Regarding the NY Times article, one cannot reference an article that did not exist because the events had not yet happened at the time of reference.
If the article had been linked, no debate. It was not linked - why I don't know, but whatever article that was being referenced was not the one I linked to.
Also, this linked article has been updated and added to since I linked. A notable example has the initial article stating: "After the initial publication of this article, the military’s censor informed The New York Times that further information related to Lieutenant Goldin would have to be submitted for prior review. Journalists for foreign news organizations must agree in writing to the military censorship system to work in Israel.
This was the first censorship notification The Times had received in more than two years."
Today the above paragraph reads: "After the initial publication of this article, the military’s censor informed The New York Times that further information related to Lieutenant Goldin would have to be submitted for prior review. Journalists for foreign news organizations must agree in writing to the military censorship system to work in Israel.
This was the first censorship notification The Times had received in more than six years."
As for the comments to this article, they are far from 100% in the direction indicated by another poster - at least for this article that I have linked to. In fact, I would say by far there is a very even-handed insight into the rationales of both sides. There are very insightful comments - one after another. Keeping in mind that we actually do not really have many facts, it behooves no one to jump to conclusions and the tenor of a good portion of the comments are along the lines of seeing the whole rather than a part or a side. I'm impressed. I was copying nearly one comment after another so that should give you the jist of the overall tenor of the comments -
COMMENT:
"Mr. Yadlin, who now directs the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, also said it was possible that the militants who emerged from the tunnel on Friday were cut off and did not know of the cease-fire. “In the absence of any command and control, “he said, “it could be that they emerged to commit a ‘preset’ attack that it had prepared earlier.”
This is entirely possible....the militants in Gaza have poor if any communication ability at this point, Israel should just cool for a moment before resuming the bombing to let the word of the cease fire get around to all parties involved rather than prolonging the destruction. It sorta reminds me of the movie depictions of lone soldiers on an island that have no idea the war is over and keep on fighting. On the other hand, Israel also seems bent on total destruction and demoralization of the entire Gaza strip with as much or more vigor than Hamas' vision of the disappearance of Israel."
COMMENT: "Without a political end in view, these military operations are a "tunnel" to nowhere. The tragedy, at this point in time, is we have no Nelson Mandela on either side ---someone who is able to step outside of their culture and see into the hearts and minds of others who hate them ---a rare commodity amongst our present class of world leaders. Extremists on both sides are driving this human catastrophe and to what end? To be a civilian caught in the middle of this, what a horror ---no place to go, no power to do anything about the warring factions, and no life realistic life goals."
COMMENT:
"Did anyone here read the article? The cease-fire seems to have been bogus from the get-go:
Regarding the suspected capture of a soldier on Friday, Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israel’s military intelligence directorate, said, “I think that what happened here is that the details of the cease-fire were not sufficiently clarified.” In an interview with Israel Radio he said that the Israeli military will not leave Gaza until it completes its effort to demolish tunnels, even during a ceasefire. “It is not completely clear to me if this was clear to Hamas,” he said. (He) also said it was possible that the militants who emerged from the tunnel on Friday were cut off and did not know of the cease-fire.
So Israel continued its campaign "even during a cease-fire". Its interesting that it's Israeli media that points that out."
COMMENT:
"An attempted kidnapping 90 minutes after the cease fire is to go into effect clearly violates the cease fire. But it is an isolated incident involving a single Israeli soldier whose present condition is unknown -- for all anyone knows, he may have escaped to safety. IMO, this is the sort of incident that the Israelis could choose to overlook, hoping the cease fire otherwise holds. The fact the Netanyahu's office calls this a blatant violation and retaliates by killing 14 Palestinians makes clear to me that Israel's interest in a cease fire remains marginal, at best."
COMMENT:
"Benni Morris, one of the preeminent Israeli historians and an expert on the history of the founding of Israel points out that three of Israel's prime ministers were members of terrorist organization and these organizations specifically targeted civilians. That was in 1948 and their cause was the formation of a Jewish state. Did that justify the murder of hundreds of Palestinians? You decide.
While no one wants to see this wanton destruction of human life continue,
it's important to recognize this history of violence on both sides and see the means to move beyond it.
Hamas has said that they will not recognize Israel, but they would be part of a government that did, as long as that government reflected the will of the Palestinian people. Israel is a state and has the most powerful army in the region.
