Just as Israel's critics charged, Annapolis was a cover for Israel's planned military program against the Palestinians, and a coordination of this program with its American sponsors and facilitators. The Palestinians should counter that any actions excused as "security" will be fully investigated by the United Nations, who will station observers throughout the region.
Note these are demands, not requests. Israel cannot engage in talks that it does not control, because the Extremists ruling the country know that any true "Just Peace" will require them to give back a portion of what they've stolen.
Note these are demands, not requests. Israel cannot engage in talks that it does not control, because the Extremists ruling the country know that any true "Just Peace" will require them to give back a portion of what they've stolen.
Jerusalem seeks Bush okay for IDF free hand in West Bank
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: West Bank, George W. Bush
Israel is seeking to reach an understanding with the U.S. administration that would safeguard Israel's security interests in a future final-status agreement with the Palestinians and during current negotiations, government sources have said.
(In other words, it won't include a cessation of attacks on the W. Bank in the name of good faith and negotiations.)
The sources also said Israel is seeking President George W. Bush's support for its security demands so that such understandings can serve as a basis for the work of the American special security envoy General James Jones, who has been tasked with formulating the security arrangements for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
(In other words, they are trying to preempt any demand that they stop what they're doing in the name of negotiations.)
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is to discuss these security issues with Bush during the president's visit here next week.
(And what of real security for the Palestinians? I guess they don't have this right?)
At the heart of Israel's demands is that it remain free to act against terror in the West Bank for as long as negotiations last, and that demilitarization arrangements place limitations on the future Palestinian state.
(In other words, Israel isn't really prepared to leave the Occupied Territories or disarm in the name of peace.)
Discussions with administration officials on this issue began even before the Annapolis summit, during the visit of the Israeli delegation to Washington.
(Proving that it is the Palestinians who have no 'partner for peace'.)
Wednesday Olmert called a meeting ahead of the Bush visit with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Barak presented the security demands in detail and Livni discussed the importance of demilitarizing the areas that Israel would evacuate in the future.
(Barak is the mastermind of the impending reoocupation and assault on Gaza. Livni recently advocated the "transfer" aka 'ethnic cleansing' of all Israeli Arabs from Israel, and is a member of the fanatical "Greater Israel" Cult.)
Israel wants to maintain effective military superiority in the territories during the talks, and ensure that it has the freedom to act against terror organizations in Gaza. "It is inconceivable that we would be prevented from continuing the extraordinary achievement against terror in the West Bank," a source said.
(That's irrelevant to the first sentence, which simply means that israel will not stop its planned attack on Gaza, nor lift the internationally-condemned and illegal measures of Collective Punishment on its people.)
"In the previous year no Israeli was killed within the Green Line from an attack that came from the West Bank. In the West Bank, four people were killed. In the South, it is true that quiet has not yet returned to Sderot, but we are carrying out an effective and focused offensive there. Hundreds of terrorists were killed last year."
(And even more civilians ...)
Israel would like the U.S. to agree to a number of limitations on the future Palestinian state's sovereignty. Israel wants Palestine to be completely demilitarized, and for Israel to be able to fly over Palestinian air space. Border crossings would be monitored by Israel in such a way that the symbols of Palestinian sovereignty would not be compromised, but Israel would know who was coming and going.
(In other words, Israeli Extremists don't really want peace, or to end the world's longest Military Occupation.)
Israel is to propose the deployment of an international force in the West Bank and along the Philadelphi Route in Rafah, and would ask that a permanent Israel Defense Forces presence remain for an extended period in the Jordan Valley.
(A better solution would to deploy a United Nations rotating force, to keep an eye on both sides.)
Jordan Valley 'tripwire force'
According to Israel's plan, a small Israeli force would be stationed in the Jordan Valley as a "tripwire force" that would act as a deterrent. Israel would also demand Palestinian agreement that in the case of an emergency Israel could deploy in essential areas of the West Bank to thwart a threat of invasion from the East.
(In this sense, 'deterrent' actually means 'provocation'.)
Such a deployment would only take place under extreme circumstances, but including it in the agreement would ensure that the Palestinians would not object if the time came when it was needed.
