Remember the elections and the wonders and promises of democracy?Hamas threatens to bring fight to West Bank
16 Jun 2007 15:10:28 GMT
Source: Reuters
GAZA, June 16 (Reuters) - Hamas threatened on Saturday to retaliate in the occupied West Bank against President Mahmoud Abbas's forces if they did not stop Fatah "terrorism" there against members of the Islamist group.
Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said 150 Hamas supporters have been "abducted" in the occupied West Bank following Hamas's bloody takeover of the Gaza Strip.
"What is happening in the West Bank is a real coup and real terrorism," Abu Zuhri said. "We will not stand handcuffed against these crimes in the West Bank. We will take all steps to secure an end to these crimes."
Will we support Mr Abbas, in Paris?
ReplyDeletedRat,
ReplyDeleteNo Occupation Without Representation!
The Blair government also is doing a bang-up job supporting the troops. Feckless, effeminate, silly bastards.
ReplyDelete’Woeful’ shortages put soldiers lives at risk
From Theo Spark, the sight that also brought you this,
Link
and this,
Link
and this, the “Horrible Harry”:
Link
***
Doug said...
ReplyDeleteUPDATE:
LGF now has cell-phone video of a lynching on Gaza by Hamas.
Proceed at your own risk, but I think it's important for you to see what an Iranian Death Squad does, and what American foreign policy has allowed to grow strong in the Middle East.
That video is what you see when one side is fighting to win.
It's brutal, but it lets your enemies know you are serious.
Not Fruit Loops, prayer rugs and Koran for him. No siree.
I give Abbas 30 days before he is gone.
The more overt US, EU and Israeli support for him, the faster it will happen.
We are supporting the Good Guys. House of Saud. Musharaf. Abbas. Mubarak. Abdullah. Democrats all.
Onward to a new dynamic in the Middle East. Democracy for everyone.
Lieberman ’08!
ReplyDeleteThink I’m joking? Who is the one American politician who has remained focused and consistent on the danger posed to the West by Iran?
From Atlas Shrugs:
___“Tired, discredited, and possibly broken by his failures in Iraq, President Bush seems to have given up on providing any leadership against the Iranian threat. Fortunately, we still have Joe Lieberman, who has established himself as the only political figure willing to lead in this crisis by declaring that we should start an air war against Iran in retaliation for its acts of war against US troops in Iraq. What is really new in Lieberman's declaration is that he has proposed the use of military force against Iran, not as potential future measure to pre-empt Iran's nuclear weapons program, but as an immediate act of retaliation in response to the war Iran is already waging against us.”
Read it all.
The Three State Solution: Iran’s War
***
allen - Lieberman has a point. As screwed up as Vietnam was, we at least attacked the North Vietnamese on their turf and bombed the Ho Chi Minh trail, wherever it went.
ReplyDeleteActions had consequences of some kind back then.
If the ROE in Vietnam were half-assed, ours in the ME are quarter-assed or eighth-assed.
But at least Abbas will get some more money to stuff into Swiss bank accounts. Good Democrat he.
Tammy Bruce:
ReplyDelete"This is also another glaring indication of the absolute failure of any reliable international intelligence we have on anything going on in the Middle East. We approved and sent this money just two months prior to the complete route of Arafat's terrorist Fatah group by Iran's terrorist Hamas group. We had no clue, 8 weeks prior, that such a violent and complete takeover was being planned and would be implemented."
Except that the people who would have known and conveyed the latter are not the same people who set the policy and approve the funding. The latter are free to disregard input from the former and continue on their merry way. This is hardly an exceptional occurrence.
Sucks to be on the losing side everywhere, don't it, Tammy?
"Fortunately, we still have Joe Lieberman, who has established himself as the only political figure willing to lead in this crisis by declaring that we should start an air war against Iran in retaliation for its acts of war against US troops in Iraq. What is really new in Lieberman's declaration is that he has proposed the use of military force against Iran, not as potential future measure to pre-empt Iran's nuclear weapons program, but as an immediate act of retaliation in response to the war Iran is already waging against us.”
