don't see a risk of the us getting involved militarily. except as a supplier.
but its support of israel when it appears to act disproportionately has effects. it's the medium in which anger festers. and this anger informs the assymetrical reactions which shock the us population when they occur.
now this alone is no reason not to support an ally. and hamas is not a government of angels. but there are consequences of decisions that extend beyond the immediate actions themselves.
kill an infant, grow a family of possible suicide bombers.
there's no free lunch in violence. but most of the response will focus on israel, of course.
i'd prefer a different kind of approach, such as my three vatican style states in jerusalem and a greater secular state. invest in gaza rather than humiliate it. i expect that would be cheaper too.
but bibi is only interested in neoconservative models of dominance, colonisation and war. and so it continues.
perhaps in order to get rid of this infernal problem they should consider a final solution.
"The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years," - Eli Yishai, Israel's Interior Minister.
ironic, no?
this little piece of geography was ever thus.
| 