No soy en absoluto un entendido en estos asuntos; precisamente por ello es que he procurado informarme para hacerme una mejor opinión. Comparto con ustedes algunas lecturas, que espero también les resulten útiles.
¿Cómo leer los últimos acontecimientos? Es natural que una primera reacción sea la del horror frente a las muertes, y un pedido de alto al fuego. "Tiene que haber otro camino".
Pero ¿cuál? Responder esta pregunta implica responder una previa: ¿cómo llegamos a esto?
"There are a number of original sins that led to this moment. One was the fact that the Sharon government insisted on carrying out a unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005, instead of negotiating and handing over the keys to Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. This enabled Hamas to claim that its policy of "resistance" forced Israel to leave the Strip, while Abbas's policy of negotiations had not produced results. The second was the fact that the Israeli government gave in to the Bush administration's insistence that Palestinian elections be held in January 2006, despite Israeli and Palestinian Authority reservations about the timing and possible outcome. The result was the Hamas victory. The third original sin is that after the elections, Israel and the international community did not try to engage the democratically elected Hamas government, even if there was no guarantee of success. And the final sin was the fact that Hamas carried out a coup against the PA in Gaza and played a game of chicken with Israel with the Qassam missiles".
The View From Tel Aviv By Hillel Schenker January 2, 2009 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/schenker?rel=hp_picks
Otra parte de la explicación tenemos que encontrarla en el fracaso de las salidas negociadas propuestas por la comunidad internacional. Culpar a Israel es fácil, pero, ¿cuál es la alternativa?
"Israel's failure in Lebanon was maddeningly visible, but the failure of the international community to provide better solutions is no less problematic. Security Council resolutions were implemented poorly, and the international forces sent to execute them have failed to achieve their goals. ("[T]here will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon.") Similar international community failures led to Israel's decision to go to war against Hamas in Gaza. The Egyptians and other mediators have failed to persuade Hamas to end the shelling of Israel. Those assisting the Palestinian Authority failed to prevent Hamas from taking over Gaza; they also failed to provide a strategy to tame Hamas after the group took control and to help the authority resume power in the territory. Complaining about Israel's failures is easy; providing alternatives is more difficult (except for those who think that Israel should just get used to living under rocket fire)".
Can Israel Win the Gaza War?
It depends how you define success.
By Shmuel Rosner
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2008, at 4:02 PM ET
¿Cómo analizar y entender lo que sucede? En términos analíticos, el mejor punto de partida es dejar las consideraciones morales para el final, no partir de ellas, y estudiar la conducta de los actores desde el punto de vista de sus consecuencias (perspectiva realista que le dicen), teniendo en mente que el objetivo final es una paz duradera.
"But why speak about such things when we can hold up placards equating Jews with Nazis, emote over dead babies or talk tough about defending Israeli citizens? It was Shimon Peres, the Israeli President, who said that, far from there being no light at the end of the Middle East tunnel, there was indeed light. The trouble was that there was no tunnel. Bit by bit, inducement by bribe and ceasefire by restraint, we have to construct one.
If we are to do this then the friends of the Palestinians would be best advised to put pressure on Hamas never to launch another of its bloody rockets and to stop its death-laden rhetoric, and the friends of Israel well placed to cajole it into making a settlement seem worthwhile. All else is verbiage".
The TimesDecember 30, 2008 David Aaronovitch http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article5415342.ece
"All those involved, and most of those following the bloodshed in Gaza from afar, are sure who is in the right and who is in the wrong. They know who the innocent victims are and who are the wicked perpetrators. These certainties are held equally firmly by those who will be demonstrating in solidarity with the Palestinians in London today and those who plan to stage similar shows of support for Israel later this month.
Both sides see the conflict in moral terms. For supporters of the Palestinians, it could not be clearer. Israel is committing a war crime, killing people in their hundreds, hammering a besieged population from the sky (and soon perhaps on the ground too), claiming to aim only at Hamas but inevitably striking those civilians who get in the way. Israel's cheerleaders are just as clear. Israel is the victim, hitting out now only belatedly and in self-defence. Its southern citizens have sat terrorised in bomb shelters, fearing the random rockets of Hamas, since 2005, longer than any society could tolerate without fighting back.
Both sides say they would have maintained the six-month ceasefire that had held - albeit imperfectly - until December 19 had the other side not broken it first. And who did break the deal first, Hamas with its rockets or Israel with its blockade? Both sides point at the other with equal vehemence, a Newtonian chain of claimed action and reaction that can stretch back to infinity. So perhaps a more useful exercise - especially for those who long for an eventual peace with both sides living side by side - is not to ask whether the current action is legitimate, but whether it is wise".
Jonathan Freedland The Guardian, Saturday 3 January 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/03/israel-attack-hamas-gaza-peace
La ofensiva israelí parece contraproducente aún para sus propios objetivos. Parece estarse ajustando a lo que Hamas quería que hiciera:
Texto completo en:
“Luz de luna” es una notable película que trastoca el concepto tradicional de masculinidad - Escribe: Rafael Flores Figueroa En “Luz de luna” la figura masculina es circular e inasible. El protagonista, Chiron, rompe con el contorno rígido construi...
Hace 14 horas.