ReplyDeleteResistance in the defense establishment is exceedingly stiff and will remain so.
Ehud Barak, who brilliantly implemented the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, has been named Defense Minister. Misery loves company.
ReplyDeleteThe Arabs could not have chosen a better time to go on the offense.
In Aftermath of Gaza Battle, Grim Realities
“Grim realities”, indeed.
brother d-day,
ReplyDeletere: Lieberman
A year ago, I would not have considered voting for Lieberman. Today, he is the only politician paying more than lip-service to the Iranian threat and the fight in Iraq.
Allen: A year ago, I would not have considered voting for Lieberman. Today, he is the only politician paying more than lip-service to the Iranian threat and the fight in Iraq
ReplyDeleteWith Allen, that makes three people in the Connecticut for Liebermann Party, but the chairman has asked Lieberman to resign, which would bring it back down to two people again.
teresita,
ReplyDeletere: Lieberman
;-)
How time does change things! A year ago, I would not have seriously considered the impeachment of the President; today, it may be the only hope for the survival of the conservatives of the Republican Party.
As to the election of Lieberman to the presidency, who woulda thunk it?
Weren't you over at the BC last month bemoaning the lack of credit being given Bush for various ostensible achievements? It's an awfully long distance from genuine Bush defender to ardent Bush impeacher, in a very short time.
ReplyDeleteWhat in the world happened, allen?
In failing to take out Syria last summer, Israel has bought itself a big can of wump ass. But, not to fear, Ehud is here!
ReplyDeleteFrom Israel Matzav:
Syria talking peace but preparing for war
Ehud Fled
***
An ephinay.
ReplyDeleteResistance in the defense establishment is exceedingly stiff and will remain so.
ReplyDeleteTrish, do you know what could possibly be the reason that ?
The US military believes it cannot win that war, militarily, either
ReplyDeleteAllen: As to the election of Lieberman to the presidency, who woulda thunk it?
ReplyDeleteCertainly no Republican, who watched this gay-lovin' pro-abort try to steal the election in Florida in 2000, and certainly no Democrat, who watched this Alberto Gonzales lovin' neocon call for another war, this time in Iran.
There have been lessons learned in Iraq, by those closest to it.
ReplyDeleteAs Wretchard would tell you, they've learned things from contact with the opposition.
"The US military believes it cannot win that war, militarily, either"
ReplyDeleteRoger that.
dRat,
ReplyDeleteIs there a war the US military believes it can win?
trish,
ReplyDeleteI believe you are confusing editorializations and characterizations of me and my motives by my opponents with reality.
I support my country.
Perhaps it's time to cut their welfare budget?
ReplyDeleteNo more limited wars, if Admirals have a say.
ReplyDeleteDesert Rat: The US military believes it cannot win that war, militarily, either
ReplyDeleteI told them not to use the same rules of engagement as the campus police at Virginia Tech, but did they listen to me? Nooooooo!
Of course you do, allen. I never suggested otherwise.
ReplyDeletemat,
ReplyDeleteAs Mr Kaplan discussed, either real big wars or very small ones.
The mid range just kicks their ass.
Limited in what sense, dRat?
ReplyDeleteWhat would be a big war and what would be a small war?
ReplyDeleteBut then again, allen, the country and the government are not the same thing.
ReplyDeleteAre they?
trish,
ReplyDeletePlease share any links you have from the BC that you believe place me in the category of an "ardent Bush supporter."
___ardent
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin ardent-, ardens, present participle of ardEre to burn, from ardor
1 : characterized by warmth of feeling typically expressed in eager zealous support or activity (ardent proponents of the bill)
2 : FIERY, HOT (an ardent sun)
3 : SHINING, GLOWING (ardent eyes)
synonym see IMPASSIONED
Big war, nuclear armegeddon.
