Originally posted at Blizzforums:
Chaos, you've got it arse backwards. Saying that the US and Israeli press are not biased when it comes to Israel is inherently contradictory. It's like saying the BBC isn't biased (however slightly) towards the British. Or that Al-Jazeera isn't biased towards the interest of Arabic states. It's simply ludicrous.
The fact that Israel survives based on a large part of income through Western grants and gifts and Israeli societies scattered through diaspora only renders your argument inane, at best. People have been shouting Pro-Israeli and Pro-Arab about the press since Israel invaded Lebanon, years before I was even born.
Besides, the American press have been coloured towards screwing up everything in regards to Isreal for decades, because of a poor understanding of History. News coverage today is almost inevitably wrong.
As towards the invasion of the Gaza, the legality is of little practical issue. We've already seen countless times the abuse Article 51 of the charter of the United Nations, with just about every country in existence. Some just get away with it better.
In reality, the United Nations (and therefore the international community) does not, and will never, hold any authority concerning the welfare of Israel and Palestine. The Palestinian Authority continues to be considered a de-facto state, rather than an actual nation. Therefore the disputes have no true political arena, other than that of the words of a few good men and thousands of crooked ones. That, or the sword.
Speaking in terms of military ethics, the invasion of the Gaza is justifiable. The abduction of a single citizen, under any law, should be met with the utmost propensity towards the security of the state. The state being the embodiment of the interests of the people, any action required is thereby justified, in theory.
Of course, this theory is very Machiavellian in standing and not completely justifiable, especially in relation to the status of Israel in the United Nations. According to international law, any member nation may not take action to respond to a threat without first conferring with the Security Council. Of course, Israel has never fully bonded to this idea (due to their need of urgency), and the recent violations (and intention to violate) by the United States of the UN charter and its own experiences in doing so (backed by the United States) have certainly emboldened her to do whatever necessary in her own defense.
For a quick look at this record, in 82, Israel invaded Lebanon in violation of the 1978 Security Council resolution ordering for Israel to withdraw. They are almost always in violation of UN 242 and the Oslo Accords (though that is debatable, on several fronts). American backing has almost always been ever present. The raid of the Osirak reactor was only responded by a slight slap of the wrist by most Western governments.
This should not be, however, a question of whether not Israel is justified in violating UN decree in their own interest at all. Those who recognize the current impotency of the United Nations (Conservatives and Liberals alike) will most certainly cry "YES" while those that remain optimistic about its effectiveness will certainly cry "NO."
The question, therefore, should be somewhat three-fold. Is the invasion of the Gaza necessary to rescue one soldier? Is there an alternate agenda? Can this sort of action by Israel be allowed to continue?
As far as the necessity, I myself cannot truely comment. It seems excessive, as Israel maintains some of the most highly trained special forces teams in the world, but the limited information coming through the press does not give a clear picture. However, I can say that the effort seems less of a rescue operation than exuberant insanity. The amount of artillery rounds already fired into the Gaza is reminiscent of President Clinton's "Let's fire missiles into Iraq and make it look good." The effect appears to be collective punishment for the abduction of a single soldier, under the ostensible excuse of suppression fire.
As for ulterior motive? Why? The universal conclusion in Israel just last year was to pull completely out of the Gaza. The Unilateral Disengagement Plan, however, is not availible to the public and therefore I cannot provide sufficient commentary. There appears to be no point, except as a show of force to the now-ruling Hamas party.
If the invasion of the Gaza Strip can be deemed to be handled rather unnecessarily, which it appears to be, then this can be lumped into the manifold acts of aggression enacted by the Israeli state. Should Israel then be reprimanded for engaging in acts of agression against a de-facto state?
This requires further investigation.
In the West, Israel's situation is considered mostly as a security issue. In these terms, Israel's commitment to show of force and the grouping of entire civilian populations with their aggressors only further engenders hatred towards themselves and escalates an already troublesome situation. The election of Hamas is evidence of this exact phenomenon.
The situation however is further advanced. The West Bank is Israel's largest source of water, and the disputed territories are some of teh most profitable areas in terms of Israeli black market goods.
The treatment of Palestine as 'a non-nation' persists throughout Israeli though and political policy. Peace with the Palestine is a very minor consideration for Israel, in contrast with what might believe to be otherwise. Countless peace offerings have been rejected since as early as '71 (Amos Elon wrote of a peace proposal propped by Sabat). The constant appeal by Israelis to portray their enemies as terrorists (while they themselves exercise unfavourable tactics, hijackings, abductions, etc) and inhuman, and unworthy of their own nation.
So the invasion into the Gaza not only perpetuates the propagandism of Israel but also allows for continuous war in the middle east, a prospect favourable to Israeli interests (economically and politically) as well as American ones. Furthermore there maintains religious implications as well as dreams of manifest destiny.
So morally speaking, is it REALLY correct for Israel to be driving around tanks everywhere? The answer is obvious. The situation, however, is so complex and nightmarish that a solution cannot be found without simply assigning blame to one party in particular, whether it be right or wrong. And for something to be done about it, which... lets be honest, nothing ever will be for quite a while.
It must be noted that the dehumanization of Arabs and Palestinians in particular has been so long in the making that we Westerners barely even care when a Palestinian girl is shot, but when one soldier is kidnapped, the entire bloody world starts talking about it. If you want to change anything about Israel and Palestine, you might want to start the change at home. The immense freedom exercised by the Israeli state should certainly be curtailed, if only in the interest of human rights. The sad thing is, no one really gives half a shit about human rights, so we'll be stuck here for a while.
