As reported in the news feed on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces blew up a Hamas terror tunnel from the Israeli side of the border. The tunnel had been packed with explosives, and collateral explosions at the other end of the tunnel, on the Gaza side, killed at least seven mujahideen.
I wrote to our Israeli correspondent MC and asked him if the operation was anywhere near him (he lives in Sderot). Below is his report.
The Gaza Underground
by MC
Yes, it is close enough for us to drive by it every week whilst visiting our son’s family in Kibbutz Revivim. But this is not a feel-good moment, because it is just one amongst many.
We heard the thumps as the tunnels blew. Kibbutz Kissufim is about fifteen miles from us, but it was a big blow. We know that there are more, however, and we know that ‘they’ will at some stage use them.
Do not believe for an instant that the collateral damage was ‘accidental’. In a closed tunnel the force has only one way to travel, and that there were secondaries indicates that the tunnel was about to go active, and that the Kibbutz was probably the target.
A mass breakout of terrorists in Sderot itself would make Las Vegas seem almost humane. We tend to try not to think about it, but each of us has an escape strategy to get out of Dodge, depending upon where we are at the time.
If they come up in our back yard, however, there will be no escape.
Sderot is fair game in a one-sided contest. The international community looks upon us as ‘deserving’ retribution for refusing to give the land back to the poor, poor Gazans who have lived on the land for time immemorial blah, blah.
One does not get over Jew-hatred. It is a spiritual impairment which crops up wherever Satan has influence, and around here there is a lot.
The tunnel detection strategy has been around since last year and appears to be related to anti-submarine magnetic anomaly detection (MAD), but using drones and looking for changes in magnetic flux densities density in an already mapped environment.
I suspect that the press release hides much of the reality of a literal underground, the like of which has not been seen since the Western Front in 1916.
MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.
One does not get over Jew-hatred. It is a spiritual impairment…
Indeed.
I will never, ever understand the psychological need to scapegoat groups. Or even individuals, for that matter. There appears to be a primitive, unbearable void in some psyches which need a target on which to transfer individual or group terror rather than to bear the fear of their experience of this absence of being.
Fortunate are those who find a person, a faith, or an experience which permits them to metabolize and process that void.
My memories of being scape-goated as a kid because I refused to join in the hatred and name-calling of blacks that was prevalent in my neighborhood gave me a bit of insight into this phenomenon. Some of those kids thought blacks didn’t have last names. Maybe that experience immunized me.
“….the psychological need to scapegoat groups…”
I am with the survey that found that “one in three Jew-haters is just as stupid as the other two”.
Stupidity is, I think, more dangerous than wickedness and is, perhaps, hardwired. And with these vermin referred to above we are talking about the jack-pot: What can you expect from the results of centuries of inbreeding in the petri dish of Arabia….(in my not-too modest opinion).
I think that in many cases, it’s a deep-seated desire to find explanations for unexplainable world events/phenomena.
Though many of these are actually explainable: communists, islamists, leftists etc., are the real-life conspirators that anti-semites imagine as “the Joos”. Though I suppose that anti-semites would argue that I have it the wrong way around. Many of their theories are actually semi-realistic, if applied against the actual perpetrators!
I’ve had ZERO success in convincing anti-semites of this. Including, unbelievably, the anti-semite in my own extended family. (Yes, I’m Jewish, but not all my family is.)
Are you sure it is Jew hatred, not of Israeli policy for example? In hate definitions get confused quite fast…. Arab/Muslim for example.
Here is a critical opinion
https://thesaker.is/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/
… and no, I don’t think I hate anyone much, but I dislike those that cause purposeful harm to others, that deceive on purpose. I don’t even think I am in a superior position to judge others for their acts, our duty is to set a good example wherever possible, to follow whatever virtues we uphold but at no-one else’s expense.
I’m letting this comment in with a proviso: if it turns this thread into a Jew-hatefest, I’ll delete it back to and including this one from Anon.
Over our dozen years or so of monitoring comments (they currently stand at 229,000+) we’ve found that Jew-hatred – and his link is certainly that – ruins a thread. So do comments about Russia, religion, and abortion…
My energy is limited and the Baron is too busy to play cop. So this is a warning. Against my better judgment, I’m permitting Anon’s comment to stand. Please don’t follow him down this yellow brick road.
Well I thank you Dymphna.
