.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Eli Lake Calls for ‘Regime Change’ in Gaza, ‘Strategic Communications War’ Against Hamas”.
Tags: gaza, gaza-siege, hamas, regime change, war
The New York Times is a rag of Empire and particularly awful on Israel. Surprisingly, Mackey at The Lede seems to be a real reporter, but I suspect he will end up like Raymond Bonner who was removed from El Salvador beat under pressure from Reagan White House and a WSJ editorial. His accurate report on the El Mazote massacre were later confirmed by a UN truth Commission decades later. The Times has a long history of this sort of thing.
Its not really up to them or me or anyone else who’s not a Palestinian what government there is in Gaza and/or the West Bank. There’s this quaint little idea called democracy, I wonder if Hulburt, Lake or the NYT have heard of it?
Writing to Robert Wright should be about as productive as writing to Obama. This guy sits on the fringes of the neocon world. But you’re right about one thing, Richard, this is about the most inane discussion I’ve read anywhere. But that’s what it’s all about these days – dumb everybody and everything down. Critical thought no longer exists in American main stream media. Even Phil Weiss deludes himself when he calls on Roger Cohen to get involved in the controversy over genetic myth (see his discussion of Shlomo Sand’s book, June 12). Cohen is one of the believers, for goodness sakes. That’s his identity.
I’m not enough of a masochist to actually watch this thing, so can anyone tell me if either of these jackasses realizes that the alternative to Hamas in Gaza might not be Fatah/PA but Al Qaeda?
What a couple of complete morons. Is this really what passes for expertise? If so, we are all doomed.
Their incoherent ramblings spiced with anti-European conspiracy theories are a sad excuse for political analysis, but there are a few points buried in there which are actually at least worthy of thought. Lemme paraphrase.
“Israel should have toppled Hamas in a follow-up ground offensive after ‘Cast lead’ and reoccupied Gaza.”
To this I actually agree, simply because this would have prevented Israel from dodging responsibility as it does now. Israel, of course, still controls Gaza as an occupying power from the outside, but the withdrawal of its ground troops and the internal power wielded by Hamas allows Israel to claim it’s none of their business.
This is, in my opinion, precisely the reason why Israel withdrew from Gaza in the first place, and why they neither really want to topple Hamas nor engage it in negotiations which could result in moderation and peace. Hamas is, to borrow a favorite Hasbara term, the ‘useful idiot’ in Israel’s scheme.
Of course, the typically RWA nonsense about not being ‘cruel’ enough falls into the bullshit department again. Waging war in such a way as to actually pursue your stated political goal isn’t cruel, it’s smart. Intentionally perpetuating the state of war for internal political gain is cruel.
P.S.: Of course, Israeli reoccupation is only more agreeable than the blockade and permanent low-level war we see now. Infinitely better than both of these options would have been honest negotiations with Hamas about an arrangement instead of doctrinal rejection.