The Palestinians have nothing but a small territory under military occupation and Gaza under military embargo. The solution to this violence lies in the creation of a viable Palestinian state, now, not five years if the ever increasing number of conditions demanded by Netanyahu are met. Short of that they will continue to resist, just as the Jewish forces were determined to wage war until Israel was established."
COMMENT: "At least part of the problem here is that we are content with false peace. It is not peace when both sides are building up military assets, tunnels and rockets, while also isolating each other and issuing hateful propaganda.
Also,
world opinion allows both sides to appeal to outsiders rather than appeal to each other. We are at least 50% of the problem here whether we like it or not.
Peace exists when both sides want peace to exist. When both sides believe that there is a process through which justice is achieved much of the time and that injustice is not systemic.
When both sides believe they can [live] with the other and not only at the expense of the other.
Peace exists when we no longer use the term "both sides" because "us" and "them" is no longer relevant.
Until these things change, there will not be peace. At best there will be a temporary quieting of hostilities."
COMMENT: "Even if every Israeli argument about its need to defend itself is true and even if Hamas' continued launching of missiles into Israel is the underlying cause of the current fighting,
a strategy which kills nearly 1500 civilians is untenable. At some point, the sheer immorality of killing civilians in such numbers has to be as important a factor in Israel's response to Hamas as is defense against the missiles. It doesn't even matter if Hamas really is using the civilians as "human shields." That does not justify killing the shields just because those using them can be blamed. They are innocent people who are dead, no matter what.
Israel must rethink its policy in light of moral considerations instead of political ones."
COMMENT: "Well said.
Israeli insensitivity to the misery of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza seems every day more monstrous. As does the shock Israelis express when Palestinians in both regions target civilians, this being a basic feature of radically asymmetrical warfare whenever conflicts of this kind erupt.
What do you expect us to do? each side says, seemingly unaware that their opponent has equally urgent reasons for framing that question.
There is an almost remarkable inability, on both sides, to come to terms with the misery each has inflicted on the other. The insularity, and inhumanity, of both sides is the most telling feature of this interminable conflict."
COMMENT: "Israel needs a neighbor that recognizes its right to exist and acts accordingly. Gaza needs concessions that will allow it economic and political autonomy. The confrontation here makes it ever less likely that either side will advance its self interests. In a sense, both sides have donned suicide vests and are doing their best to assure that the other side goes down while they themselves go down. And you thought the U.S. government was dysfunctional."
COMMENT: "
'The game itself is so rigged that it is absurd to expect any human being with self-respect to feel that they should play by a set of rules that have led them into the reality they live in.'
Exactly right. One of the most disheartening features of this conflict is the widespread tendency to cite instances of Palestinian aggression as evidence of some deeper sickness in the culture, or in Islam. The Palestinians are behaving as people have historically behaved when placed in desperate circumstances. Launching rockets on civilian populations is both morally indefensible and utterly predictable. That Israelis continue to be genuinely outraged by it just seems to me to be evidence of a dangerous insularity in their thinking about this conflict."
COMMENT: "In order to end war you can only make peace with your enemy.
Hamas is determined to end the blockade/siege of Gaza along with fighting for the creation of a Palestinian nation state including Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Along with the return of Palestinians living in exile to these lands and Israel.
Hamas is no more a terrorist organization than were Irgun, Stern Gang/Lehi and Haganah/Palmach. Hamas is no more a terrorist organization than is the Israel Defense Force which succeeded these entities. All of these entities were deemed freedom fighters. Either they are all freedom fighters or all terrorist organizations.
Neither Gaza, nor the West Bank nor East Jerusalem are nation states with people created equal by a Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because of the Israeli occupation, blockade/siege and exile. And Palestinian Israeli's are 2nd class citizens in the nation state of Jewish people. Israel is no more a democracy than were Jim Crow America or apartheid South Africa.
There are between 4 and 4.5 million Palestinians living in these lands. There are thus about 70-80 times as many Americans. With 1400 dead that would be between 100-115,000 dead Americans. And with 6000 wounded that would be the equivalent of 420-480, 000 Americans. There would be between 10-24,000 dead American women and children.
A one state civil secular egalitarian plural democracy is the only just solution."