I think that the critique, whether right or wrong, stands for itself at an intellectual level, and encompasses the arguments of the day in a reasonable manner. I have Jewish friends, Muslim friends, how we end up with the current level of war and hatred is trying to be understood. To do that we by necessity have to look at ourselves, our part. I am British, and I can tell you that it is a great and often distressing effort needed to absorb and comprehend the actions and political decisions taken on behalf of my country in various ambits. That does not mean I hate the UK or British.
Maybe this is the wrong place to discuss this whole,but is there any place which is not relegated to fringe immediately? It is a serious topic, and my first aim is to understand how influence works in the world, not to generalise blame, as I find blame is rarely attributable to one group or sect, but rather a strain within a class within groups or shared between them, where the goodness of ordinary people of whatever race or faith is co-opted in one form or another. Within the Jewish fraternity these arguments exist also, as they do in most other society and religions.
I thank you again, and I agree with fully your request on moderation …but not the yellow brick road, as it is actually a very difficult and contorted path to follow for anyone out to do more than condemn one side or the other.
I think that the vast majority of Israel-hatred is “cleaned up” Jew hatred.
Most Israel-hatred that holds it to a double standard as compared to other countries would belong in this category. For every “bad thing” that Israel does, multiple examples of countries can be found that do much worse, with less attention. I have no rose-coloured lenses with respect to Israel: it’s far from perfect, but the level of civilisation that it maintains (I’d rate it as “Southern European average”) in light of the circumstances in which it is placed (the mess of the Middle East) is astonishing.
I’ll go further: because it’s socially acceptable to bash Israel, and not so socially acceptable (in most of the West) to bash Jews personally, anti-semitic hatred gets diverted into Israel-hatred. Possibly this is partially also driven by the fact that as long as Israel is around, Jewish communities worldwide essentially have a “big brother protecting them” and a place to go if things start to go really wrong, and so the anti-semitism is redirected at one of the forces that prevents a return to the “good old days” of pogroms and so on. Deep down, I wonder if, for example, the French state would make the efforts that it does do (i.e., deploy the army to protect synagogues) if Israel didn’t exist. Would Putin in Russia care as much about keeping the lid on anti-semitism in that country (which is now reasonably safe for Jews)? And so on. These are questions that self-hating anti-Israel Jews (of which there are many) should be the first to ask (themselves).
The USA is another force similar to Israel, but not in a manner specific to Jews – and also the target of much hate from those with evil agendas, in a similar phenomena. This one is a lot more obvious, so I won’t go into as detailed of an explanation.
One of the key moments in my life was visiting the Holocaust Exhibition at the Imperial War Museum in London.
There is of course NO rational explanation for the Jew hatred that drove those black shirted gentlemen.
The only way to explain what I saw at that exhibition was that the whole enterprise was Satanically driven.
If you accept that evil is a real force acting in this world, then the irrational hatred of Israelis which you see becomes instantly explicable.
And MC hit the nail on the head in his essay: “One does not get over Jew-hatred. It is a spiritual impairment which crops up wherever Satan has influence, and around here there is a lot.”
That would also explain the difficulty “Mike” had trying to convince people suffering from that spiritual impairment to think differently about the world.
Let me make a few observations.
I’ve read a lot of commentary where the commentator is very critical of Israel for stepping over national boundaries, enforcing a largely Jewish and mainly European identity, and taking actions which harm Palestinians or put them at a disadvantage.
These same people advocate a white identity movement in the US and are largely sympathetic to the actions of Russia in, say, the Crimea, Georgia and Syria. In other words, Russia can break eggs in the pursuit of Russian national interest, and Russia can enforce its own sphere of vital security, but it is problematic when Israel does the same thing.
Some examples are the appropriation of Palestinian lands and the walling off of Palestinian areas. Other examples are the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, and the bombing of civilian areas in Gaza. All these actions were in response to active attacks on Israelis. The same critics would generally be in favor of hot pursuit of Mexican terrorists coming onto US territory and definitely do not favor giving back lands the US obtained from Mexico after the Mexican American War.
I try to look at the situation objectively. The fact is, no government can tolerate the constant insecurity and threat towards its citizens that MC describes. When you come down to the wire, if it’s a choice between blowing up non-combatants on the other side, or allowing your own citizens to be blown up, a rational government will blow up the enemy non-combatants. Sometimes, those are your choices. Nationalism and the preservation of a coherent country and people are not always pretty.
In my opinion, the US has no business involving itself in the military or political affairs of the Middle East, including providing any military guarantees or assistance to Israel. Similarly, with Russia as a national entity, as opposed to the international empire of the USSR, I see no role for the US military in European affairs. The countries on Russia’s borders will simply have to step lightly.