ReplyDeleteSmall war, Panama, arresting a despot and immediately leaving.
mid-range
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran
Policing city streets in far away lands.
Leaves US with the Bob Kerry / James Webb approach.
Don't have to occupy a country, to fight the terrorists in it.
Iran, the poltical and economic blowback makes preemptive offensive action against them prohibitive, at best.
Because I have argued ardently against the accusation that the Marine Corps is going to railroad a bunch of innocent Marines to the gallows as the matter of political expediency does not mean I support either the Commandant or the President. Some here have been confused about that.
ReplyDeleteAllen,
ReplyDeleteSeems to me you were pretty peeved that the praises of Bush were not being sung.
And, no, I'm not gonna dig up quotes. I'm far too lazy.
You, however, can.
limited?
ReplyDeleteBing West explains
Imprisonment is the dominant military weapon for quelling this insurgency. Vietnam was a shooting war; Iraq is a police arrest war. The insurgents learned years ago not to engage in firefights with American troops. American troops in Vietnam in 1968, for example, found that they killed 13 enemies for every one captured; in Iraq, one enemy is killed for every 10 captured.
Yet the coalition in Iraq only has capacity to hold 40,000 prisoners, both combatants and civil
Texas, with a smaller total population has 170,000 prisoners incarcerated.
There is no reason to believe the Iraqi have less criminals worthy of prison time than Texas.
Iran, the poltical and economic blowback makes preemptive offensive action against them prohibitive, at best.
ReplyDeleteThem Farsi Mullahs scared you good. LOL! Don't worry. Iran without oil will make Gaza look civilized.
dRat,
ReplyDeleteIraq is a big place. You catch one Basra, release one Najaf. You catch one in Fallujah, release one in Mosul. I really don't understand what's the problem.
The Wests, Ging and Owen, again
ReplyDeleteAfter an arrest, two soldiers must file affidavits, together with physical evidence and digital pictures, and then an American lawyer decides if the package is strong enough to withstand further review. About half of all detainees are released within 18 hours; the others are sent from battalion level to brigade level, where the evidence is re-examined, resulting in more releases.
Those detainees remaining are sent to a detention center where a combined board reviews the evidence again, and releases still more. After that, every six months a United States board must re-review the evidence in each case. Lastly, the detainee appears before an Iraqi judge, who in turn dismisses about half of the cases.
As for follow-up, before a detainee walks free, the American command sends notification to the battalion in the area where he was apprehended. But because many of the battalions have rotated back to the United States by this time, a new unit has to deal with the detainee.
Worse, there remains steady clamoring from both high-level Iraqi and American officials for yet another mass release (there have been several since 2003).
Arrested in Mosul, released in Mosul, within months, exampled by the terrorist that shot Ltc Kurilla.
After bombing the mess hall there in Mosul.
Yet neither the American government, mindful of the criticism of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, nor the Iraqi government wants to take the political heat of building more prisons.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but we can’t let old mistakes be the cause of new ones. The scale of imprisonment must be doubled or tripled if we are serious about prevailing. There is no deterrence in Iraq today because most captured insurgents are released. We will never defeat an insurgency we allow to regenerate.
Been saying this, myself, for years, after reading the Yon story about Ltc Kurilla.
If we will not kill them, we must hold them, if we will not hold them, we should leave.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is simple, then. You should kill them.
ReplyDeleteIt was done a little differently sixty some years ago:
ReplyDeleteIn April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.
Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics).
Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.
The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.
The total German casualties on D-Day are not known, but are estimated as being between 4000 and 9000 men.
Naval losses for June 1944 included 24 warships and 35 merchantmen or auxiliaries sunk, and a further 120 vessels damaged.
Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded. The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the 425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket (August 1944) alone, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000, including prisoners.
Today, twenty-seven war cemeteries hold the remains of over 110,000 dead from both sides: 77,866 German, 9386 American, 17,769 British, 5002 Canadian and 650 Poles.
Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting.
