Assaf Levanon writes in Hebrew:

Ever since the news article on the massacre in the LGBT center in Tel Aviv was published, social networks have been flooded with acts of solidarity towards the victims. Hundreds of users have changed their profile image on facebook and twitter to the pride flag with a black line or memorial candle. Ever since the shooting, Israeli online networks have been continuously discussing the topic, condemning those who deem responsible, particularly Knesset members from the Shas ultra-orthodox party.

During the minutes following the events, twitter users started to display their anger and frustration:
“I want a pride march in Jerusalem that will surround the Knesset and then enter. I want hostages!” - Riki Cohen
“This murder is unacceptable! Stonewall happened in New York 40 years ago! What if some of the injured just came out?” - Dafna Talmon
“My deep sorrow to the kids who need to explain to their parents how they reached the hospital…”

Throughout the night, Israeli users provided their opinions online, reacting to the television coverage:
“a request to the TV broadcasters: please wait with the mobile video until the technology gets better. Blurry and stuck, hurts the eye!” - Edna
“Is there a broadcaster who doesn't slightly pause before saying the words ‘homo-lesbian'?

Turns out that Ma'ariv's website NRG does not take part in any type of filtering. Users were horrified by some of the comments which showed up on the news site. One of the offending comments read: “Shooting indiscriminately at the public is dumb, because there's the chance that you murdered a person who is not gay.”
“What's happening on NRG is atrocious. It is important to respond to each and every homophobe,” - Tzvika Bashor reacted.

After the first updates on this event started coming through, Facebook and Twitter users began expressing their shock and disbelief towards the Israeli mainstream media coverage. “It is unbelievable. An hour after the LGBT community shooting, channel 2's reporter Yoav Even is interviewing Yaniv Vaitzman, and presenting him as ‘Ivri Lider's ex-boyfriend'. The blood has not dried, the murderer still free, the horror is still being processed, and the important information that we are getting from channel 2 is that here in front of us Ivri Lider's ex-boyfriend is being interviewed! Amazing how pure entertainment gossip, not connected at all to the shooting, gets mixed in this same report.” - Sagi Ben-Nun, Journalist, written on Facebook.

The image above has been used by for many Israeli Facebook and Twitter users for their profile.

And finally, here's the translation of part of Hani Zuvida's written reaction:

I turn to you all educators and parents, we are all part of the same cauldron. This is an intolerable situation. Seems like we have no social convention. Back to natural selection where the strong survive. No, I am not interested in a police state, but our lives and our children's lives are not to be abandoned. Educate your sons and daughters. But most of all start with yourselves. Respect others and do not project hate speech upon any social group. Be tolerant.

Earlier this year, in the midst of the Israeli military operation in Gaza, it was announced that Mira Awad, a Palestinian-Israeli actress-singer, will perfom a duet with the Jewish-Israeli singer Achinoam Nini (known as “Noa”) in the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest. While the chosen song held a message about finding “another way”, condemnation rained down on the duo. The objection came from Arab artists who urged Mira to withdraw from the contest. In their message, they asked her not to represent the same state that kills other Palestinians. The radical left wing both within and beyond Israel was unequivocal: Awad should refuse to sing on such a blood-soaked stage.

The Eurovision song contest is one of the most viewed and televised events across the European continent. It has been broadcast every year since its inauguration in 1956 and is one of the longest-running television programs in the world, bridging together countries that are part of the European Broadcasting Union (including some countries outside of continental Europe such as Israel, Lebanon and Tunisia). Although its nature is purely musical, the event can turn out to be a highly politicized night, with regards to participants and the voting choices that each country makes. In the past, Lebanon has pulled out of the contest because it refused to show the Israeli song entry on the Lebanese TV channel Tele-Liban. This put Lebanon in breach of the contest rules, stating that countries taking part must broadcast the entire event.

In a guest post on Binyamin Netanyahu's blog, Zalman Shoval writes:

I admit: I did not feel sorry that the movie Waltz for Bashir did not win the Oscar. I will also not shed a tear if Achinoam Nini reaches the last place in the Eurovision song contest. Both are examples of what's currently happening in our culture, trying to de-legitimize and vilify Israel for the world to see. The journalist who interviewed both singers is also not clean from guilt, as he wrote that the two are “trying to prove that even with the election results, Israel of 2009 still has people who seek peace…” - in other words, he thinks that the 70 per cent who supported this coalition are seeking war.
In any case, this is the message of the song the two artists are about to sing to the world. Nini (Noa) thinks that “the situation in Israel is a catastrophe”, she adds that she thinks many give their lives towards peace from both sides, but without being able to mention herself even one name from the Palestinian side whose done this.

Throughout the controversy, the duo gave a stellar performance in the song contest and even reached the finals, which took place last night (May 16th):

isRealli posts an interview Noa gave to the Spanish paper La Razon. Noa, a known peace activist, highlights the importance of their song's message:

- This is the first time that an Israeli/Arabic combination will go to the Eurovision Song Contest. Is the music the best way to join a divided town?
Noa: Mira and I are very proud to be the first Arab-Jewish Israeli duo to go to Eurovision. We are also proud that upon our demand, the internal laws were changed and Arabic was allowed to be sung as a formal language representing Israel in the ESC. Our duo sheds light on the complexity of our situation here in the Middle East. Israel has a very large minority, almost 20 per cent, of Palestinians, Christian (like Mira) and Muslim, who are Israeli citizens. This sector is still fighting for full integration into Israeli society. This is separate from the Palestinians living in the occupied territories, who are fighting for their independence and the establishment of the state of Palestine. In addition, Israel is surrounded by Arab countries most of which do not recognize her right to exist. So you can see, the situation is complicated. Mira and I do not represent [Israel] to present reality, but what our nations can STRIVE for if we choose dialogue over violence. Our friendship is a symbol of how we CAN get along, based on respect and communication.
Art and music cannot solve the world’s problems, but we can help. And we MUST help. We must do our part in the GLOBAL effort for peace and reconciliation that must include EVERY human being and every organization, each playing his part.

- How was the announcement received in Israel? How have the levels of support been from the public since the song was chosen?
Noa: There were some people who objected to this duet for various reasons, but the large majority are VERY supportive and excited. I think for most people we are a symbol of hope. I have received amazing e-mails from all over the world, including Arab countries like Lebanon, Syria and Qatar! This always moves me so deeply and gives me strength to continue my road.

David Hirsh posts text from a Guardian article by Rachel Shabi, where she describes her feelings towards the duo after interviewing them:

Interviewing the two, I was struck by Mira Awad talking about staying friends and maintaining discussion with Noa despite their deep disagreements over aspects of the Gaza war. Sticking around for such conversations, when every part of you wants to walk away in disgust, is perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of genuine peace work – and it deserves respect.

These two singers seem to be saying that, whatever the international community does or doesn't do about this conflict, Palestinians and Israelis are still going to have to find a way to live together. That's the draining, demoralising and largely invisible day-to-day work of conflict resolution. That's what they seem to want to use the Euro stage to state. And you could say it's a bit hippie and way too understated – but is it nonetheless worth broadcasting?

Israeli ambassador to Switzerland was recalled and returned to Jerusalem following the Swiss presidents' meeting with the Iranian leader. Shimon Peres said earlier in the day: “There is a limit to Switzerland's neutrality, and there is a border which must not be crossed. Everyone should realize that Iran is a country where people are lynched in the street for no good reason. It is the world center for terrorism and bloodshed.”

As the national holocaust memorial day unfolds, Israeli bloggers reflect and question the meaning of the day's events.

Bravejeworld describes the events at the conference:

Mahmoud Ahmedinajad proceeded to prove all the anti-Durban I protestors right this afternoon as he launched into a predictable tirade against Israel and the Jewish people. Contrary to the principles and claimed purpose of the UN backed conference, Iranian's president proved to the world how hypocritical he actually is as by standing directly opposed to everything the Western world holds dear. As a result, many world leaders walked out of the conference as he began his speech to the delight and pleasure of the many spectators and thus reducing the conference to the shambles many were hoping it would be.