Under ordinary circumstances the West Bank would be completely demilitarized, with only internal Palestinian security forces on duty.
(If this is to occur, then Israel should also become a demilitarized zone.)
The Barak government reached agreement with the Clinton administration on a number of security issues with regard to a future accord with the Palestinians.
(But nowhere near this level of untenable, illegal demands. This is the reason Arafat had to decline the mythical "generous offer", which was actually more of the same.)
However, monitoring border crossings and a long-term IDF presence in the Jordan Valley was not among them. The Palestinians vehemently opposed the security steps Israel wanted, such as the emergency IDF deployment in the West Bank, which they saw as damaging to their independence and sovereignty.
(I love how Israel's term "Security Measures" is regurgitated without criticism by this reporter/media outlet.)
Israel now seeks to reopen the discussion in the hope that Bush will support its demands.
(Note the word "Demands" ... Are they asking or telling? Just another attempt to scuttle an agreement, and stall for more time in which to dispossess Palestinians, and annex further land?)
According to government and security sources, "in most of the issues involving the agreement with the Palestinians, Israel is the one being asked to give tangible things. The only area in which we have real demands from the Palestinians is that of security arrangements. Therefore it is important that the talks have the proper outline so that Israel can insist on its security demands and the Palestinians will not dilute them."
(Israel is being asked to give 'tangible things' because they are the ones in serious violation of International Law and UN Security Council Resolutions. They are the Aggressors.)
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/941180.html
Olmert, Bush and Abbas to hold three-way summit in Jerusalem
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
The leaders of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the United States are expected to hold a joint meeting during President George W. Bush's visit here next week, in an effort to accelerate negotiations on the conflict's core issues - borders, refugees, and Jerusalem.
(Even though Hamas is the elected Government of the Palestinians.)
Bush will visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority next Wednesday and Thursday as part of a regional tour that will cover seven states in nine days.
The main focus of the president's talks will be the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the Iranian nuclear program.
(At least, officially.)
Preparatory talks between the White House and Jerusalem in recent days led to an agreement that a meeting will be organized between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Bush.
The purpose of the tripartite meeting is to energize the negotiations between Israel and the PA.
(Gotta keep those headlines positive, make people think they're actually doing something ...)
Talks on the conflict's core issues were supposed to begin after the Annapolis summit, but reached an impasse over disagreements on the issue of continued Israeli construction in settlements and East Jerusalem.
(In other words, as predicted, Israel scuttled the talks.)
"The purpose of the meeting is to further the negotiations," a senior political source in Jerusalem told Haaretz Tuesday.
"The leaders will be able to evaluate how the situation is progressing to date, and decide where we are going from here," the source added.
If the meeting does take place, it will be held in a neutral site - not in the Prime Minister's residence in Jerusalem. One of the possibilities is the American Consulate in East Jerusalem, the source said.
Olmert is expected to hold a meeting on Wednesday with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to discuss Israel's stance for the upcoming Bush visit.
(This can't possiby be a good thing. Livni recently called for the "Transfer" of all Israeli Arabs, and Barak is the one plotting to reoccupy Gaza.)
Olmert plans to brief the U.S. president on the instructions he has issued to his cabinet on freezing West Bank construction.
(Actually, he's said that any further expansion plans will have to be approved through him. He hasn't frozen current expansion projects.)
Bush administration spokesmen have expressed their concern in recent weeks at continued Israeli construction in the West Bank, and Olmert intends to stress that his government is taking action in order to meet its obligations to the road map.
On the other hand, Olmert will also insist that the PA must take more forceful action in combating terrorist organizations.
(Every time it does, however, Israel takes steps to undermine its work. The US and Israel are behind the 'crisis' in Gaza, and Olmert's own defense staff warned that the imposition of illegal measures of Collective Punishment would provoke violent retaliations. The fact that Gaza isn't on the agenda undermines the legitimacy of the whole venture.)
Olmert and Bush are also expected to spend much time discussing the Iranian nuclear program. During their last meeting in Washington, following the Annapolis summit, Bush briefed Olmert on the content of the National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear project, which concluded that Tehran had frozen its nuclear arms program in 2003.