It is of little wonder that Mr Bush worries for his soul.
ReplyDeleteThe lives of thousands of US soldiers lost weighs heavily upon his and his Governments incompetence.
Not up to me, mat, it's not up to me.
ReplyDeleteThe US military is not about to change its' doctrine, in the last days of the Iraq effort.
The Navy is taking over, we're moving to a containment policy.
Back to the future.
Hmm,..
ReplyDeleteThen there's really no reason to keep them useless trillion dollar defense subsidies going, is there? The money is far better spent elsewhere, or at least on a more productive fighting force.
Just as Ike warned US, mat, back in the day.
ReplyDeleteHe knew, better than most.
dRat,
ReplyDeleteIke didn't have Trish to deal with.
Or maybe he did.
ReplyDeletetrish,
ReplyDeleteYesterday I wrote at the BC that I liked the in-your-face frankness of Hamas (more or less). Clearly, I do not "like" Hamas in the standard sense, and anyone considering the body of my writings on that organization would have to fairly thick to claim otherwise. However, some will. There is nothing I can do about that.
Correspondingly, I have used Mr. Bush as a foil, parrying the blows of those who see the world as starkly black. In asking whether Mr. Bush should get credit for some inadvertent success or another (Somalia for instance), I am not supporting Mr. Bush, per se; instead, I am trying prevent the magnification of his personal failures and the animus generated thereby from derailing long-term American interests. In short, it is possible in the real world for good to happen, despite one's feelings for Mr. Bush.
For instance, I have been adamant in my opinion that Iraq is the most strategically important piece of real estate in the world today, and must be held. Relentless, undifferentiated attacks on ALL things Bush are destructive of this objective - which is not to say that opposing points of view are without merit; rather, it is to say that Mr. Bush must not be allowed to become the LBJ of our era, with all that implies. Moreover, these ill considered, ongoing rants are harmful to America's interests universally, in that they confuse the frailties of the man with the nation's long-term interests. When Mr. Bush is long gone to Rancho Pacifico, the country will have need of a robust, bellicose foreign policy. Conflating this interest with the feckless Mr. Bush through unrelenting institutional criticisms is genuinely harmful. In asking whether Mr. Bush should get credit for some positive development, I am, essentially, asking if the United States and/or its armed forces should get some credit.
Allen,
ReplyDeleteIraq is a platform. But if one is not willing to jump, then there's no logic remaining on the platform.
But you would support the impeachment of the CIC, correct, allen?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAllen,
ReplyDeleteI think Trish likes you. But if you two are going to fraternize, go elsewhere. :D
mat,
ReplyDeletere: platform
Mr. Bush will soon pass from the scene; Hillary will evolve into the goddess of war; the Iranians will, at some point, overplay their hand; al Sistani will die; ... However, in any case, the value of Iraq will remain constant.
Now, in saying that Iraq must be held, I am NOT saying that I support the current policy or positioning. And my having to explain that is why debate on the issue is so difficult: for many it is all or none, black or white; and, by G-d, if you disagree you are a Bot or have BDS.
trish,
ReplyDeletere: impeachment
Yes, I would support the impeachment of George W. Bush.
But you would support the impeachment of the CIC, correct, allen?
ReplyDeleteWonder why Ike didn't warn us about the entitlement complex with greater than 50% of Americans receiving trillions in some form of govt assistance?
ReplyDeleteWhy all this talk about Gaza and the Palestinians, i thought it was just theater?
Yeah, Allen; but get pictures. On second thought, . . . film.
ReplyDeleteOn what grounds?
ReplyDeleteit seems Iran didn't get that memo about there being a time limit on hostilities with the west trish
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that's keeping us tied to that crazy bunch of assholes is the political clout of Exxon, and the Seven Sisters.
ReplyDeleteAllen,
ReplyDeleteYou don't get the feeling that the problem may be deeper than GWB? Maybe your arab Generals don't want to be fighting for a bunch of overzealous Zionists with conflicting loyalties to the US. Ever consider that?
rufus,
ReplyDeletere: rufus said...
