News

Mehrban

by Mehrban on Sat Apr 04, 2009 01:30 PM PDT

I know,  I should have been more
specific.  What I meant was that even the side that is speaking for
peace is the side that bombed the living daylights out of Gaza for no
good reason.

You know, for more the 8 years, hamas was terrorizing the "daylights" of southern Israel. Holding more then 800,000 people hostage and under constant fear. Children were afraid to sleep in their own beds, forcing their parents to literally live in shelters under their homes. Hamas backed by IRI's clear objective was two fold.

a) force Israel to evacuate large cities and flee inland.

b) Break the Israelis willpower with low intensity, and under the radar continued rockets onto their civilians centers. 

Somewhere along the line, someone was going to tell Hamas, "enough is enough, we are not going to take it anymore. 

Indeed, she was one of those leaders who said it

Another important element to which many pundits seem to forget is, the methodology by which, if left undeterred, any small terror group will be able to terrorize large portion of the civilians in order to force their agenda onto sovereign and independent nations.

Left undeterred, I guaranty you that, any country, not only Israel, could be subject to this type of barbaric method, where opposition group will amass large pile of inexpensive rockets and send them over the border onto the other country.

It was Israel's massive and the ferocity by which they responded to Hizbollah and now Hamas's provocations, which will force them (and any other terror groups around the world) to think many carefully before they resort to this type of combat.

Proof. Since 2006, Hizbollah leader in tucked in his 100m deep hole underground in Bairut, and not hamas leader in their bunkers. and rockets had stoped.

Mehdi

I know,  I should have been more specific.  What I meant was that even the side that is speaking for peace is the side that bombed the living daylights out of Gaza for no good reason.

She was quite vocal in favor of the bombings. 

I know that it is not related to your comment in a direct line. If you want to be a purist that is! You had mentioned her being angry about her loss and I took off from there, conceptually, I mean.   

Kaveh Nouraee - I agree

Quote: don't you think that there might be an element of truth to what she's saying,

Yes very much I do. Given the realities of corruptions going on among the leaders in Israel, yes I do think she has a point.

At least, the Israelis hold their leaders accountable, and that is somewhat commforting to see.

Mehrban

Quote: she bombed the daylights out of Gaza, to prove that she can be strong".

She didn't "bomb" Gaza (as FM, she can't decide of matters of military opearioins). It was Olmert and Barak. I don't thing your comment is congruent to this issue 

Mehdi

Even taking what you're saying into consideration, don't you think that there might be an element of truth to what she's saying, given that Netanyahu has already been there, and did nothing towards achieving peace before?

Mazloom jaan

The PM position eluded her again even after she bombed the daylights out of Gaza, to prove that she can be strong.

How do you spell "OPPOSITION PARTY?"

First, she is  mad that, twice the coveted position of Prime Minister had eluded her. Despite the fact her party had won the majority vote - she did not get to form a government. Her frustration is understandable.

Second. Her party now is in the oppossition. That is what her party had elected, and chose to do - critisize the ruling party.