(Actually, it conlcuded that there was no threat. The much-touted claim of a past program is in question, as it comes from a single, dubious source.)
Bush has since insisted that the NIE will not alter his policy on Iran, but in Israel there is concern that during the final year of his presidency he will find it difficult to conduct a military operation against Iran.
(Despite the fact that such a 'military operation' is not necessary. Nonetheless, the Covert War against Iran continues to this day, in full violation of International Law.)
In addition to the political meetings, Bush is also scheduled to meet President Shimon Peres to discuss joint economic and development projects between Israel, the PA, Jordan and other countries.
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/940969.html
As Predicted: Gaza Reoccupation Planned December 31st, 2007
ALERT: Annapolis a Charade: Olmert Plotting Massive Aggression
In Germany, according to historian Richard Evans, in 1931-1932, if enough Germans of conscience had begun to say No -- history would have had an entirely diferent outcome.
If we go any further down this road the tears will be those of conservatives as well as progressives. They will be (Israeli) tears.
The time for weeping has to stop; the time for confronting must begin.
Adapted from "American Tears"
www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/american-tears_b_68141.html
The timing is interesting, given the upcoming "Annapolis Conference", which serves to be about PR alone, as Olmert has already ruled out any Negotiations or Compromise in the name of peace.
If you follow the events surrounding Israel's "Disengagement" from Gaza, you will quickly understand that this was the plan all along. While Israel was making a public spectacle of "forcing Jews to leave their homes", it was quietly surrounding the Strip with artillery emplacements, in an operation ominously named "First Rain".
Under this operation, Gaza basically became a "Free-Fire Zone", and several artillery and gunship strikes killed a high number of civilians. Finally, when one of these batteries fired upon and murdered a Palestinian family - picnicking on a beach that had been Segregated "Jews Only" only weeks before, Hamas finally decided to call an end to its unilateral, two-year cease-fire.
(In essence, they took Israel's bait. After all, you can't excuse your Aggression and label it "defense" if you're not being intermittently attacked. Never mind the hypocrisy underlying the entire media's framing of that whole debate ...)
When the Palestinians responded by electing Hamas to power (yes, elected), Israeli Extremists and their Ideological, bought foreign co-conspirators imposed unilateral sanctions on Gaza, a bit of Collective Punishment which increased the hardship of those stuck in the world's largest Concentration Camp.
When they felt Gaza had been substantially weakened, the US and Israel undertook a Coup attempt, using corrupt elements within the Fatah Party, provoking a violent response by Hamas, which expelled the group. Most of the world's media ignored the events leading to this "crisis", and instead only repeated the Propaganda emanating from the US and Israel, which used this to further increase sanctions against Gaza.
Most recently, Israel stepped up its Collective Punishment, except that human rights groups and legal advisors to the Government halted some of its approved measures, because they run contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
This was sold as another "response to rocket attacks" (again highlighting the hypocrisy of the debate's Framing - are the Palestinians allowed to defend themselves from strikes which actually KILL people ... ?), even though high-ranking officials said that this was NOT, in fact, a response to these attacks, but a way to "distance Israel from Gaza's infrastructure".
The real reason for this whole episode, of course, has been to "soften up" the Gaza Strip for a long-planned military attack, a way to undermine the resolve, and hopefully rid this territory of Palestinians altogether.
Olmert signalled long ago that he would not entertain any serious discussions at this summit, essentially selling out the Israeli public's desire for peace.
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8076S
As Predicted: Gaza Reoccupation Planned
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/388658.html
Olmert: Seige on Gaza Will Continue
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?9506S
Physicians for Human Rights Gaza Update - Another Seasonal Shame
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/8172/index.php
Israel's Ongoing Human Rights Violations
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/8177/index.php
Red Cross Condemns Gaza Collective Punishment, World Inaction
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/rate/8181/index.php#Article-8181
As Predicted: Gaza Attacked
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/8124/index.php
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: West Bank, George W. Bush
Israel is seeking to reach an understanding with the U.S. administration that would safeguard Israel's security interests in a future final-status agreement with the Palestinians and during current negotiations, government sources have said.
