[email protected] [26/01/09 20:54 -0800]:
On a practical level, Hamas cannot to much more than
fire small non-guided rockets. They fight with the
relatively ineffective weapons they have. On the other
Yes - that kind of nasty low intensity war doesnt rate more than a couple
of column inches in tiny print, and has a nasty way of mounting up
casualities .. I dare say they'd outweigh what the israelis have done so
far by a few orders of magnitude.
And molotov cocktails create pretty nasty burns, crude shrapnel car and
human bombs (aka industrial explosives + nails and scrap metal) create just
as nasty or even nastier injuries.
Which is where I say "no clean hands on either side"
As for the media ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7851545.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7848768.stm
etc .. from a network that took the principled stand not to air an appeal
for gaza relief. While excoricating the israelis for what they have done ..
they have been equally hard on Hamas too.
You can find similar examples of this carnage reported all over the US
media too .. and a fairly equal balance in reportage, including in opinion
pieces.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/carlos_alberto_montaner/2009/01/gazas_true_disproportion.html
- israeli pov from a cuban
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2009/01/israels_gaza_gamble.html
- arab POV from an egyptian
etc etc.
hand, Israel *does* have other options, but instead
chose to use F-16 jets and helicopters (partially paid
for with my US tax dollar) to target civilians.
This idea of proportionality is a bit specious here. And what, pray, are
the other options Israel has? Wrangling in the UN when both sides dont
seem to care about the UN? Or the EU? Or perhaps the bad old days of
sending sayeret matkal snatch squads to "disappear" various people they
consider to be hamas terrorists?
srs
