Below is a selection of edited comments
Aug 30, 2006
The direct political victims of Israel‘s brutal campaign are not the members of the militias Israel claims to be targeting, but the members of the Palestinian peace camp, or what is left of it, most notably President Mahmoud Abbas. In January 2005, Abbas was elected on a platform of advocating peace and dialogue with Israel, but Israeli actions in Gaza are now making it impossible for him to promote this agenda. Amid the spiraling violence, hatred is on the rise and peace appears more elusive than perhaps ever before. President Bush‘s vision of two states, Palestine and Israel, and the US-sponsored road map are fast becoming obsolete in the absence of a determined international effort to realize either. Israel still engaged in a war that already undermine the efficacy of its much-vaunted military apparatus.
Several reasons for believing that Israel‘s destruction of southern Lebanon and southern Beirut will weaken its bargaining position relative to its adversaries, and will strengthen its adversaries‘ hands. Israel has no clearly defined tactical or strategic objective, and so the Israeli offensive fails the first test of military logic: there is no way that Israel‘s actions can improve its position relative to Hizballah,.
Aug 31, 2006
The logic of power politics also implies that a no-win situation for Israel is a definite loss, because Israel is the stronger party and thus has the most to lose. In an asymmetric war, the stronger party always has the most to lose, in terms of reputation and in terms of its ability to project its will through the instruments of force.
The lack of any clearly defined objective is a major miscalculation by Israel and its American patron.
Israel cannot eliminate Hizballah, since Hizballah is a grassroots organization that represents a plurality of Lebanese society. Neither can Hamas be eliminated for the same reason. By targeting Hizballah however, Israel is strengthening Hizballah‘s hand against its domestic rivals. Consequently, while Hizballah will obviously pay a short-term tactical cost that is very high, in the long run, this conflict demonstrates that it is Hizballah, and not the Lebanese government, that has the most power in Lebanon.
Sep 1, 2006
We learn from different sources many information about the Israeli destruction in Lebanon which includes: airstrikes during Operation Change of Direction: More than 7,000 targets struck in Lebanon, 15,500 sorties flown over. Lebanon, including; More than 10,000 combat missions 2,000 helicopter combat missions, 1,000 helicopter search- and-rescue missions, 1,200 transport missions, Over 1,300 reconnaissance missions. Israeli naval operations during Operation Change of Direction: Navy vessels sailed over 8,000 hours along the Lebanese coast, The Navy conducted 2,500 bombardments of targets along the Lebanese coast including missile launch sites, missile launchers, weapons storage sites, coastal roads, other infrastructure, radar installations, and fuel stations and depots, Blockade of Lebanese coast for 33 days.
The result contains; 175,000 bomb from all kind shield over targets in Lebanon the majority of them were civilians, 15, 000 house in Lebanon were completely destroyed in addition to 30,000 houses were partly destroyed, More than 100 bridges were destroyed all over Lebanon.
The question is why the Israeli army lost this war in spite of this damage and force?
September 12. 2006
The current crisis in Palestine is deeper than the salaries crisis, the Hamas government which is not recognized by the world need to know where its heading.
The idea of the President using his authorities to dissolve the current government is dangerous and is unacceptable because Hamas is not in the PLO and the PNC. This is an illegal step and will lead to internal conflicts and this means stealing the achievements of the Palestinian people.
The government should not resign, even if it means that the Palestinian people will go out to the streets, the President is required to assume his responsibilities and help the current government.
27 Nov 2006
Yes, the ceasefire is a good thing. Let‘s hope that it will be maintained and then expanded into full-fledged negotiations for peace.
The ceasefire, however, does nothing to relieve the ongoing, terrible siege of Gaza.
The siege began some six months ago in response to the election of Hamas. In an effort to cut off the financial resources of the Hamas government - to avoid funding terrorism, as it is usually termed - the international community isolated Palestine by placing an embargo on trade and banking and by severely reducing international aid. Israel tightened the noose by further constraining travel within Palestine, curtailing almost all entry to and exit from the Gaza Strip, and withholding the taxes that it collects for the Palestinian authority.
The result has been chaos, violence, and poverty, and these have fueled each other. The Israeli army rained shells down upon the Gazans, while Palestinian militants increased the barrage of Qassam missiles into nearby Israeli towns. In the last four months alone, some 400 Gazans were killed by Israeli firepower, two Israelis were killed by Palestinian firepower, and children on both sides are now traumatized for the rest of their lives.
So while a ceasefire is a blessing, the siege remains in force, withering the Gazan economy: 80% of Gazans now live in poverty on less than $2 a day. In a shocking reversal of "economic growth", the World Bank predicts a drop of 27% in this year‘s gross domestic product: "a one year contraction of economic activity equivalent to a deep depression"