But, in summary, I think Israel provides a good model for how US nationalists will have to conduct themselves, and I think they are making a mistake by judging Israel by hyper-sensitive standards. For the US to implement Israel objectives, rather than for Israel to conduct its own policies, generally leads to disaster.
I think that an established, and widely accepted, border would be of greatest benefit to Israel. The rules of international engagement are very clear in that circumstance, and Israel would have the full weight of international sanction as deterrent to trespass, as well as vastly superior military capability.
Though I have no wish to judge Israel’s current strategy, I think that it will be ultimately counterproductive, and does not find sympathy.
In a sense it has been Israeli choice to continue a unilateral stand instead of taking the bruises and accepting international conformity as eventual solution. The reasoning for that can be argued and counter-argued, but that itself may be taken as a demonstration of why the rejection of a wider guarantee is not productive, while also opening the door to various forms of external opportunism.
I think the world is very tired of this state of affairs.
“International conformity”???
As a young John McEnroe once said: You cannot be serious!
For anon,
If I’m not mistaken, for your advocacy is not entirely clear to me, you are counseling Israel to make any deal it can on Palestine, regardless of how defensible the borders were. You are claiming that Israel would have the support and active assistance of the world if it made such a deal.
I submit that a country is responsible for its own defense. Israel has been subject to terrorist infiltration, cross-border artillery, and cross-border rocket attacks since it began as a country. A huge impetus for Israel’s claim of the Golan Heights was that before the 1967 war, Syria regularly fired artillery towards Israel from the Golan. A reason for the invasion of Lebanon was that there was heavy terrorist infiltration over the Lebanese borders.
I do not advocate the US support Israel militarily. I observe that a country is obligated to take steps to protect its citizens, even if the steps are not pretty or fair to everyone. Israel has got to stand or fall on its own, but if it depends on the goodwill of the UN, it will likely fall.
Yes, international conformity. The first step in that is not looking at how uncomformed the world is at international level and saying “what the heck” , but establishing, setting an example, of comformity. Clearly all attempt at law is demonstration of intent, as internationally there is no absolute guarantor, only a jumble of allegiances that are fluid, but that is a start, a principle to defend, if only for own sanctity. After all the purpose of a national boundary is to gain respect from those without of it.
Ronald B – I don’t argue that Israel has very distinct security needs. The question, from my approach, is the establishment and recognition based on sound principle ( as above), and the modern ability to furthermore secure that position. The alternative seems to me to be a never ending flux of involvement in neighbourhood affairs, and I just am not inclined to think that that can yield an eventual positive result… it is a quagmire that will not be forgotten for generations even were there to be some kind of temporary victory.
Armchair diplomacy is easy, I know, but what we are presented with in the middle east is more than disheartening, and to my understanding western and Israeli involvement has a lot to answer for and few real solutions to offer.
Your descriptions are too vague, too packed with abstract nouns, for me to be able to grasp them. So please answer these two questions:
(1) What, specifically, do you object to about the situation in the Middle East vis-a-vis Israel?
(2) What, specifically, do you propose to remedy #1?
a) Oh dearie me we can’t have people being “unconformed” now, can we? That will never do.
b) Define your terms.
1) I object to the vague boundary definition of the territory with regards to its neighbours. A defined, and yes internationally conformed, border will, in my opinion, remove a great part of the pretext for aggression , as well as, if not undermining certain hostile sentiment, would provide a moral wall to it.
I do not like that middle eastern politics is part driven by Israeli security concern, or by the misuse of that concern. This must end. I have lived in the region, my family business was in the region , an uncle was highly placed with BP, I know the gulf region since the Iran Iraq war, as a child, a closest friends father was closely involved in the formation of OPEC, a family member served the Libyan leader, friends were hostage in Iraq, when young we were party to the Kuwait royal family, an aunt is closely involved with Burmese affairs. Am I trying to impress or forge an argument by boasting? No, I am no-one, like my title, and I will never claim personal benefit or superiority from what to me just is. I am only saying, loudly, with the depth of understanding I have, this must end. We ( expats) all knew what would be the result of the US invasion. If we knew, so did the sponsors of that war.