Yeah, Allen; but get pictures. On second thought, . . . film.
?
Trish,
ReplyDeleteWhy the lack of creativity? On whatever legal grounds the lawyers can think of.
trish,
ReplyDeletere: what grounds?
Some days ago, Michelle Malkin had up a recall petition, linked by me. It had the makings of a bill of impeachment. However, I am too lazy to look it up;-)
mat,
ReplyDeleteNo
Allen,
ReplyDeleteYou mean, Trish hasn't convinced you yet?
trish,
ReplyDeleteOverwhelmed by the warmth of your digital smile, I sought out that Malkin link in re impeachment.
Kill the Bill: Exposing the dirty deal
Update- Senators to Bush: Enforce the laws first
mat,
ReplyDeletere: Trish hasn't convinced you?
As you, mat, should well know, money is the key to the Hebrew heart. No lucre, no loyalty.
Ike did not warn of extended welfare, farm subsidies and other types of transfer payments, elijah, because that was not the field of his lifes work and experience.
ReplyDeleteThe Military and the ascendent Industrial complex, of 1960, were.
As to the discussion of the Palistinians, as far as the US is concerned there is a lot of theater involved.
Considering that Fatah and its old time socialists are now US subsidized "moderates".
That is certainly an entertaining plot shift in todays episode.
Sometimes theater is tragic.
Allen,
ReplyDeletesee Metusela 06:41
Totties?
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON (Associated Press) -- A pair of U.S. senators investigating reports of waste, fraud and mismanagement in defense contracts in Iraq reported from Baghdad Saturday that they see some improvement but the military has a long way to go.
ReplyDeleteSens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Tom Carper, D-Del., were in Iraq meeting with Pentagon officials to discuss reports of waste, fraud and mismanagement in defense contracts.
Uncountable billions of dollars have been squandered, McCaskill said, but there has been improvement in centralizing contracting oversight and increasing the number of fixed-price contracts containing incentives not to pad costs.
That's a departure from the early days of the war when reconstruction money and other aid to Iraq was shoveled into the country with little oversight.
She said criminal charges may be filed in some cases and that the government might get at least a little of its money back.
But the fact that the security situation in Iraq is so risky makes it difficult to effectively oversee contracting, said Army Auditor General Patrick Fitzgerald, who was joining the senators as they meet with more than a half dozen military inspectors general responsible for auditing services and logistics contracts.
McCaskill, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been critical of top officials of the military's auditing agencies for overlooking or ignoring reports of contractor mismanagement and overcharging the U.S. government.
"There's no question that in the early days of this conflict, gargantuan, I mean huge mistakes, were made," McCaskill said.
What is more, she added, similar problems were experienced in Kosovo, but the Pentagon didn't seem to learn from those mistakes, she added.
40% control of Baghdad,
ReplyDeleteThat's all the US can claim, after 4 years.
BAGHDAD (Associated Press) -- The U.S. military, which just days ago completed its latest troop buildup in Iraq, has launched a large offensive operation in several al-Qaida strongholds around Baghdad, the top U.S. commander said Saturday.
Gen. David Petraeus said the operation began in the last 24 hours and will put forces into key areas surrounding Baghdad that, according to intelligence, al-Qaida is using to base some of its car bomb operations.
Petraeus, who met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates at a morning breakfast, also said that he doesn't have all the American troops he might want, but he knows he's got all he's going to get.
"There's never been a military commander in history who wouldn't like to have more of something or other _ that characterizes all of us here," he told reporters traveling with Gates. "The fact is frankly that we have all that our country is going to provide us in terms of combat forces. That is really it right now."
He said the buildup of nearly 30,000 additional forces that has just been completed allowed him to launch the latest assault. The move, he said, is allowing him to send operations for the first time into "a number of areas around Baghdad, in particular to go into areas that were sanctuaries in the past of al-Qaida."