(In other words, it won't include a cessation of attacks on the W. Bank in the name of good faith and negotiations.)
The sources also said Israel is seeking President George W. Bush's support for its security demands so that such understandings can serve as a basis for the work of the American special security envoy General James Jones, who has been tasked with formulating the security arrangements for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
(In other words, they are trying to preempt any demand that they stop what they're doing in the name of negotiations.)
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is to discuss these security issues with Bush during the president's visit here next week.
(And what of real security for the Palestinians? I guess they don't have this right?)
At the heart of Israel's demands is that it remain free to act against terror in the West Bank for as long as negotiations last, and that demilitarization arrangements place limitations on the future Palestinian state.
(In other words, Israel isn't really prepared to leave the Occupied Territories or disarm in the name of peace.)
Discussions with administration officials on this issue began even before the Annapolis summit, during the visit of the Israeli delegation to Washington.
(Proving that it is the Palestinians who have no 'partner for peace'.)
Wednesday Olmert called a meeting ahead of the Bush visit with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Barak presented the security demands in detail and Livni discussed the importance of demilitarizing the areas that Israel would evacuate in the future.
(Barak is the mastermind of the impending reoocupation and assault on Gaza. Livni recently advocated the "transfer" aka 'ethnic cleansing' of all Israeli Arabs from Israel, and is a member of the fanatical "Greater Israel" Cult.)
Israel wants to maintain effective military superiority in the territories during the talks, and ensure that it has the freedom to act against terror organizations in Gaza. "It is inconceivable that we would be prevented from continuing the extraordinary achievement against terror in the West Bank," a source said.
(That's irrelevant to the first sentence, which simply means that israel will not stop its planned attack on Gaza, nor lift the internationally-condemned and illegal measures of Collective Punishment on its people.)
"In the previous year no Israeli was killed within the Green Line from an attack that came from the West Bank. In the West Bank, four people were killed. In the South, it is true that quiet has not yet returned to Sderot, but we are carrying out an effective and focused offensive there. Hundreds of terrorists were killed last year."
(And even more civilians ...)
Israel would like the U.S. to agree to a number of limitations on the future Palestinian state's sovereignty. Israel wants Palestine to be completely demilitarized, and for Israel to be able to fly over Palestinian air space. Border crossings would be monitored by Israel in such a way that the symbols of Palestinian sovereignty would not be compromised, but Israel would know who was coming and going.
(In other words, Israeli Extremists don't really want peace, or to end the world's longest Military Occupation.)
Israel is to propose the deployment of an international force in the West Bank and along the Philadelphi Route in Rafah, and would ask that a permanent Israel Defense Forces presence remain for an extended period in the Jordan Valley.
(A better solution would to deploy a United Nations rotating force, to keep an eye on both sides.)
Jordan Valley 'tripwire force'
According to Israel's plan, a small Israeli force would be stationed in the Jordan Valley as a "tripwire force" that would act as a deterrent. Israel would also demand Palestinian agreement that in the case of an emergency Israel could deploy in essential areas of the West Bank to thwart a threat of invasion from the East.
(In this sense, 'deterrent' actually means 'provocation'.)
Such a deployment would only take place under extreme circumstances, but including it in the agreement would ensure that the Palestinians would not object if the time came when it was needed.
Under ordinary circumstances the West Bank would be completely demilitarized, with only internal Palestinian security forces on duty.
(If this is to occur, then Israel should also become a demilitarized zone.)
The Barak government reached agreement with the Clinton administration on a number of security issues with regard to a future accord with the Palestinians.
(But nowhere near this level of untenable, illegal demands. This is the reason Arafat had to decline the mythical "generous offer", which was actually more of the same.)
However, monitoring border crossings and a long-term IDF presence in the Jordan Valley was not among them. The Palestinians vehemently opposed the security steps Israel wanted, such as the emergency IDF deployment in the West Bank, which they saw as damaging to their independence and sovereignty.
(I love how Israel's term "Security Measures" is regurgitated without criticism by this reporter/media outlet.)
Israel now seeks to reopen the discussion in the hope that Bush will support its demands.