2) The devil is in the detail. I am not a deeply read historian on the border issues, that is to say I am aware of the claims and stated reasoning, but not the full historical context from all sides. If there is to be a solution it must involve the guarantee of the main players of the region. It is up to the (mainly) US, Saudi, Iranian , Russian representatives to decide, with Israel, on an acceptable format , taking in the concerns of other regional neighbours. It is, the near east, admittedly one big argument, where the main powers do not work in good co-operation. Israel might suggest a feasible solution to the border problems, making concession but demanding full guarantee from all sides in return. It is possible, I doubt there is the will, current conflicting enterprise is too alive between these powers. Eventually they will tire themselves to oblivion, or will escalate and build from the ruins that are left.
I despair, peace in the region seems only ever a brief illusion, since when I first arrived there in the early eighties… to now…over thirty five years…there has been endless war… and surely into the future there is no lasting peace written in…if you know the economic and demographic realities and wrt to the rest of the world.
In that circumstance I would not want to offer any unnecessary excuse to be targeted, instead work on building maximum international backing. Israel, and western hegemony in the region will not finish by converting it. You cannot change the nature of the people like that, does not work, and especially by participating in their harm. The Arabs know there is collusion between western interests, their actions, and Israel. It is known, not just believed. How is there ever going to be any peace?
It has to start somewhere, and the best place is with oneself, by setting the examples. The humility of seeming weak to do so, is only to those who are not sincere, and so you make sure you have a decisive reply if they try to test your resolve. No matter how far Israel buffers its borders, there will be new ways found to try to harm it.Nor Israel nor western powers will rule the whole region. The Arab world knows this, so do I, so should you. Hence set the most acceptable proposition of border possible, and defend the result. Israel will never be able to trust neighbours whose land it has expanded onto, and all Arabs are neighbours to each other. That is not the state of affairs that a country should wish for, even if Israel feels previously unjustly agressed. I lecture, but you get the point I think.
This is still too vague for me to assess any concrete points.
Borders are established by war and conquest, and are held by force of arms.
Poland has the borders it does now because the USSR conquered it. For all practical purposes, the country was shifted a hundred miles (or something similar) to the West, with both Germans and Poles forcibly relocated to comply with the new borders. The Soviets enforced the new borders with their superior military strength, and the Western powers were obliged to agree to those borders.
Israel’s current borders were also established by a military victory and are held by force of arms. Unless you think that the current border of Poland is somehow illegitimate, and not recognized by “international” consensus, then the borders of Israel are just as valid as Poland’s.
There are numerous other similar examples from World War Two and later, but the Polish one will suffice.
Dear Anon,
You have established your familiarity with the region.
I can’t add much to Baron’s point the the boundaries of countries are established and maintained through force of arms. Sometimes, the objectives of the opposing parties are simply irreconcilable, and one or the other side more-or-less gets its way. In our example, the charter of the PLO calls for the destruction of Israel: hence, either Israel prevails (continues to exist) or the PLO prevails.
What is the compromise?
Eventually, the self-interest of the established governments will dictate that they come to a working agreement with Israel. Saudi Arabia is a prime example of this. They have an entente with Israel, based mainly on their mutual fear of Iran. Jordan has enough problems without active hostility with Israel. Even the PLO loves the shekels it gets from the Israeli government.
Perhaps if the rest of the world would bow out, Israel would inform the PLO that there must be official condemnation of terrorism against Israel and active cooperation against terrorists, before the Danegeld is resumed.
Out of curiosity, what compromise do you see the US reaching with the Mexican nationalists who wish to take back the land Mexico transferred to the US via the Treaty of Guadalupe and the Gadsden Purchase. I don’t see any grounds for a compromise there.
The Baron.
I understand that position. To the various arguments in the world that exist to do with national definitions, and which invariably reduce to territorial matters and political say over a territory, ultimately the use of force, there will be different points of view, always. Else there would be no argument to start with. If I talk to a military associate he will make a very clear and well reasoned case for the current circumstance and how it should proceed. That is ok. We do not know how wider events will develope, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we do not know now, we estimate by the best of our ability. There is no right or wrong as such therefore in this debate, each will have his moral justification.
My viewpoint is based on my own intuition and sense of balance, it is not necessarily better or worse than anyone’s, maybe slightly more informed. I don’t live in Israel, and so it is not my choice to make either, but I will have my say, as like most people, one way or another, we are subjected to events in the ME, even if it is via media or national mood.
I cannot set a concrete plan, you are stating conquest, it is de facto and so cannot be argued, is very direct and clear as an argument, and so the only definite resolution by that standard will come from a de facto decision by Israel to settle its borders in another way, or foreign invasion of those borders, or total foreign acceptance of those borders.