American and Iraqi forces have absolute control over only 40 percent of the capital, according to U.S. officials.
LONDON (Associated Press) -- Prime Minister Tony Blair committed British troops to Iraq even though he despaired at the failure of the United States to plan adequately for the aftermath of the invasion, a newspaper reported Sunday.
ReplyDeleteThe Observer quoted Jeremy Greenstock, a former British envoy to Baghdad, as saying Blair "was tearing his hair over some of the deficiencies" in planning for the stabilization and reconstruction of the country.
"There were moments of throwing his hands in the air," added Greenstock, who was Britain's representative in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.
The newspaper said the remarks were made in a documentary about Blair's decade in power to be shown next week on Britain's Channel 4 television. The documentary is presented by Andrew Rawnsley, who is also The Observer's chief political correspondent.
The newspaper said David Manning, the current British ambassador in Washington, told the Channel 4 documentary that Blair was "very exercised" about postwar planning as early as March 2002, a year before the invasion.
"All these issues needed to be thrashed out," Manning was quoted as saying. "It wasn't to say that they weren't thinking about them, but I didn't see the evidence at that stage that these things had been thoroughly rehearsed and thoroughly thought through."
Manning visited Washington in March 2002 at Blair's request and on his return sent Blair a memo warning that "there is a real risk that the (Bush) administration underestimates the difficulties" in Iraq.
H/T Maggie’s Farm for an excellent article.
ReplyDelete___“The United States is still far from being a decadent country. And you cannot blame the American public from becoming disenchanted with a war that has gone on for so long and been so badly handled. The question is, in what direction—relative to our current and future adversaries—are we headed? Argue the question as we may, one thing is clear: We’re fated to find out.”
On Forgetting The Obvious
Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, and Iraq
***
Back to Mr Kaplan.
ReplyDeleteDemocracies do not vote for war.
Mr Bush should have heeded his own doctrine, before he decided the US could or would wage a "Long War"
General P says we're "All In"
ReplyDeleteHe's got all there is, and there ain't no more.
40% of Baghdad is all we've secured. The push is on.
Victory by September, or not
In Baghdad, aides to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told The Associated Press that talks Saturday between the U.S. defense secretary and the Iraqi leader were difficult.
ReplyDeleteTwo top advisers to the prime minister said al-Maliki, a Shiite, objected vigorously to the new U.S. policy of arming and training Sunni militants in the fight against al-Qaida.
A third said Gates told al-Maliki that political and legislative action sought by the U.S., including a new law to share oil revenues among all Iraqis, must be complete by September when the defense secretary has to report to Congress on progress in Iraq.
Gates also met with President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and expressed concern that the security situation nationwide might be spiraling out of control, a presidential aide said.
Dang, Allen; don't EVER do that to us, again. I still don't know where my pecker and balls went.
ReplyDeleteDoes Kaplan know that our warriors are leaving the war?
ReplyDeleteI do recall rufus stating, not long ago, "good riddance" to the willingly departed, as it freed up space for the truly committed.
We're severely short the latter.
Did somebody say, Geetar?
ReplyDeleteAl-Quds Al-Arabi:
ReplyDelete"What is certain is that a deep rift has been created that will be difficult to bridge, and the Hamas victory in Gaza could well be the beginning of a long series of struggles, because this victory opens the door [to the United States and others] to converting the political support by America and the West for Abbas into military support in preparation for another confrontation, perhaps more bloody than the last. This will be particularly the case if their support is translated into actual new arms deals, and if the disillusion of some Fatah people can be re-recruited, this time into a fight against Hamas and not against Israel, thus diverting the Palestinian people and the resistance from its primary target, which is the occupation."
Will the West Bank be next? No.
Will divide and conquer take the day? Yes.
Was Gaza a loss? Last summer's Lebanon foray was derided as a loss, but if the entire point was the passage of 1701, it was a resounding success. Perspective, perspective.