(Note the word "Demands" ... Are they asking or telling? Just another attempt to scuttle an agreement, and stall for more time in which to dispossess Palestinians, and annex further land?)
According to government and security sources, "in most of the issues involving the agreement with the Palestinians, Israel is the one being asked to give tangible things. The only area in which we have real demands from the Palestinians is that of security arrangements. Therefore it is important that the talks have the proper outline so that Israel can insist on its security demands and the Palestinians will not dilute them."
(Israel is being asked to give 'tangible things' because they are the ones in serious violation of International Law and UN Security Council Resolutions. They are the Aggressors.)
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/941180.html
Olmert, Bush and Abbas to hold three-way summit in Jerusalem
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
The leaders of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the United States are expected to hold a joint meeting during President George W. Bush's visit here next week, in an effort to accelerate negotiations on the conflict's core issues - borders, refugees, and Jerusalem.
(Even though Hamas is the elected Government of the Palestinians.)
Bush will visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority next Wednesday and Thursday as part of a regional tour that will cover seven states in nine days.
The main focus of the president's talks will be the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the Iranian nuclear program.
(At least, officially.)
Preparatory talks between the White House and Jerusalem in recent days led to an agreement that a meeting will be organized between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Bush.
The purpose of the tripartite meeting is to energize the negotiations between Israel and the PA.
(Gotta keep those headlines positive, make people think they're actually doing something ...)
Talks on the conflict's core issues were supposed to begin after the Annapolis summit, but reached an impasse over disagreements on the issue of continued Israeli construction in settlements and East Jerusalem.
(In other words, as predicted, Israel scuttled the talks.)
"The purpose of the meeting is to further the negotiations," a senior political source in Jerusalem told Haaretz Tuesday.
"The leaders will be able to evaluate how the situation is progressing to date, and decide where we are going from here," the source added.
If the meeting does take place, it will be held in a neutral site - not in the Prime Minister's residence in Jerusalem. One of the possibilities is the American Consulate in East Jerusalem, the source said.
Olmert is expected to hold a meeting on Wednesday with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to discuss Israel's stance for the upcoming Bush visit.
(This can't possiby be a good thing. Livni recently called for the "Transfer" of all Israeli Arabs, and Barak is the one plotting to reoccupy Gaza.)
Olmert plans to brief the U.S. president on the instructions he has issued to his cabinet on freezing West Bank construction.
(Actually, he's said that any further expansion plans will have to be approved through him. He hasn't frozen current expansion projects.)
Bush administration spokesmen have expressed their concern in recent weeks at continued Israeli construction in the West Bank, and Olmert intends to stress that his government is taking action in order to meet its obligations to the road map.
On the other hand, Olmert will also insist that the PA must take more forceful action in combating terrorist organizations.
(Every time it does, however, Israel takes steps to undermine its work. The US and Israel are behind the 'crisis' in Gaza, and Olmert's own defense staff warned that the imposition of illegal measures of Collective Punishment would provoke violent retaliations. The fact that Gaza isn't on the agenda undermines the legitimacy of the whole venture.)
Olmert and Bush are also expected to spend much time discussing the Iranian nuclear program. During their last meeting in Washington, following the Annapolis summit, Bush briefed Olmert on the content of the National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear project, which concluded that Tehran had frozen its nuclear arms program in 2003.
(Actually, it conlcuded that there was no threat. The much-touted claim of a past program is in question, as it comes from a single, dubious source.)
Bush has since insisted that the NIE will not alter his policy on Iran, but in Israel there is concern that during the final year of his presidency he will find it difficult to conduct a military operation against Iran.
(Despite the fact that such a 'military operation' is not necessary. Nonetheless, the Covert War against Iran continues to this day, in full violation of International Law.)
In addition to the political meetings, Bush is also scheduled to meet President Shimon Peres to discuss joint economic and development projects between Israel, the PA, Jordan and other countries.
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/940969.html
As Predicted: Gaza Reoccupation Planned December 31st, 2007
ALERT: Annapolis a Charade: Olmert Plotting Massive Aggression
In Germany, according to historian Richard Evans, in 1931-1932, if enough Germans of conscience had begun to say No -- history would have had an entirely diferent outcome.
