Yesterday, after trying to destroy a smuggling tunnel in northern Gaza, the IDF came into conflict with Hamas forces. Then Hamas fired mortars into Israel. then Israeli forces bombed targets in Gaza.
The Israeli army said the clashes erupted late Tuesday after its forces uncovered a tunnel in central Gaza that militants planned to use to abduct Israeli soldiers. It said a special army unit headed to the area to destroy the tunnel. One Palestinian was killed in fierce gunbattles that ensued.
Hamas then fired mortars across the Gaza border into southern Israel and Israel answered with the airstrike in the early hours of Wednesday, killing five suspected Palestinian militants, Israeli and Palestinian officials said. The army said the airstrike aimed at the mortar launchers and hit them.
(Naturally, the headline, only mentions the Israeli retaliation, “Israel launches 1st airstrike on Gaza since June”.)
As FresnoZionism noted a few months ago, Hamas has been using the ceasefire to build up its fortifications and armaments, emulating Hezbollah’s efforts in southern Lebanon. Elder of Ziyon noted an earlier tunnel in the same general area a few weeks ago.
The editors of the New York Times are alarmed by the way Hamas has used the ceasefire to build its threat against Israel.
As a step toward peace, Hamas must dismantle its bunkers and scrap the missiles it has acquired that threaten Israel. To do so, Hamas needs the public support of American Muslims and moderate Palestinians against militants who seek political change through violence.
Well no, that’s not what bother the editors of the New York Times. The problem they’re worried about are the “settlers.”
Terror against Israel is less of a problem than Binyamin Netanyahu.
Israeli voters are expected to choose a new government in February. Mr. Olmert’s designated heir, Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, failed to put together a coalition government for the right reasons: She refused the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party’s demand that there would be no negotiations on the status of Jerusalem. Such a commitment would have made any peace deal impossible. Ms. Livni’s chief rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, opposes immediate talks on a Palestinian state.
Israelis need a leader who can calm the forces that are tearing Israel apart and also negotiate a just peace. The new American president must be ready to fully support that effort. The lesson of the last few months should be clear to all. Israel will have no peace — with its neighbors or its own citizens — without a peace agreement.
Why is the Palestinian demand to divide Jerusalem sacrosanct but the Israeli wish to keep all of Jerusalem inimical to peace? Why is a peace agreement so essential to Israel that it must address all Palestinian demands but not so important for the Palestinians for them to accommodate Israeli prefernces?
Actually, the lesson of the past fifteen years has been that if you allow the illusion of peace to blind you to your enemy’s ambitions, your enemy will cause you lots of grief. Another lesson that should be clear to all is that Israel will have no peace until it defeats the terrorists who threaten it. Of as Joshua Sharf put it:
Of course, this reverses the formula exactly. In fact, Israel’s peace will follow from its security.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Now, Meryl, once again you miss the point. Israel has the key to peace. If they just elect the proper, Times-approved leaders, and show good will and such, the Palestinians will respond with peace.
The Palestinians bear no responsibility for anything; it’s all up to Israel. If you read Peace Now’s stuff, they sort of agree that maybe rocketing towns and calling for killing Jews is a bit provocative, but they’re only responding to Israeli intransigence.