hamas and the Palestinians in general is required.

Since most politicians care about one thing only – their own career – Kadima’s leaders realized that something had to change; the public was fed up with the situation as it was. The peace talks were not going anywhere, Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israeli towns and support for Kadima fell flat. The result: attacks against Hamas targets weeks before the election.

As happens more often in this part of the world, the immediate cause for violence – and I am speaking as a person who believes that Israel’s attacks are justified regardless of their timing – is domestic rather than foreign.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Israeli
    December 31st, 2008 at 01:41
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I don’t agree on this. I’m sure Israel had been planning this for months, waiting for a rocket to fall on a kindergarten so that the World won’t be able to say anything. After the cease-fire ended and 50+ rockets were fired at Israeli towns in one day, the internal pressure to do SOMETHING was getting more and more serious. The mayors were calling upon the government to do something IMMEDIATELY. And so they went ahead and did so. There’s a limit to how much you can ignore the suffering of your own people.

  2. Chuck Butcher
    December 31st, 2008 at 11:07
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I came in from Swift and wanted to say Hi, Michael. I actually wanted to say something in regard to religion, and this seems appropriate as well. It has been my experience that most people within a religion don’t manage to act badly, but there sure are the exceptions. I can’t think why a Christian would be labeled “moderate Christian” for not acting badly.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.