Of course, you can then argue the extent to which you can conflate the politicians of Israel with all Israelis, just as you can argue that the decision by the Westminster establishment in the UK to go to war with Iraq did not represent the whole will of the British people.
But, in a democratic society, we are, to all intents and purposes, involved in a representative government. We send people to parliament, both here and in Israel, to represent us, not reflect us. They decide in our name with our consent, if not with our agreement. Yes, I dissented from the Iraq war, but it was done in mine and 60 million other citizen's name and no hair-splitting can really deny a certain burden of, if not responsibility, then at least I will admit that our part of the invasion effort was unequivocally British and there is an association there.
So, yes, I will acknowledge that there is a peace movement in Israel, I will agree that not all Israelis agree with what is being done in their name. But it is still being done in their name and it is not unreasonable or unfair to describe the sentiments behind these actions as Israeli. And Eno's use is not a monolithic use, but entirely legitimate. keep to the Fen Causeway
You did not get what I said. As I stated explicitely, the point is not that there would be disagreement about attacking Gaza. The point is that the governing forces chose to escalate the situation into a major invasion to play tough before the elections, to catch the wind from Bibi Netanyahu's sail, who attacked them from the right. It can be this narrow-minded. And it happened before.
Let's remember Operation "The Grapes of Wrath", the 1996 bombing of South Lebanon most infamous for the shelling of the Qana shelter with 106 dead. That operation was ordered by the then interim government of Shimon Peres, who wanted to show himself strong before new elections. He still lost -- incidentally, to Netanyahu... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
It's the same mistake Democrats keep making in the US. You can't be more hawkish than republicans so why get into that game (yes Hillary, we do mean you) ? however democrats can be much more sensible and balanced, which is why Obama got elected.
So if the Israeli centre/liberal (laughable as that sounds) want to beat the far-right, they won't do it by starting a war. keep to the Fen Causeway
Poll: Most Israelis support continuing Gaza military op.
This is down from 81% in favor of "Operation Cast Lead" at its outset, but at 71% it's still a vast majority.
In light of your focus on "partisan reasons (er.g. upcoming elections".
Thems is mighty hollow pretexts, given the broader picture.
Map which hardly needs any additional commentary. Or if it does, let me know.
Livni and Barak's political ambitions, in full accord with their right wing counterparts, are to rid the region of native Palestinians.
Why is there any further question as to what the bestial Gaza offensive is about?
Seriously, any israeli who is not screaming murder at this point is an accomplice.
You can't say "never again" and not go ballistic. A 'centrist' is someone who's neither on the left, nor on the left.