Dr. Ori Amity affirms how the Palestinian problem is certainly not related to race, nor is genocide, as Ahmadinejad claims:

True, the Iranian president is a ridiculous character, but especially with this type of person, we cannot stay silent. And before everything, it is necessary to refer to his accusation of genocide. With the Israeli Laissez-faire mentality, and some failures found here and there, if there was a masterplan to kill all Palestinians, we all would have noticed it by now: gas chambers in the Erez checkpoint, firing squads and death marches from Hebron to Jenin - someone would have already noticed, no?

The claims (towards Israel) over racism are somewhat right, especially with regards to the 1970's immigration law, which provides immediate citizenship even to the children and grandchildren of Jews, and not only to the Jews themselves. This is exactly the difference between discrimination on the basis of race versus religion. And still, the president is not worried about this law, but about the Palestinian problem. There are many different types of problems here, but certainly not based on race.

An important lesson learned from the holocaust is - never become indifferent to another person's suffering - especially if you are the cause. The Palestinian suffering is a fact, and the abstention from finding a solution for many years is unjust for both sides. This serves as a constant reminder that not everything is good, and if we will not act to fix the situation, we might lose that which today seems as most obvious.

Adi Shternberg brings up the example of Europe pre-WWII relating to the danger of non-action:

Hitler came into political rule in a legitimate manner. He made his way to the top against all odds, and proved he had political and strategical capabilities. All this would not have happened if the European countries would have stood strong and shown military might while it was still possible. Nazi Germany was far from powerful in its first years. France, England, Poland and Russia could have stopped the Nazi snowball in its first years… before it became too late; before history was written in blood.

The mere fact of organizing a conference such as Durban II during the formal holocaust memorial day, shows the historical and generational blindness that this ancient European continent has. Europe was totally destroyed during the world war, and could have prevented this. Europe lets this terrible conference take place - the type of gathering that supports the dark forces of the world. Europe can still stop this. It is not too late.

Navka writes:

Must it be on this day? When we remember the atrocities that happened in the world - the murder of millions of people because of hate, with no good reason.
Durban II conference opened, where the honorary guests Ahmadinejad gives a racist speech against Israel.
We must not provide these terrible people with a stage where they can open their mouths this way…

Danny Zamir, the program founder, had invited combat soldiers and officers who graduated the program for a lengthy discussion of their experiences in Gaza. They spoke openly, but also with considerable frustration. The session transcript was published and quickly picked up by multiple media outlets.

Zamir: “I don't intend for us to evaluate the achievements and the diplomatic-political significance of Operation Cast Lead this evening, nor need we deal with the systemic military aspect [of it]. However, discussion is necessary because this was, all told, an exceptional war action in terms of the history of the IDF, which has set new limits for the army's ethical code and that of the State of Israel as a whole.

“This is an action that sowed massive destruction among civilians. It is not certain that it was possible do have done it differently, but ultimately we have emerged from this operation and are not facing real paralysis from the Qassams. It is very possible that we will repeat such an operation on a larger scale in the years to come, because the problem in the Gaza Strip is not simple and it is not at all certain that it has been solved. What we want this evening is to hear from the fighters.”

Amira Hass stresses the importance of these testimonials on the Democracy Now blog:

“the soldiers actually confirm what Palestinians have been telling for the past three months, and journalists who listen to Palestinians and believe Palestinians and know their work of taking affidavits and testimonies from Palestinians have done so during the last three months. This is the main importance.”

The chief army prosecutor, Brigadier General Avichai Mendelblit, announced the criminal investigation after the accounts became public. However, on March 30th he said he would not file charges, claiming crucial components of the soldiers' descriptions were based on hearsay. Mendelblit was quoted as saying: “the majority of the soldiers' descriptions were rumors, not told from personal knowledge”.

In his blog, Ori Heitner claims that mainstream media totally missed Danny Zamir's message:

Danny provides a complex message, dealing with a complex reality. The argument was tempestuous, ranging between the two poles of simplicity and extremity.
My critique for Danny is that he did not take the necessary steps to remove those who leveraged his message to slander and hurt the IDF's image - first and foremost Ha'aretz newspaper.

He continues on to publish Zamir's reaction to the Israeli uproar against his claims:

The need to investigate IDF's failures in order to preserve its spirit and ethical code cannot be considered an action “against” IDF. On the contrary, it is an action that comes from a place of responsibility and partnership with the events happening in the military, which is composed of use all.

The claims that this exposure of our soldiers actions will fuel Israel haters, is wholly improper. Those who hate Israel do not need specific descriptions such as theres. However, I have no doubt that a naiive, western civilian who is mulling over Israel's image, will see the acknowledgment and reaction to our failures as evidence to a healthy and very much alive democratic society, dealing with its difficulties.

Danny ends his essay with a final sentence: “Enough critique, enough hatred and lies. Morality is a strength - not a weakness.”

A thorough explanation written by Danny Zamir himself, was recently published in the Jerusalem Post:

It was as if the media were altogether so eager to find reason to criticize the IDF that they pounced on one discussion by nine soldiers who met after returning from the battlefield to share their experiences and subjective feelings with each other, using that one episode to draw conclusions that felt more like an indictment. Dogma replaced balance and led to a dangerous misunderstanding of the depth and complexity of Israeli reality. The individual accounts were never intended to serve as a basis for broad generalizations and summary conclusions by the media; they were published internally, intended for program graduates and their parents as a tool to be used in the process of educating and guiding the next generation.
….
THE GUIDING principle that directs IDF combat soldiers, both in their planning and conduct in combat, encompasses a balance between two needs: to defend soldiers' lives and to minimize harm to the civilians behind whom terrorists try to hide. This is expressed in the tension between the necessity of opening fire when the soldiers' security and battle conditions require, even when there's a danger to civilians (providing advance warning to the extent possible), and the absolute obligation to hold fire and to act with due compassion toward civilians when it appears that they have no evil intent. In addition, basic respect toward civilians' belongings and their religious and spiritual property is part of this moral code.
…
IF IT'S possible to learn something from the real Israel - and not that which the media (including Israeli media) makes such efforts to portray - it would be from the uproar of emotions and the frank discussions that have taken place within Israeli society in the wake of the soldiers' accounts. It is out of their commitment to the moral code that the soldiers spoke and their accounts were submitted; purity of arms requires continuous examination of our actions and intentions.

Tal highlights the fact that as a moral society, Israel must make an effort to dig even into its own dark regions:

Lately we've heard the testimonials on inappropriate actions taken by soldiers. There's no need for me to repeat the claims which include unnecessary killing of men, women and children. If this is true, it is a severe and grave issue, so severe it shakes the whole system.

But first, we need to mention that ever since the testimonies were published, we've heard claims against the validity of their source - meaning: there is a stream of rumors on the soldiers actions. Human rights organizations have called out to create an international committee which would research the claims. They have mentioned that Palestinian testimonials from their research match these Israeli soldiers' claims.

So where is the truth? Usually the truth lies somewhere in between - and should not wait for anyone to research this for us - but we need to dive deeply into this issue.

This story can wander and disappear in a time when explosive headlines appear every week. This matter can be dealt with on an international level if we will not deal with it on a national level - and dealing nationally does NOT mean giving “discounts” or silencing soldiers. It means that the truth will come out from us and we will not need someone from the outside to come and tell us if our society is broken.

It is reasonable to assume that these testimonials, even if all true, describe the actions of specific military units who did not follow the correct interpretation of the IDF protocol - meaning: even if all are terrorists, shooting a young child

Assume that not all the army behaved in one specific way. Assume that the majority of soldiers did not commit a crime. Assume that those who did commit criminal acts, were doing so under the intensity of war (that which those of you who have never fought will find difficult to understand). But… even if 10 percent of our soldiers who took part in the operation incorrectly interpreted an order and caused excess killing, this issue will be investigated - will rise up and will be examined from soldier to soldier.

Being a moral society means digging into even our own dark regions.

In a blog essay, Herb Keinon writes about the loss of context with regards to people's reactions over the published testimonies:

Obviously, everyone abroad who wants to accuse Israel of war crimes in Gaza will jump at these stories; every anti-Israel NGO will disseminate them as further proof of our evil.

What is lacking is context.

First of all, this type of testimony is legendary in Israel - there is even a phrase to describe it: yorim ve'bochim (shoot and weep). The most famous book of this genre, Siach Lochamim, came out immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, and was translated into English a few years latter under the title The Seventh Day.

The testimonials from the Rabin preparatory course have a similar feel: soldiers talking about their war experiences - what they saw, what they heard, what they felt good about, what they didn't feel good about.

It is important to note that none of the testimony was about what the soldiers did themselves, but rather of what they heard or saw other soldiers do. It is also important that what was reported seems to fall within the realm of aberrations by individuals during war against a cruel enemy hiding behind civilians, not a systematic loss by the army of its moral compass.

The second piece of context is Danny Zamir, the head of the program, who had the soldiers‚ words transcribed and published. A story in Haaretz on Thursday said that in 1990 Zamir, then a parachute company commander in the reserves, was tried and sentenced to prison for refusing to guard a ceremony where “right-wingers” brought Torah scrolls to Joseph's tomb in Nablus.

Zamir, in an interview on Israel Radio on Thursday, said that the soldiers from Operation Cast Lead who spoke at the meeting reflected an atmosphere inside the army of “contempt for, and forcefulness against, the Palestinians.”

In his blog post Tal Galili highlights some of the web-comments (talkbacks) that were submitted in Hebrew after the ynet article covering the IDF soldiers claims that they were given immoral orders:

- the media has spun out of control
- why is this published?
- lies!!!!!! It is appalling to read such lies. The person who said this should present himself and not hide behind a fabricated name
- when will you understand that its either us or them
- why does this need to be published in the papers???!!!
- and their target is only civilians?!
- our sons got back home. That is the most important
- these are homes which had specific intelligence and were filled with terrorists
- I've never seen a country that shoots itself in its feet like Israel
- Leave the IDF already and let us do our work!!
- IDF is the most moral army in the world
- because the story of one soldier we all believe?
- war. This was not a stroll in the park. It's war.
- where is the censorship and the media's discretion

There are numerous voices in the Hebrew blogosphere coming out against Zamir and his students' testimonials. One of them is highlighted in this blog post:

Not only are these “testimonials” untruthful, but also show that the left (Israeli political left wing) is seeking to bash the IDF's image and take any form of evidence to create an image it has been drawing all these years - a messianic, extreme and murderous army. Zamir expresses this in his essay.

Another perspective against Zamir criticizes his hidden political leftist agenda.

The Australian Jewish News blog posted a long reaction against Danny Zamir:

Whatever the merits of his political opinions, Zamir has a history of using the military as a stage for expressing them.

Ha’aretz, too, is guilty of obfuscation in this case. The newspaper depicted its “scoop” as the revelation of an IDF cover-up, but did not provide any evidence for it.

The entire story is told in language meant to convey large number of soldiers. But the semantics are hiding a simple fact -– the vast majority of the soldiers in the transcripts did not actually testify to anything immoral.

The more Israelis study the story, the more the culprit turns out to be lax reporting on the part of Ha’aretz. The banner headlines about Israeli military brutality turn out to be third-hand testimony filtered through Danny Zamir. Long before the Zamir testimonies broke, I heard from some good friends in the paratroopers a nearly opposite story.

They described walking among booby-trapped buildings, fighting an enemy that survived only by fleeing deep into the civilian areas into which they knew the IDF troops would not follow.

If there is truth to the yet-unproven -– indeed, un-investigated -– allegations that IDF troops committed crimes in Gaza, the soldiers responsible must be tried and severely punished.

But if the testimony, which is far milder than the media circus surrounding it, turns out to be untrue, who will pay the price? The lazy Ha’aretz editors who drag an entire nation’s name through the mud on the strength of a second-hand rumour? The international media that not only didn’t fact check against Ha’aretz, but most of the time did not even tell the Ha’aretz story properly?

Whichever scenario turns out to be the truth, the testimonies have shed light in some dark places.

While writing this post, I've been trying to make sense of the multitude of perspectives around this highly disputed story. As many bloggers suggest, the truth seems to lie somewhere in-between the formal Hamas and IDF claims. Once again, we witness the implications of having fast-paced, worldwide media coverage, that can easily spin stories out of their original context; precisely how a closed door session between school colleagues turns into a world-wide news sensation. I will end the post here, but please feel free to add links and opinions to the comments section of this important story.

Ya'akov Amidror from the JCPA blog lists some of the lessons learned from the IDF's recent operation in Gaza:

Yaeli posts a translated letter from a Yishai, an Israeli reserve soldier who served in the recent operation. Below are several excerpts from the long piece:

I know that the devastation, the bullet holes in your walls and the destruction of those homes near you place my descriptions in a ridiculous light. Still, I need you to understand me, us, and hope that you will channel your anger and criticism to the right places.

I decided to write you this letter specifically because I stayed in your home.

I can surmise that you are intelligent and educated and there are those in your household that are university students. Your children learn English, and you are connected to the Internet. You are not ignorant; you know what is going on around you.

Therefore, I am sure you know that Qassam rockets were launched from your neighborhood into Israeli towns and cities.

How could you see these weekly launches and not think that one day we would say “enough”?! Did you ever consider that it is perhaps wrong to launch rockets at innocent civilians trying to lead a normal life, much like you? How long did you think we would sit back without reacting?

I can hear you saying “it’s not me, it’s Hamas”. My intuition tells me you are not their most avid supporter. If you look closely at the sad reality in which your people live, and you do not try to deceive yourself or make excuses about “occupation”, you must certainly reach the conclusion that the Hamas is your real enemy.

The reality is so simple, even a seven year old can understand: Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip, removing military bases and its citizens from Gush Katif. Nonetheless, we continued to provide you with electricity, water, and goods (and this I know very well as during my reserve duty I guarded the border crossings more than once, and witnessed hundreds of trucks full of goods entering a blockade-free Gaza every day).

Despite all this, for reasons that cannot be understood and with a lack of any rational logic, Hamas launched missiles on Israeli towns. For three years we clenched our teeth and restrained ourselves. In the end, we could not take it anymore and entered the Gaza strip, into your neighborhood, in order to remove those who want to kill us. A reality that is painful but very easy to explain.

More can be found on the Good Neighbor's blog.

Thomas Crampton is vlogging from Davos, where he attended a breakfast with Israeli president Shimon Peres who lashed out at a Spanish court probing Israel officials for alleged “crimes against humanity” relating to a 2002 Israeli attack in Gaza:

Peres: “How can a judge from Spain judge the situation of Israel? … They were not living under seven wars and two intefadas and daily terror. What is the experience of this judge about israel? What qualifies him?”.

Ranan Raz, who lives in the south of Israel, describes his frustration with the Israeli government in dealing with the ongoing missile problem, and the upcoming elections:

According to Awan’s report, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar [half Egyptian] is wounded in the last days of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip and secretly transferred to Egypt by ambulances.

Effi Fuks writes:

מחמוד א-זאהר נחשב ל”חסן נסראללה” של חמאס עזה. בפועל, א-זאהר הוא האדם הבכיר ביותר הנהגת חמאס ברצועת עזה (אף יותר מראש הממשלה, איסמעיל הנייה) והוא אוחז בתיק החוץ של ממשלת חמאס. מחמוד נחשב לדובר המיומן והמתוקשר ביותר של חמאס ברצועה ובימיה הראשונים של המערכה ברצועת עזה אף הספיק להתראיין ולשוחח בטלפון. אולם, יום אחד, אבדו עקבותיו של מחמוד כששמועות רבות מאפילות על גורלו, חלק מהשמועות מדברות על מותו, חלק על אשפוזו במדינה רחוקה וחלק אף מרחיקות לכת עוד יותר. ילדים יקרים, האם תוכלו לסייע לקורא המבולבל למצוא את מחמוד?

(thanks for the link Nasser!)

Yaron reacts by posting the following image, displaying an IDF soldier protecting a baby carriage, while a Hamas fighter uses the baby as a shield:

Alan Abbey from the Shalom Hartman Institute, writes:

The debate over Israel’s actions in Gaza is heating up worldwide. As I write this, the media, from the New York Times to Al-Jazeera are discussing whether the war is moral, defensive, and “proportional.” This article, ”Israelis United on War as Censure Rises Abroad” from the Times’ Ethan Bronner, “gets” the conflict from the Israeli perspective and pointedly quotes the Hartman Institute’s Most Senior Fellow, Moshe Halbertal, one of the authors of the IDF’s Code of Ethics:

Mr. Halbertal takes quite seriously the threat that Hamas poses to Israel’s existence, and that issue affects him in his judgments of the war.

“Rockets from Hamas could eventually reach all of Israel,” he said. “This is not a fantasy. It is a real problem. So there is a gap between actual images on the screen and the geopolitical situation.

“You have Al Jazeera standing at Shifa Hospital and the wounded are coming in,” he continued, referring to an Arab news outlet. “So you have this great Goliath crushing these poor people, and they are perceived as victims. But from the Israeli perspective, Hamas and Hezbollah are really the spearhead of a whole larger threat that is invisible. Israelis feel like the tiny David faced with an immense Muslim Goliath. The question is: who is the David here?”

Alan finishes by linking to an additional essay from the Hartman Institute on this topic.

Uri Heitner writes about the moral dilemma that arises with this war. He asks if operation “Cast Lead” is a “just” war and if there was an alternative:

The operation is against an enemy who does not have an ethical code when fighting. An enemy that targets civilians and children. An enemy whose actions over the past years focused on massive suicide bombings in Israel, and 8 years of firing missiles directly at civilian Israeli population. It is a country's highest moral duty to defend the lives of its citizens. Therefore, a war against an enemy targeting its' citizens, is clearly justified. And if the cost of targeting this enemy also harms civilians, with deep sorrow and pain, this price is justified.

Even when a war is justified, it is necessary to ask if there is an alternative. In this case, we have tried everything. Beforehand, the fire was presented in Sderot because we were settled in Gaza. They were shooting at Sderot to kick us out of Gush Katif. As we pulled all our settlements and forces out of Gaza, their fire continued and grew stronger. Israel responded by using a policy of restraint, later with fire towards open fields, closing the border crossings, etc. Israel agreed to a “hudna” agreement which was breached after 46 minutes, and continued to respect it unilaterally. Israel agreed to a “tahdiya” agreement which was also respected unilaterally. Israel begged for a continuation of the ceasefire, even though it was not really quiet. But the Palestinians decided to stop and shoot tens of rockets on civilian populations in Israel.
No. There was no alternative.

When an enemy who targets our civilians, fires at us while hidden within civilian population, there is full justification for the war. And the price is painful - Palestinian civilians and children die, and our enemy is fully responsible for the blame.

So are there no rules when fighting terror? In my opinion, the moral rule should entail making best efforts to prevent civilian casualty, while carrying out the plan. Does the IDF act within this principle?

I have no doubt the IDF is a moral army, strict as much as it can with ethical fighting, even in the unique conditions of this war. With that, IDF must continue to always investigate its actions, check if it hurt civilians when it was possible to avoid, and learn how in such different war conditions, it can minimize harm within civilians.

Nate of Patterns R' Us ponders over IDF tactic of calling suspected targets to warn them of a pending attack so they can seek refuge, while the building and military equipment is destroyed:

I am positive this adaptation in tactics is a response to the IDF lessons learned from the Lebanon War in 2006. They may have won the military engagement battle, but they lost the information battle, and hence the war. (You can argue they did not lose, but merely came to a draw. If that is the case, a draw against non-state actors from the US-funded Israeli state is a win for Hezbollah.) This time, against Hamas, Israel and the IDF are going to extra lengths to win the information war. First, they let Hamas break the cease-fire first and waited days to respond to the missiles fired. Second, they immediately released videos of Hamas militants being attacked by IDF on the internet, specifically Youtube. Thirdly, they are calling civilians to warn them of attack so as to reduce civilian casualties and cannon fodder for Hamas to use against them in the Information War.

Clearly, the new IDF tactic also serves as a psychological operation purpose beyond just reducing civilian casualties. That is the ideal PSYOP tactic; one which makes the military attack more effective, reduces civilian casualties, and serves as a deterrent for other civilians. I am sure the US military is watching and learning, and will incorporate elements of this tactic in their operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

…Overall I think this IDF military tactic is a good development for both fighting irregular wars and for conducting information operations as well as the moral element of reducing civilian casualties. But just like the introduction of PGMs (Precision Guided Munitions) two decades ago, I wonder what the unintended consequences of such tactics will be in the long run.

Meryl Yourish writes about Mark Regev's response to a biased CNN anchor during an interview on IDF war tactics: (video of the interview is embedded below)

Watch this video, and see how many times the CNN anchor takes as truth the Palestinian claims that the IDF deliberately targeted the UN building that was hit earlier today.

For instance, the anchor says that Israel was using white phosphorous shells. Mark Regev denies this, points out that the ICRC has documented that Israel is not using white phosphorous illegally, and that Hamas fired a white phosphorous shell at Israel. The anchor then says, “But only Israel is firing white phosphorous shells” immediately after Regev just told him Hamas is firing them.

Israel claims to have destroyed roughly 60 percent of the hundreds of tunnels between Gaza and Egypt, and significantly weaken Hamas. “Our fight is not with the people of Gaza,” Olmert said at the Tel Aviv press conference following the cabinet meeting. “We left Gaza in 2005 with the intention of never returning,” he said, referring to Israel's unilateral withdrawal of troops and settlers from the territory under former prime minister Ariel Sharon. For the full video watch Tytandra007's translated clip below:

“if Hamas entirely ends its rocket fire on Israel, Israel will consider an IDF withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. If that did not occur, the IDF will continue to operate in order to protect our citizens.”

“Hamas leaders are in hiding, many of its members have been killed, its rocket factories have been destroyed, its smuggling routes through the tunnels have been blown up, its ability to move weapons in the Gaza Strip has been reduced and the launching sites where most of the rockets are fired are under Israeli military control.”

With Israeli officials declaring that the main objectives in the war have been achieved, some Israeli bloggers, like the following one highlight the importance of placing kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit's release as a prerequisite to any ceasefire agreement with Hamas:

Only with a ceasefire (or peace agreement in the utopian situation) will thie fighting end. This is the reality. We cannot erase a terrorist organization with a single thrust. It is not possible to totally change without a gradual process. We must not expect more. If so, what achievement can Israel get from this war in Gaza?

Destroying Hamas infrastructure is an achievement? I am not so sure. Wiping out Hamas and other terrorist organizations? Everyone who knows some history of terrorist organizations knows that it is not possible. Prevention of smuggling through the Philadelfi axis (Egypt)? That can be considered an achievement but can easily be bypassed (qassam rockets can be created easily at home).

The release of Gilad Shalit is the only achievement that Israel can reach with the end of the fighting in Gaza. Gilad Shalit who has been held hostage by Hamas, is the only one who can be grasped in Israel and throughout the world as a powerful achievement from the war. Israel must place his release as a prerequisite to a ceasefire with Hamas.

A common, pessimistic perspective in regards to the ceasefire can be viewed through Rafi Glick's argument- that the ceasefire agreement will not remove Hamas missile threat in the south of Israel:

The ceasefire might bring a temporary quiet period, but will not remove the missile threat. Sharon and Olmert's governments brought upon us this Hamas support in Gaza, as they threaten the center of our country with long-range missiles. It began with a unilateral withdraw lacking an agreement, continued when Hamas was accepted as a legitimate party in the elections, and further continued with our policy of restraint when qassam missiles were fired and the constant arming of Hamas with long range missiles.

Hamas and Hizbollah missiles already meet over the heads of the Gush Dan residents. In a war over their ability to pose danger, the Iranians and their allies, Hamas and Hizbollah, have already won. These home-made bombs manufactured by Hamas, paralyze a million civilians. One quarter of a million kids, and twenty thousand students. Some forty percent of the workforce in the south is paralyzed.

The ceasefire even with the Israeli conditions, will maintain the missile threat over the center of the country, just like the ceasefire and agreements that ended the second Lebanon war did not free Israel from the threat of Hizbollah missiles, and even brough Hizbollah to participate in the Lebanese government.

The collapse of Hamas rule in Gaza is the only solution to the missile threat, although I am doubtful that Olmert's gov't (Livni and Barak) are willing to pay the price of taking this to the end. Obviously there are international entities which will force us to end the fighting before we accomplish the goal.

Don't believe anyone who tells you that this war is meant to remove the missile threat. The one who ignored the cancerous tumor in the form of Hamas, will not be able to remove the missile threat. The ceasefire might bring quiet, but the threat will remain.

Carl wonders if Israel may have adopted a unilateral ceasefire because of Mubarak's Saturday speech:

“I ask Israel today to end its military operations immediately,” Mubarak said in an address on state television of the 22-day-old war which has killed more than 1,200 Palestinians and left much of Gaza in ruins.
“I call on its leadership for an immediate unconditional ceasefire and a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Strip,” he said, as the Israeli security cabinet prepared to consider halting its offensive.
Mubarak called in his speech on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to “heed reason and conscience” to end the bloodshed in Gaza.
Mubarak insisted that Egypt was securing its border with the Gaza Strip, and Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said his country would not be bound by a just-inked US-Israeli deal to stop arms smuggling to Gaza.

However, with the so called ceasefire in place, and as today unfolds, an exchange of fire has already been reported to take place between IDF and Hamas in Gaza. And as I finish writing this post, six qassam missiles are reported to have hit Sderot. What are your opinions on this unilateral ceasefire? Can it work and if so, how long will it last? We'll be doing our best to follow these events closely here on Global Voices.

In the first post, Raviv Druker reacts to the online petition posted against TV news anchor Yonit Levi in reaction to her stating an opinion while presenting the news:

The petition against Yonit Levi is ugly and disgusting. Every round of fighting displays an odd sense of “patriotism”. In the second Intefada, Ariel Sharon refused to continue because he allowed to broadcast an interview with Yasser Arafat on the national channel 1. The interview, BTW, brought immense damange to Arafat's image, who sounded like a dazed old man. From this round, we will probably remember this petition. Its members write, with hypocrisy, that this is not an issue of left and right. That she cannot state her opinions (of course she can only if they match the petition creator's opinions) and that she conveyed compassion towards the Palestinians. God forbid. Where is her heart? How can she think about another nation when we are suffering so badly? Even if hundreds of civilians were killed there.

In such a period, people expect you to take the IDF reports as trustworthy, or at least better than the Palestinian version. We've all been through many events where we believed, and believed, until it became clear that we were misled. Sometimes with carelessness. One time, the qassam that was taken on an ambulance, turned out to be a strecher. Another, the homes that IDF promised not to destroy in Rafah, were destroyed. A third time, a journalist was killed, not in the circumstances that IDF insisted upon. There were some more incidents, that etched a notion of skepticism in my consciousness towards the IDF spokesman. Also this operation is not lacking doubts. The truck that was bombed, believed to have been carrying Grad missiles, actually carried oxygen tanks. A school was bombed because missiled were shot from it, and those who shot the missiled, according to IDF spokesman, were killed from the bombs and hidden by the Palestinians. I really wanted to belive this, because the civilians who died there weighed heavily on my conscience. Yesterday there was a small notification (I think in Haaretz) that the IDF investigation found out that those who shot the missiles were in a street adjacent to the school. The IDF's bombing in reaction to the shooting took into consideration a possibility of deviation from the target. I think that there was someonewho did not want to shoot, but finally decided to, and hit the school. IDF claims 7 were killed there. The Palestinians claim 40. I wish I could believe IDF.

Yoav Karni highlights how in his eyes, Israeli politicians are doing a terrible job at justifying their actions to the rest of the world:

Roughness, defensiveness and lack of sensitivity has always portrayed Israeli public speakers. One can understand why. They encounter walls of incomprehension and hatred. It is so clear to them that their listeners don't get it. Tzipi Livni complained this week in an interview with an un-sympathizing BBC reporter about “the difference between the impression of what we really are and how we are presented”.

She was wrong. People do not like to listen to self-pity from a country that drops one hundred tons of bombs one morning on a densely populated city. People tend to doubt being righteous. Ms. Livni should not continue to brag about our “values”. We all know what she means, but self-enthusiasm over the IDF's values is not accepted these days.

Not when five young Palestinian sisters lay dead on front pages. Not when young, anxious parents carry infants from the smoking rubble (BTW - this was probably the most popular photo in the world during the first 48 hours of operation “cast lead”).

Not when journalists continue to emphasize the “disproportion”. The British Guardian, one of Israel's greatest journalistic enemy in the Western world counted this week the Palestinian losses, dead and wounded, and stated: “this is a reaction to hundreds of rockets fired by Hamas militants, who killed one Israeli in the past six months.” But the equations is always this way.

Always this way.

Which, obviously, raises the question - how many Israelis need to die until the Guardian's journalists will recognize Israel's right to protect its' citizens?

Eyal Gross describes how one can still be patriotic and oppose the war:

To oppose the war doesn't mean not recognizing the fact that firing qassam missiles towards Israeli citizens is a terrible, atrocious and despicable act.

To oppose the war doesn't mean one does not recognize Hamas' grave responsibility towards the current state of suffering brought upon us and the Palestinian people.

To oppose the war doesn't mean one must ignore the suffering of Sderot residents along with the rest of the south, who have tolerated qassam rockets. I am saying the opposite.

Opposing the war comes from a belief that fighting and violence will not solve the qassam problem, nor will it fix our ties with Hamas. Just like the missiles during the second Lebanon war and the Iraqi scud missiles in 1991 could only be stopped through a cease-fire agreement.

Opposing the war comes from realizing that since in the end, there will be a cease-fire agreement anyways, we will return to the initial point, only with more death, hurting and hate on both sides.

Opposing the war comes from thinking we need to try other ways.

Opposing the war means opening our eyes and realizing how many innocent Palestinian civilians we are killing. Look at the human rights document describing the killin of students in the UN facility and describes the killing of children. I believe that this killing is morally wrong, and will create so much hate, that will only raise the violence towards Israel.

I think there is an easy explanation. When a qassam is fired towards Sderot, everyone in Israel agrees that this act is evil, sad and atrocious. This is also the case when an innocent Israeli civilian is hurt. However, there is a wide concensus in Israel that attacking Gaza is alright, and when we kill innocent Palestinians, if at all that is reported, it is usually portrayed as legitimate. Usually there is no need to write the obvious, meaning = “I am also against qassam missiles” - of course I am against them like every single Israeli I know. We need to voice the not so obvious opinions along those that are not mentioned.

And finally Mishka reacts to the harsh number of dead reported from Gaza:

The ratio between civilians and armed Hamas militia is harsh, even according to the IDF's statements. Yes, I know very well that Hamas is cynically and deliberately using children and civilians as human shields. And yes, I know that during a war, civilians are hurt. But when the fire stops, and the black smoke clears from above the Gaza strip, we will remain with our conscious; with pictures of destruction and death.

I apologize to you readers for not posting Israeli perspectives over the past two weeks. I have been absent and recently returned. As I sift through the Hebrew blogosphere please feel free to send me links to posts you believe should be highlighted.

Yuval Dror describes his mixed feelings towards the operation:

No, after this operation no peace will arrive. No, the operation will not stop the missiles from falling in Israel. No, there are no fair proportions here - not in the number of dead, and not in the breadth of the destruction. We are much stronger. I have no doubt that if ground forces will enter Gaza we will all receive a horrible replay from the second Lebanon war. Actually, the replay has already begun: surprise attack, incredible success, here we won, but actually - no. I am far from celebrating. When hundreds of people are killed, some, I am sure, innocent civilians who want to live their lives just like me and you, there is nothing to celebrate.

On the other hand, I have no sympathy towards those who rally against the operation in Tel-Aviv. Not because I think this operation will solve all the problems, not because I think it is the best solution, not because I trust our leaders (I do not), but because those who sit in Tel-Aviv for eight years while Sderot receives daily rocket fire, and finds the time and energy to rally while Gaza gets attacked is in my eyes a hypocrite.

I was supportive of Israel´s disengagement from Gaza, because in my opinion, Jewish settlements there were not ethical. From the moment we got out of there, I have much less patience towards the missiles fired from there. I support a dialogue, negotiation, land in exchange for peace - but I will not be persuaded to think that a child´s life in Netivot is worth less than that of a child in Gaza. I will not be persuaded that we should sit and do nothing while missiles land within Israeli territory.

Blogger civax who has been actively commenting on GVO explains:

Hamas did won the elections in Gaza (mainly as protest vote against corrupt Fatah) and refused to denounce violence, recognize previous agreements and recognize Israel (conditions set by international community for recognizing its government). This cause the siege to begin by Israel, US and the EU, which refused to transfer aid and money to a well known terror organization.

Shortly afterward a civil war began in Gaza where Hamas slaughtered anyone related to Fatah, which only made most of the world realize how brutal and terroristic the new regime is.

The last 6 months ‘truce’ had ended last week. During the truce still thousands of rockets were fired, bringing the total number of rockets in the past year to over 3000! Since I’m from Ashkelon I’ve experienced this myself.

The ‘truce’ ended Wedensday and we had 80+ rockets per day!! - I remind you, this is before the operation. in a few days we had over 300 rockets falling on us and Israel did NOTHING but to warn Hamas. (and suffered a lot of criticism from us, israeli citizens, which felt we were abandoned unprotected by our own government)

The JCPA posted a comprehensive article highlighting the notion that Israel keeps being charged for its use of ¨disproportionate force¨ whenever it has to defend its citizens from non'state terrorist organizations and the rocket attacks they perpertrate;

From a purely legal perspective, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are on solid ground. According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it (Israel is not expected to make Kassam rockets and lob them back into Gaza).

When international legal experts use the term “disproportionate use of force,” they have a very precise meaning in mind. As the President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Rosalyn Higgins, has noted, proportionality “cannot be in relation to any specific prior injury - it has to be in relation to the overall legitimate objective of ending the aggression.”8 In other words, if a state, like Israel, is facing aggression, then proportionality addresses whether force was specifically used by Israel to bring an end to the armed attack against it. By implication, force becomes excessive if it is employed for another purpose, like causing unnecessary harm to civilians. The pivotal factor determining whether force is excessive is the intent of the military commander. In particular, one has to assess what was the commander's intent regarding collateral civilian damage.

What about reports concerning civilian casualties? Some international news agencies have stressed that the vast majority of those killed in the first phase of the current Gaza operation were Hamas operatives. Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel wrote for the Associated Press on December 28 that most of the 230 Palestinians who were reportedly killed were “security forces,” and Palestinian officials said “at least 15 civilians were among the dead.”10 It is far too early to definitely assess Palestinian casualties, but even if they increase, the numbers reported indicate that there was no clear intent to inflict disproportionate collateral civilian casualties.

For lack of time, I have translated only part of Jonathan Klinger´s insightful post expaining why he opposes the Israeli attack. Hoping to be able to translate it fully in the near future:

Like I said yesterday, Israel should have declared war. Such a declaration would have placed Israel in a clearer state, allowing the country to act quickly for the benefit of the southern cities. Because Israel did not declare war, the Knesset cannot stop this war even though there is a majority against it. This dictator-style military action without any legal agreement will cost Ehud Barack and Ehud Olmert dearly.
…
This war will not prevent qassam rockets from falling, but in the best case scenario will be a showcase of Hamas artillery capabilities. Hamas can currently hit Ashdod with missiles, and we will probably find several more surprises… Every time this happens, the IDF attacks lead to a deterioration of the situation and never to an improvement.
…
Israel targeting of Hamas´ Television broadcaster yesterday is a direct attack of freedom of speech and on the Gaza strip´s ability to report the damage there. When Israel doesn´t allow foreign journalists into Gaza, it is a grave attack on Hamas´ sovereignty over Gaza. Now the civilians in Gaza cannot receive reports covering the situation in their land.
…
There is no good war, I have no better way to say this and I think I gave many explanations.
I do not think we need to sit and do nothing, but I think that the best way to deal with the qassam rockets is a combination of a specific land-operation along with diplomatic negotiations.

In his recent post, 23 year old Shai explains why he changed his point of view from initially against the attack to supporting it:

I wish there was a way we can bomb terrorist targets without hurting civilians, but there isn’t. If we sent troops there, we’d be responsible for their death, and we shouldn’t be. Hamas won’t talk, and if it won’t talk, sending troops to “arrest the ringleaders” is merely throwing young soldiers’ lives away in the guise of being more civilized. But this isn’t about being civilized, this is about dealing with the irreconcilable violence of monstrous armed thugs, and they are the ones who force us into making ourselves monsters. That is their greatest achievement. We are turned into murderers, and we can’t help it.

The Hamas forces us to murder. They are murdering scum, but by caring nothing for their civilian population, they turn us into murderers too.

The surest way of not having collateral damage is not attacking at all, and I would like to emphasize very well that I do not consider myself merciful to members of a terrorist organization who refuses to negotiate and chooses violence instead. Arresting them is the right thing to do, but it is, I realize, impossible. It’s impossible to be nice to these people, it’s impossible to negotiate with them. Fatah has been somewhat amenable to diplomacy, but Hamas isn’t. Hamas wants us all dead. Period. They won’t stop until every Jewish Israeli is dead, and they don’t mind killing their own kind for this purpose. They aim to liberate Palestine from Jews.

…

I support our troops, I support this war when it’s against the criminal organization that is Hamas. I am against this war only because people who are utterly innocent die because of it, but Hamas leaves us no choice. I am against this war, but I am for it. I am for it because if we weren’t for it, we would be butchered, as well.

If only the people of Gaza realized how damaging their so-called representatives are.

What can you do?
Xeni Jardin of boingboing links to a post highlighting the Israeli consulate´s upcoming Twitter press conference on Gaza on December 30th, from 1-3PM EST. You can submit questions by directing them to the consulate´s Twitter account : http://twitter.com/IsraelConsulate

The Chabad website is currently blocked due to their implementation of the Saturday Guard software which prohibits users from accessing the site during Sabbath. However, a constant stream of updates is located on a sister site. The most current update states that the five Jewish hostages held inside the building were found dead:

update 06:22 - a commando unit penetrated adjacent to the Chabad home. One terrorist killed.
update 07:01 - Chabad home still under seige.
update 07:17 - CNN reports that a mother and child were released from the Chabad home as they were weeping. It is unclear if this is the Rabbi Holtzberg's family.
update 07:43 - security forces report that at least five terrorists are inside the Chabad home.
update 08:05 - Chabad spokesperson, rabbi Menahem Brod: the emissary and her son escaped from Habad home
update 08:19 - The woman who escaped from Chabad home is a nanny who escaped with the son of the emissaries. They are still captured.
update 08:24 - Chabad Hassids are asked to pray for the wellbeing of the emissaries at the wailing wall in Jerusalem
update 08:34 - witnesses claim that the kidnappers released the emissary's son and his nanny. They are still held inside the building.
update 08:36 - Israeli radio: the nanny who was released from Chabad home reports that the emissary and his wife were unconscious.
update 08:55 - Israeli radio: the emissary's son who was released, was taken to the police station with the nanny. His parent's status is still unclear.
update 09:03 - the emissary's mother on ynet: “I heard they are alive”
update 09:23 - Indian security forces: it is possible that the terrorists ammunition has been exhausted.
update 11:23 - a series of explosions are heard minutes ago from Chabad home. It is estimated that the security forces are breaking into the building.
update 12:03 - a massive prayer session is being organized in the Wailing Wall at 15:00 in the afternoon, for the wellbeing of the hostages.
update 13:51 - the educational Chabad youth center calls for immediate prayers across Israel.
update 14:31 - kidnappers ask to open negotiations over the release of the hostages in Chabad home.
update 17:31 - Israeli foreign ministry: there is great concern for the lives of those held in Chabad home.
update 19:44 - press sources unofficially report that some of the hostages from the Chabad home were released.
update 20:11 - Israeli foreign minister: “there is no basis to the claims that Israelis were release from Chabad home. We have little information which is troubling”
update 21:41 - the nanny who escaped with the emissary's son in a special interview: “he is constantly asking for his mom and dad”
update 23:00 - CNN-IBN: large explosion heard from Chabad home in Mumbai.
update 23:51 - the Israeli foreign ministry states that despite the multiple reports, no hostages were released from the Chabad home in Mumbai. The office is checking with the Mumbai police forces the report on a large explosion heard from the building. Earlier reports claimed that eight people were seen walking out of Chabad home, however a diplomatic source stated they left from an adjacent building.
update 01:35 - rabbi Nachman Holzberg and his wife left their home in Crown Heights enroute to Israel. The family: we keep receiving contradicting information.
update 02:44 - CNN: third explosion heard tonight from Chabad home when a hand grenade was thrown from the building onto the Indian security forces surrounding the structure from the outside.
update 02:46 - an Israeli delegation is making its way to help with the recue of the hostages in the Chabad home.
update 03:47 - Indian security forces opened fire at Chabad home. It is unclear if they will break into the building.
update 03:50 - political correspondant: four dead in Chabad home; Livni: the situation looks grim.
update 04:20 - heavy gunfire in the Chabad home.
update 05:05 - a white flag is raised from a window on the fourth floor of the Chabad building.
update 06:46 - NDTV reporter located at the front of the Chabad home: the rescue operation is taking longer than expected because the rabbi and his wife are held alive.
update 07:12 - rabbi Grossman to Israeli TV channel 2: the emissary's parents arrived in Mumbai and took custody of their grandson who is celebrating his 2nd birthday today.
update 08:05 - police officer to Sky News: there are five or six live hostages inside Chabad home.
update 08:41 - heavy fighting in the Chabad home. Commando forces break into the building from the air.
update 08:52 - report from Mumbai: 3 explosions heard in the vicinity of the Chabad home
update 09:25 - high ranked officer estimates: the operation will end within several hours.
update 10:25 - Israeli security officer: commando forces are on their way to the floor where the emissaries are held.
update 10:51 - the British Sky network: explosions and gunfire heard in the vicinity of the Chabad home in Mumbai.
update 10:52 - CNN India reports that the fourth and fifth floors in the Chabad building were evacuated.
update 11:33 - commando force took control over most of the building floors. Echos of bomb explosions are constantly heard.
update 12:10 - Israeli radio: Indian media claims the Chabad emissaries are held alive, hence the commando forces are extremely careful.
update 14:01 - rabbi says to volunteers: you are allowed to work on this Sabbath, which begins in India within 15 minutes.
update 14:44 - great explosion in the Chabad home ruined part of the structure. Police: three terrorists are still inside.
update 14:55 - cheerful calls next to Chabad home. CNN: the commando forces overpowered the terrorists. The emissary and his wife's status is still unknown.
update
update 15:48 - five Jews found dead in Chabad home.

Earlier in June, the temporary cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas (mediated by the Egyptian government) included the following terms: 1) stopping of all Gaza-Israel violence and an ease in the blockade 2) easing of Israeli restrictions on cargo crossings 3) conducting talks about opening the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt and prisoner exchange to free IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.

Israel pledged to refrain from massive offensive operations but reserved the right to carry out attacks on specific targets should the need arise. Hamas, on the other hand, regarded the temporary cease-fire as a tahdiya and not a hudna. Jonathan Dahoah Halevi explains the difference:

The difference between the two Arabic terms is substantial. Hudna means “truce,” which is more concrete than tahdiya - “a period of calm” - which Hamas often uses to describe a simple cease-fire. In traditional Islamic thought, a hudna is negotiated between an Islamic entity and a non-Islamic entity, but it can be reversed the moment the Islamic side has gained sufficient strength to resume fighting. Nevertheless, a hudna implies recognition of the other party's actual existence, without acknowledging its legitimacy.

A tahdiya has less standing than a hudna. Khaled Mashaal, Hamas' leader, and his deputy in leadership, Musa Abu Marzouq, elaborated in recent months their interpretation of a tahdiya. In an interview with Al-Jazeera (April 26, 2008), Mashaal clarified that for Hamas, a tahdiya is “a tactic in conflict management and a phase in the framework of the resistance [meaning all forms of struggle].” He added that it “is not unusual for the resistance…to escalate sometimes and to retreat a bit sometimes as the tide does….The tahdiya creates a formulation that will force Israel…to remove the siege…and if it happens it will be a remarkable achievement….We are speaking of a tactical tahdiya….As long as there is occupation, there is no other way but resistance.”

The cease-fire has granted Hamas a golden opportunity to expand its military build-up for the next round of terror and violence. Blogger soccer dad expanded on this point:

But all that means is that Israel will tolerate a certain level of violations before it is forced to act. The cycle will repeat unless Israel takes decisive action against Hamas wiping out most of its terrorist capabilities, just as it did to Fatah during Operation Defensive Shield.

The point of the tahadiyeh from Hamas's standpoint is to allow itself to re-arm and prepare for its next campaign against Israel.

It's also reasonable to assume that Hamas has no intention of releasing Gilad Shalit anytime soon. Despite its political and military gains from the tahadiyeh, if Hamas is brazen enough to claim that Israel isn't keeping its side of the bargain while it flagrantly violates the truce (by rearming), it wants a lot more from Israel before it will release Shalit.

The lull agreement reached between Israel and Hamas was subject to an Egyptian pledge to do everything in its power to prevent arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip. In addition, Israel pledged to refrain from massive offensive operations but is reserving the right to carry out attacks on specific targets should the need arise.

The events which began on November 4th have brought the violence back to the region and effectively ended the cease-fire. Doc's Talk blog describes the events as they unfolded:

Following information about Hamas's preparations to abduct IDF soldiers through a tunnel, the IDF operated near the border. The operation prevented the planned attack and killed seven Hamas terrorist operatives. Hamas reacted with massive rocket and mortar shell fire, unprecedented since the lull arrangement went into effect. After the immediate barrages, sporadic rocket and mortar shell fire continued (carried out by the smaller terrorist organizations). Israel responded by closing the Gaza Strip crossings.

Another event occurred on November 12, when the IDF killed four Hamas terrorist operatives who tried to lay an IED near the border security fence. The Palestinian terrorist organizations, led by Hamas, again fired dozens of rockets and mortar shells at western Negev population centers, including the town of Sderot and city of Ashqelon. The fire, in various quantities, continued uninterrupted for four days.

…Following the lack of goods in the Gaza Strip and in response to appeals from the international community, on November 11 Israel began delivering a limited supply of diesel fuel for the Gaza Strip power plant. However, the deliveries quickly ended on November 12 because Hamas renewed its rocket fire.

…In reality, closing the power plant led to local disturbances in the supply of electricity in the Gaza City area. However, the power outage was not complete because the Gaza Strip power plant supplies only about 30% of its electricity. Hamas, as usual, initiated a propaganda campaign which exaggerated the extent of the suffering caused to local residents, completely ignoring the terrorist attacks and rocket and mortar fire which caused the crossings to be closed. The objective of the campaign has been to exert pressure on Israel through the international community, the Arab countries and Israeli public opinion. That is done to force Israel to open the Gaza Strip crossings, despite the ongoing attacks carried out by the Palestinian terrorist organizations.

While the official Israeli stance has been coming out with claims that Hamas is staging the blackouts (not the first time Israel raises this issue), the situation on the ground in Gaza is dire. Amira Hass presents a more personal description of life in Gaza:

Offices, medical practices, private residences: All are darkened by power outages that may occur at any time of day. Every phone call starts with the question of whether the person on the other end of the line has electricity. Whether they managed to bathe the kids before the hot water ran out. Whether the washing machine was working when the outage began.

Refrigerators are particularly prone to malfunction and breakdown because of the constant outages. Also, the cellular phone system weakens and sometimes crashes. Not everyone can afford buying a generator for their home or office and paying for the gas it runs on. They have to save money.

The shortage in cooking gas and diesel is starting to worry many. One mother in Gaza City had to send her child to Rafah, where the shortage is not yet felt, to buy cooking gas. Meanwhile, it is till relatively warm for November and people are putting off thinking about what will happen if Israel continues to block the transfer of cooking gas or diesel used for heating into the Gaza Strip when the winter arrives.

From browsing Israeli press and blogosphere, it is apparent that not many had truly believed the lull would even last as long as it did. In his post, Crushing the tahadiyeh Zvi Bar'el writes:

A tunnel here, a roadside bomb there, mortar bombs, Qassams, border closures, border openings, an Israeli military force enters, “rapid and effective operations,” four killed, another six killed. The chocks that have until now kept the lull in the Gaza Strip in place, keeping it from rolling downhill, are failing with increasing speed and noise. Every party is careful not to declare that the cease-fire is over, since whoever does so will immediately be denounced as responsible for crushing that fragile construction. But the truth is, it's already gone. Almost five “normal” months since the deal was struck through indirect negotiations mediated by Egypt, and it's already time to prepare for the next stage.
…
Since the cease-fire went into effect, Israel has had some pretty good reasons to renege on the agreement and to launch an assault on Gaza. Arms and explosives have made their way to the Strip virtually undetected, tunnels continued to be dug and bombs planted throughout the territory against an Israeli ground invasion. Last week's “ticking tunnel,” dug ostensibly to facilitate the abduction of Israeli soldiers, was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm's way.
It is impossible to claim that those who decided to blow up the tunnel were simply being thoughtless. The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of “controlled entry” into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy - not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground.

Most recently, Israel has been criticized by the UN high commissioner for Human Rights. Barak Ravid and Amos Harel elaborate on Israel's reaction to her comments:

Israel reacted angrily to comments made Tuesday by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, in which she called for an immediate end to its blockade of the Gaza Strip, which she said breached international and humanitarian law.

In a statement from her Geneva-based office, Pillay urged Israel to allow the flow of aid including food, medicines and fuel to resume, and to restore electricity and water services in the Hamas-controlled territory.

Pillay was also quoted as saying that 1.5 million Palestinian men, women and children have been forcibly deprived of their most basic human rights for months. She also called for Israel to end airstrikes and incursions in Gaza, and for Palestinian militants to stop firing rockets into Israel.

Israel imposed a blockade of Gaza after the Islamic group Hamas violently seized control of the territory in June 2006. It recently tightened the sanctions because of rocket fire at Israeli towns.

Pillay's demands provoked an angry response from Israel's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Aharon Leshno-Yaar, who accused her of being utterly shortsighted and repeating blatant misinformation.

“Overall responsibility for the situation in the Gaza Strip lies with Hamas, which invests all of its resources in arms and terrorism instead of providing for the civilians that it brutally controls,” Aharon Leshno-Yaar said, adding that Palestinian groups had fired more 170 rockets and mortars at Israel during the past 10 days.

Leshno-Yaar also rejected Pillay's claim that Israel has cut off essential supplies to Gaza.

“Electricity and water continue to flow from Israel to Gaza, and 33 trucks laden with supplies arrived in Gaza yesterday, with more waiting to enter as soon as Hamas ends its violent attacks,” he said.

Finally, on a personal note, from browsing blogs and news sites, even for myself it is increasingly difficult to maintain a solid opinion, as the situation on both sides of the border is ever more complex. One thing is very clear - both sides lack solid leadership, which seeds a sense of hopelessness. Even with the upcoming elections in both Palestine and Israel, there seems to be little hope for potential leaders to bring an end to the violence. What are your opinions? How can the elections affect this continuing situation if at all?

Orit Kamir writes

לפני שלוש עשרה שנים הביא עמו ה-4 בנובמבר את סוף תקוות הסכמי השלום בהנהגתו של יצחק רבין. משנים של תקוה וכמעט אופוריה - שקענו לביצת מדמנה של מי אפסיים, שחיתות ויאוש עמוק. והנה, בדיוק 13 שנה מאוחר יותר, באותו תאריך עצמו, יתכן שיפתח חלון חדש - יתכן שהעם האמריקאי יצביע בעד שינוי אמיתי, בעד דרך חדשה, בעד תקוה. תקוה שאולי תפיח גם במפרשנו הציניים, המותשים, איזו התלהבות מחודשת. גם הם שם היו שקועים עד צואר במי אפסיים של שחיתות ויאוש. אמנם 8 שנים ולא 13, אבל היאוש היה ניכר. והנה קם להם מי שמוכן להיות מנהיג בכוון חדש, ויתכן שהם יעזו להמר עליו, להאמין בו, ולרצות לאפשר לו לשנות. ואולי זה ישליך גם עלינו. ואולי זה יפיג במשהו את היאוש הסוגר ומשתק ומונע. אם לא נקווה, לא נאמין ולא נרצה מאוד - בודאי שתישאר זו אגדה…

Daniel Yanai writes:

הבחירות המסקרנות באמריקה יוכרעו בימים הקרובים. רבים מאזרחי ישראל מחזיקים בדעה אישית על המועמדים והיו שמחים לתרום לאחד מהם את קולם, כשהשאלה “מי טוב ליהודים” עומדת בבסיס ההכרעה. המועמדים עצמם מודעים לחשיבות הקול היהודי ובעיקר לכיס היהודי הרגיל לתרום לפוליטיקאים ומפזרים הצהרות רבות בדבר יחסם החם והאוהד לישראל.

בדיקת העבר תגלה בבירור כי ג`ון מק`קיין הוא אוהד ישראל לאורך שנים רבות ואילו אובאמה אינו בולט ככזה. עובדה זו גרמה לרבים להכריע כי ג`ון מק`קיין הוא המועמד הטוב לישראל. מק`קיין אף הצהיר כי יעביר את שגרירות ארצו מתל אביב לירושלים, למהלך זה משמעות מדינית חשובה.

לעומתו ברק אובאמה הצהיר ומצהיר על מחוייבות עמוקה לבטחון ישראל וסגנו ג`ו ביידן הידוע כתומך נלהב בישראל מבטיח את המשך היחסים החמים בין ישראל לארצות הברית. אך התחושה היא שברק אובאמה טרם הצליח לקעקע את תדמיתו המפחידה, ויחס היהודים הפרו ישראלים כלפיו חשדני.
…
ישראל צריכה אמריקה חזקה. מדינת ישראל איתנה כלכלית, בטחונית ומדינית בזכות אמריקה. ההישגים הכבירים שלנו והתמורות שחוללנו בארץ ישראל היו ניכרים בשטח רק בעוד שנים רבות בלבד לולא עמדה לנו אמריקה. ובכלל סביר להניח שלולא תמיכת הנשיא טרומן כלל לא הייתה קמה מדינת ישראל.

השיקול הישראלי בבחירות בארצות הברית חייב להיות השיקול האמריקאי, כלומר מי מהמועמדים יעשה אמריקה חזקה יותר, מי מהמועמדים יחזיר לאמריקה את זוהרה ואת הרתיעה העולמית מפניה. ככל שמעמדה וחוסנה של אמריקה יגבר, כן ייטב לנו.

אינני בטוח שג`ון מק`קיין הוא האיש שיביא לשינוי באמריקה, אינני יודע אם הוא יוכל לבצר את הכלכלה האמריקאית, אינני בטוח שהוא המועמד הטוב לישראל על אף היותו ידיד נאמן לנו.

moni writes

I don't know if Obama is suitable to be president, but in Israel we have all learned that even an experienced leader who served top military and political roles, can fail as prime minister. A good leader is measured upon his capability to make choices, his intellectual sincerety and ability to be a solid leader. The fact that someone was commander in chief or governer does not necessarily point to a good presidential fit.

I have no clue if Obama can be a good president, but the thing that bothers me is the campaign of de-legitimization against him, which in my opinion, hurts us. Suddently you hear more and more analyses from Israelis and Jews explaining why Obama is bad for Israel, and on the other hand, Obama is forced to refer to the issue in his speeches, promising that “he has no sister” and that he has no Islamic roots.

Above the racist scent that the opposing campaign has, there is substantial harm for Israel and the Jews. The need for Obama to justify his views creates antagonism and strengthens the accusations against wide involvement of the Jewish lobby in American politics.

American Jews account for a small percetange of the population in the US, but their political influence has been substantial throughout American history. Their representation in the house and senate is rising, even though demographically Jewish community is growing smaller…

Perhaps it is time to loosen up this connection between Israel and the US. It has strategic importance to the existance of Israel, but it also obstructs Israeli economic-political development.
I do not think that Israel needs to be involved in the US democratic processes, including Israeli politicians. American communities should decide whom to support, but the Jews need to be careful or their viewpoint will act as a boomerang against them.

Check out a highly viewed professional video clip of Israeli artists and politicians supporting and endorsing Barack Obama's plead for change!