If we go any further down this road the tears will be those of conservatives as well as progressives. They will be (Israeli) tears.
The time for weeping has to stop; the time for confronting must begin.
Adapted from "American Tears"
www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/american-tears_b_68141.html
The timing is interesting, given the upcoming "Annapolis Conference", which serves to be about PR alone, as Olmert has already ruled out any Negotiations or Compromise in the name of peace.
If you follow the events surrounding Israel's "Disengagement" from Gaza, you will quickly understand that this was the plan all along. While Israel was making a public spectacle of "forcing Jews to leave their homes", it was quietly surrounding the Strip with artillery emplacements, in an operation ominously named "First Rain".
Under this operation, Gaza basically became a "Free-Fire Zone", and several artillery and gunship strikes killed a high number of civilians. Finally, when one of these batteries fired upon and murdered a Palestinian family - picnicking on a beach that had been Segregated "Jews Only" only weeks before, Hamas finally decided to call an end to its unilateral, two-year cease-fire.
(In essence, they took Israel's bait. After all, you can't excuse your Aggression and label it "defense" if you're not being intermittently attacked. Never mind the hypocrisy underlying the entire media's framing of that whole debate ...)
When the Palestinians responded by electing Hamas to power (yes, elected), Israeli Extremists and their Ideological, bought foreign co-conspirators imposed unilateral sanctions on Gaza, a bit of Collective Punishment which increased the hardship of those stuck in the world's largest Concentration Camp.
When they felt Gaza had been substantially weakened, the US and Israel undertook a Coup attempt, using corrupt elements within the Fatah Party, provoking a violent response by Hamas, which expelled the group. Most of the world's media ignored the events leading to this "crisis", and instead only repeated the Propaganda emanating from the US and Israel, which used this to further increase sanctions against Gaza.
Most recently, Israel stepped up its Collective Punishment, except that human rights groups and legal advisors to the Government halted some of its approved measures, because they run contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
This was sold as another "response to rocket attacks" (again highlighting the hypocrisy of the debate's Framing - are the Palestinians allowed to defend themselves from strikes which actually KILL people ... ?), even though high-ranking officials said that this was NOT, in fact, a response to these attacks, but a way to "distance Israel from Gaza's infrastructure".
The real reason for this whole episode, of course, has been to "soften up" the Gaza Strip for a long-planned military attack, a way to undermine the resolve, and hopefully rid this territory of Palestinians altogether.
Olmert signalled long ago that he would not entertain any serious discussions at this summit, essentially selling out the Israeli public's desire for peace.
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?8076S As Predicted: Gaza Reoccupation Planned
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/388658.html Olmert: Seige on Gaza Will Continue
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?9506S Physicians for Human Rights Gaza Update - Another Seasonal Shame
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/8172/index.php Israel's Ongoing Human Rights Violations
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/8177/index.php Red Cross Condemns Gaza Collective Punishment, World Inaction
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/rate/8181/index.php#Article-8181 As Predicted: Gaza Attacked
http://www.israel.indymedia.org/newswire/display/8124/index.php 
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Why not follow the events surrounding Israel's Gaza Disengagement then?
04.01.2008 11:26
"Under this operation, Gaza basically became a "Free-Fire Zone", and several artillery and gunship strikes killed a high number of civilians."
You are a bit of a broken record on this.
The fact is that after Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza, it was rewarded with almost daily rocket fire on its own citizens especially in Sderot that was not previously the case. Which country would not eventually have reacted?
Israel had sought to disengage from Gaza, to leave the Palestinians be there, however Palestinians militants under various flags do not tolerate Jews living anywhere in Israel.
Oddly (or perhaps not) you keep repeating that Israel "quietly" surrounded the Strip with artillery emplacements but don't mention the Qassam fire that led to Israel firing back. Plainly in your view firing on Israel is alright but for Israel merely to install artillery on its own soil (in case it is fired upon) isn't.
I'll put this another way
What disengagement?
04.01.2008 15:09
Maybe those Qassam rocket attacks were related to the fact that Israel's disengagement plan primarily focussed on disengaging the Gazans from food, water and medical aid.
Steve