Angry journalists, who initially boycotted the session, describe subcommittee's claims to be part of a 'witch hunt,' and slam Israel's 'authoritarian' efforts to clamp down on the media.14:27 09.02.16 | 2 comments
My analysis is close to yours, and I also yearn for David Ben Gurion and Winston Churchill. (placing Thatcher in the triumvirate wasn't as fortunate, in my opinion). Now, "eliminating Hamas" isn't possible, as it is not only a cancer, but an ideological movement. It can be crushed militarily, but not taken out as a cancerous tumor. Much less in the booby-trapped alleys of one of the most crowded places. So balls are needed, but brains too. Not for the goyim, but for seeing the bigger picture too. Iran is there, and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is there too. The former trains, arms, funds and "inspires" (controls to a significant extent) their terrorist proxy. And the latter, which is geographically nearer and sunni, is emerging as a formidable support for Hamastan. There is apparently no military way to crush Hamas and not pick a war with Iran and the coming Eyptian regime. And the Israeli leaders with no balls were right this time in avoiding escalation. They need a strategy beyond surviving politically, and they don't have it. Neither Sarkozy nor Merkel have one either. And Obama is clueless anyway. So I'd bet for the logic of deploying the largest possible number of operational Iron Dome, Magic Wand and Arrow / Patriot multi-layered anti-missile systems. Too costly? That's not the issue. By the way, Iron Dome shoots down those rockets whose trajectory goes to populated areas. The other ones are left to fall on stones. So my question to you (and myself) is: What do you think Ben Gurion or Churchill would have done with this intractable situation?