
Watch the film, but the long and the short of is that if Hamas didn't fire any rockets during the ceasefire then the inescapable conclusion is that Israel violated the ceasefire and that this is not the defensive action of a threatened nation but something altogether different.
I'm starting to see shadows of the Georgia/South Ossetia war in this, at least insofar as the hoodwinking of the West is concerned. I wonder to what extent Israel planned this action given its apparent lack of provocation.
This film admits that rockets were fired against Israel from Gaza during this time, even if they could not be proven to have been launched by Hamas. The act of building a tunnel - for any reason, let alone to try and kidnap an Israeli soldier - that violated the borders was itself an aggressive act and hence a violation of the ceasefire. Plans for such attacks (kidnapping Israeli soldiers) were carried out during the truce (link).
How many shells does it take to constitute provocation?
How many planned attacks should be carried out before the intended victims strike back? Or should they not be permitted to defend themselves?
The statement that there was a lack of provocation is laughably false.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |