Killing Hamid: Starting the Gaza War

On November 14, 2012, Israel launched a bombardment in the Gaza Strip that lasted 8 days.  Israeli officials said they were defending themselves against rocket fire from militants.  As I sat in Gaza listening to the bombs falling all around, I heard President Obama on the radio tell the world that Israel had a right to defend herself.

Few people heard about the events that precipitated the rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.  One of those events was the killing of a 13-year-old Palestinian boy playing soccer on November 8, 2012.

Hamid Abu Dagga

Hamid Abu Dagga

Who is defending? Who is the aggressor?  President Obama and the Western media should not be so quick to judge.



Filed under Football - Soccer, Gaza, Israel Defense Forces, Video

22 responses to “Killing Hamid: Starting the Gaza War

  1. Any of the ideas I’ve mentioned would receive the immediate support of the vast majority of Israelis, provided it would leave the Jewish holy sites under Israeli control and ensure Israel won’t be flooded by millions of Arab immigrants. These ideas have also been suggested in the past and found zero support from the Arab side.

    • You know I disagree with you. The OCCUPATION is the key to this conflict …. as much as Israel wants to avoid it.

      • And this has to do with my comment because?

      • If its the key, why was there a conflict when there was no occupation (except the Egyptian and Jordanian occupation, of course)?

      • In one word … Nakba. Have you heard of the Nakba?

      • Well, which one is it going to be? Occupation or Nakba? First the occupation is the key, then its something else, in short, always a reason to demand more from Israel. Why was there a conflict before 1948 then?

      • Michael,

        Poor Israel … so many demands.

        I think its time you found a blog more to your liking and persuasion. I’m always happy to engage in respectful discourse with people who have a different opinion from mine, but I’ve lost patience with your derisive and disrespectful replies. I think you’re intelligent and so I encourage you (if your questions are sincere) to read some of the history of the British Mandate, the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist Project and the Nakba. Then you’ll have a better appreciation for the genesis of the conflict. Masalama

      • And you really think I haven’t read up on the issue? And not just material I agree with beforehand?

        I understand your wish I’d disappear, its much easier preaching to the converted than discussing with someone who is actually asking some serious questions.

        I assure you my questions are sincere – I wish you’d answer some of them sincerely, instead of calling “wolf” (“occupation”) in response to everything I have to say.

        I like reading your blog, it serves me as a check to my view of the world – I really think about what you’re saying and why would you say that. I wish you’d give a thought to what I am saying.

      • Michael,

        I have given a great deal of thought to what you’re saying. That’s why I’ve spent as much time as I have to responding.

        But when you dismiss my comments with sarcastic remarks, I don’t see any reason for continuing.

        The Occupation is a topic that is very sensitive understandably. If you’ve read about the founding of Israel (1947-1948) by the New Historians such as Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, you’ll understand why I believe the Nakba and the Occupation are the basis for the conflict.

  2. “said they were defending themselves against rocket fire from militants”. In fact, Hamas terrorists were sending candy on baloons to Israel, to show their peaceful nature. Blinded by their hate, the Israelis see the peaceful candy on baloons as indiscriminate launches of missiles on civilians. The deaths and injuries they suffer are a placebo effect.

    • Michael, if you don’t want to have a serious conversation, please don’t engage. Your cynicism isn’t helpful.

      My point about the rocket fire from Gaza ….. is that Hamas was shooting rockets towards Israel in response to the aggression from Israel (killing an unarmed 13 year old boy playing football). There were a few other acts of aggression from Israel leading up to Hamas’ firing of rockets. So Israel can claim “defense” just as Hamas can claim “defense” …. and where does that leave us?

      • Hamas has a stated goal to destroy the State of Israel. So who’s the agressor?

      • Have you read the Likud Charter? Likud has a stated goal of destroying Palestine.

      • I have, and couldn’t find it, you’ll have to be more specific.

      • The Likud Charter is short and sweet. I’ve written about it on my blog. There will be no future State of Palestine according to that charter.

      • Now I am confused. How can Likud demand the destruction of the Palestinian state when there will be no Palestinian state? Sounds like a paradox.

      • Interpret it as you wish … but there are only 2 futures envisioned in the Likud Charter as far as I (and others) can discern.

        1) a single state from the river to the sea. OR

        2) extermination or forced expulsion of the indigenous population of Palestinians.

        If #1 is a democratic secular state — then Likud is not advocating the extermination of the Palestinians.

        But if #1 is a Jewish state, as I think Likud wants, then it’s charter is calling for #2.

      • 3) far-reaching autonomy for the Arab population of Judea and Samaria, but not a fully independent state, much like now
        4) joint Jordanian-Israeli rule of Judea and Samaria
        5 and further) – a multitude of other forms of government, all possible and existing in other parts of the world

        See how a bit of creative thinking goes a long way?

      • Sounds like you envision some creative ideas. Have you shared them with anyone but me? I encourage you to get involved in the discussion among Israelis. You mentioned you live in Israel?

      • Most of these proposals have been discussed at one stage or another. Unfortunately, the Arab leadership rejects anything that does not include the annihilation of Israel (see the Khartoum Declaration of the Three No’s).

      • I think Netanyahu might be receptive to your #3 …. basically the status quo.

        That’s great from the perspective of the occupier, not so great from the perspective of the occupied.

        But #3 most closely matches Netanyahu’s position I believe.

      • And that’s the essence – do the Arabs want self-rule or the annihilation of Israel? They have been proposed a state that would basically include everything except the Western Wall and rejected it. They even had a chance to create a Palestinian state with ALL of Jerusalem (the essence of Jerusalem is the Old City, not anything else), and didn’t create it. So its not the “occupation” (Jews occupying Judea – sounds about right?), but the existence of a Jewish state that’s the problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s