I do not personally mind which, except those that involve further conflict, and my intuition is that further conflict is inevitable without a wider concensus. A military strategist will explain that the current stance actually reduces the possibility or level of conflict.
So all I can do is express my intuition, I gain nothing from doing so, and explain that there is not going to be an accepted resolution this way without a long long fight, one that may eventually cost Israel itself dearly. I also express my belief, it is only that, that a formal resolution would be of eventual benefit. The time for doing that is when Israel is in a superior position, not when the pendulum swings. The issue of settlements makes any change of position internally extremely difficult now, but not impossible. I do not apologise that my point of view does not bolster the strength of the stance of Israel , what am I to do, it is my heartfelt understanding.
So I am just saying, and pray that whatever peace is finally achieved, that it is reached in a fuller understanding.
I still have no idea what your “viewpoint” actually is. Each of your comments has been a series of vague generalities muffled by layers of abstraction, never referring to any particular concrete issue of territory or political control.
In your first comment, the one that began this thread, you said:
So tell me:
(1) What specific Israeli policy evokes what the rest of us mistake for Jew-hatred?
(2) Who is causing purposeful harm to others? Name specific acts and policies, please.
If you can’t get more specific than you have been so far, then all we can tell is that you have some nebulous dislike for Israel and Israeli policies. OK, we get that. But there’s still no information in your comments, none whatsoever, about what exactly provokes your disapproval.
History is more important than one’s intuition when discussing the past (the future is another matter).
In the beginning, Turkey and the Arabs welcomed the fact of Israel:
http://www.meforum.org/6991/turks-arabs-welcomed-the-balfour-declaration
It meant more money, more industry and money for the “Palestinians”, and an incoming population with less of the kind of fatalism that Islam induces. If nothing else, look at the photos they’ve included on that page.
Ronald.
I agree with what you are saying. Unless I was loyal subject to Islam or the Saudi royal structure, I would not trust reaching anything more than a temporary understanding and conciliation with them. It is not “their fault” , the understanding is simply different, it makes sense to them, it is their sense – hence the question of Israeli borders will always somehow make its way onto the agenda , even after seeming resolved (which is why I propose resolving them the best as possible by wider standard) .
You know the saying that in the Arab world a contract is where negotiations start, not end .
Claims by Mexico on now US territory ?
Well if the US were much smaller and the claimants more numerous or heavily armed, you would think about it, no?
The small arms race in the ME might be directed at Israel one day, Arab countries that it works with might eventually change regime and turn on Israel, or just go for the master shot.
That is one reason why I am saying this about building ( true, not just chosen establishment) international recognition.
The Baron.
Come now, you know the history of the formation of the state of Israel, so you are looking at a long list that starts with the insurgency and runs right through to current targetings.
Non admission is no defense from those on the receiving end, but if you really wish to find out the true sentiment of many Arabs you only have to expose yourself to their experience . Basically the US and Israel are now sworn enemies, indefinitely . Arabs do not like what they have experienced of them.
Outside of that I leave you, and Israel, with every justification wished to be provided, but the nature of war leaves blood on people’s hands, it does not wash off with excuses or denial, it is taken to the grave or washed off only with own blood. If forgiveness has ever been sought it certainly has not been publicly so.
What event or point do you seek to justify? One killing of an innocent alone would bring down the heavens.
The region, including Israel, is steeped in atrocities.
So personally, I would be looking for the surest way to rectify, not tread on from that with greater ambition.
But I waffle, and no, I will not join the feast of imparting direct blame. It is there for those who must carry it.
I still don’t hear any specific complaint, or specific suggestion for remedying a complaint. I’m forced to conclude that you don’t have one, which leaves me with the sense that you simply object to the existence of the state of Israel.
Absent specific issues, there isn’t much to talk about. Israel indeed has innocent blood on its hands, but far less than almost every other nation-state. What special cases do you think set it apart from other nations?
What, precisely, is it that you wish to “rectify”?
A young Kibutzim (is that the correct word?) tells:
http://littlenotesfromparis.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/tears-for-israel.html
When I sent this video to a neighbour, an otherwise quite civilised Lady, you know the kind who wear real linen/silk/coton, would not be seen dead in polyester, have regular manicures and facelifts, speak well French, and only listen to ethnic chanels or the OZ equivalent of the BBC, she reprimanded me for sending her “Israeli Propaganda”. The whole pre-faced by the vulgar if common lie: “I dont hate Jews…but…”
“One does not get over Jew-hatred. It is a spiritual impairment which crops up wherever Satan has influence…”
Exactly. I don’t understand how anyone can read The Bible and not come to that realization. Satan was the original Jew hater.
“Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.
And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”” (Job 2: 1-2)
Instead of kowtowing to Mohammedans and trying not to do anything that might “offend” any of them, everyone in the civilised world ought to be telling them that their false “religion” is a Satanic enterprise through and through, and they need to renounce the false teachings of what they call “Islam”.
This wishy-washy thinking of the so-called “liberals” and “progressives” is one of the worst things that has ever happened in the world, because everyone needs to be able to make an informed choice about religious matters. That means speaking the truth. And if anyone experiences a transient emotion (aka “feels offended”) when they hear the truth, that is absolutely irrelevant.
When I was a practising addict, my brother sat me down one night and told me some home truths. Did I enjoy that? No. Did I feel “offended”? Probably. Did I need to hear it? Did it end up saving my life? Yes to both. Sometimes people need to hear things they don’t like, for their own good.
They can still choose to keep going down the same road, of course. But they can never say they weren’t told.
I note on Sputnik News site that this event was reported without any explanation of why a tunnel would exist into Israel from Gaza – and of course the comments section contained examples from those who felt compelled by their Jew hatred to spew their bile.
When I first began taking on the Jew haters over at Sputnik News there would always be a least ten replies waiting in my inbox the next day calling me all kinds of names. I don’t get many replies now from the Jew haters, you see, TRUTH is a very hard fact to counter.
I’ve noticed that people who hold strong opinions that are not supported by the facts often use screaming, rather than logic, in response to a statement contrary to their dogma.
I was screamed at by some people when I mentioned there were mean differences in intelligence scores between blacks and whites. So, perpetuating their not-very-defensible point of view becomes central to their interactions. Direct rational discussion with such people is fruitless and often simply not possible. It’s like a Mars versus Venus discussion.
What seemed to bear some fruit is to back off from the hot topic, and simply engage rationally on other topics. The use of logic in any area of discourse tends to have very broad effects. Talking about the environmental pressures as a reason for Indian practices, for example, which seems to be a benign topic, leads quickly to evolutionary reasons for group differences.
Thanks Ronald. I try all angles when in correspondence with those who just cannot see past their own indoctrination. I don’t always convince, but at least I am able to cause some introspection in those who take to responding in what I would accept as reasonable terms.
Seems to me that many who take up such destructive thinking are simply parroting what they have been taught to think.
Of course this would never have happened had Condoleezza Rice minded her own business and left Gaza in the hands of Israel where it belongs except for the fact that Joshua never set foot there to claim it, at least according to the Book of Joshua.
We both lost out on that importune move of hers. You ended up with nasty neighbors and we ended up with a damaged city that hasn’t been quite the same since.
Generally, the US needs to mind its own business in all foreign affairs, except where US security is directly, not indirectly, involved. I actually have no idea if Israel evacuated Gaza because of US pressures or for its own domestic reasons. But Israel, having to directly encounter the results of any interventions it makes, is liable to be more careful and calculating when it makes a move: or at least, it ought to be, if it expects to survive.
It’s even somewhat funny how some commentators in various news sites try to justify the existence of these tunnels as a means to move aid to Gaza. One can never underestimate the stupidity of man. Nor dishonesty.
Love the graphic! I assume the Baron was the creator.
Can Israel not drop a series of “bunker buster” bombs along the suspected area, where the tunnels may be, on a semi-regular basis, and just collapse the whole area?
Or dig up a massive trench so that there’s a cut-off point for anyone trying to dig tunnels?
I have to say, I recall the “Turk” used tunnelling when they took on the Knights of St. John, at Rhodes and at Malta. So it’s nothing new – funny how these killer Mohammedans, then and now, like working in the deep darkness.
I liked Egypt’s approach of flooding them with pumped in sea water. I would have thrown in a few sharks for good measure.
How about pumping in propane, followed by a lit match? Didn’t the “tunnel rats” do that in Vietnam?
OK, but I was thinking about all those hungry sharks who needed to be fed. I was going to give them something other than beach goers.
MC, I’m delighted to see you haven’t lost your sense of irony, but should’t be surprised; it’s helped Jews to survive for many centuries.
I do wish your spokespeople would be more assertive; Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotolevy was interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” this morning, by a very hostile interrogator. He brought up the “occupation” of the “West Bank” in 1967, and she missed the opportunity to point out Jordan’s illegal occupation in 1948, or UN Resolution 242.