You hit the nail on the head. Propagandists like Witty express never ending outrage at the rocket atatcks by Hamas, yet if one were to describe them as “amateurish”, they would have a fit. The sad fact is that Hamas’ rocket attakcs are extremely “amateurish”.

“And it was none other than Bradley Burston who courageously reported
in one of his columns that Brigadier-General Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza division, accused Israel’s government of having failed “to take advantage of the calm [during a six-month truce agreed to by Hamas and Israel] to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip …” Zakai added, “When you create tahdiyeh and the economic pressure on the Strip continues, it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire … You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.”

That is not quite the story told by Israel’s government, or by Israel’s media, of why the IDF had to scorch Gaza, is it?” [Or our own Richard Witty.]

link to haaretz.com

Spin or no spin the facts are these. Until that date, there had been 4 months fo calm and no rockets. That’s it. End of story.

If an individual saw something that he considered dangerous, reported it through his chain of comman, and all Israel had to do was set a trap and make sure no IDF soldiers were nulnerable. Instead, they escalated their existing act of war and forces the hand of Hamas and they chose a day that knew would give them media cover, the US presidential elecitons.

Israel weren’t rushed into this. The tunnel didn’t even breach the border. You are spinnnign Witty, as Chaod said, rearranging the deck chairs on teh Titanic while hoping everyone listens to the band.

Not only did Hamas assertain that Israel determined there would be war on November 4, but so did the world. There was no incremental escalation Witty, just as there was no return to the ceafire. Your lies have been exposed and you have been left wanting.

For the 100th time, Israel initiated hostilities and Hamas responded. The party that initiated the conflict does not get to describe their actions as a reposnse, in the same way a rapist doesn’t get to to claim self defense.

Yes there is there an appropriate level of restraint that a state can take relative to a militia shelling civilians? They can stick to the ceasefire.

The various prejudicial interpreters went into gear, both internally in their self-talk communities, and in the world at large, putting their spin on the event.

IF Hamas was constructing an offensive tunnel, was the November 4 incident an “end to the tahidya”?

If, an individual saw something that he considered dangerous, reported it through his chain of comman, to the point of reaching the defense minister because the decision was that sensitive, was that “intentionally ending the cease-fire?” because a specific tactical decision came from Barak?

Or, was the whole chain of events a communication breakdown that resulted from the absence of direct communications, which itself is a construction of the historical buildup of distrust on both sides, including presently applicable primary documents?

The Haaretz article on the Hamas response to Mofaz is a case in point. Haaretz has a reputation for more veracity in reporting on the conflict to my mind, than the Jerusalem Post, but they read the Hamas response as a confirmation of “We will never negotiate with Israel. We will never recognize Israel.”, while other publications did not.

Do you get that the interpretation of the that single day’s event is a continental divide on the whole war. The Hamas assertion (and solidarity) is that Israel determined that there would be war on November 4, that there was no turning back from that single event ever, and that shelling civilians was a relevant response and that no matter how they rolled it out, that it didn’t represent anything that Israel should have responded tomilitarily ever. That their escalation was inconsequential.

On the other hand, most in the world agree that incremental escalation of shelling of civilians is an independant action, not a “tit for tat” from an event in November, especially if they never get to “we’ve done enough, we can stop now”.

They determined that “we have done enough” only after Israel engaged in harsh military response, in which too many civilians got caught in the cross-fire.

Is there an appropriate level of restraint that a state can take relative to a militia shelling civilians? Yes, and Goldstone outlines that there are standards of international law that are signed on to by states, if not militias.

I’m now not sure if my observation from reading at the time on the state of resumption of the cease-fire is as sure as I prior thought. The number of reported shelling definitely was still far less in late November and December, than prior and certainly than in December/January but far more than the 4 months prior.

Is that grey a lie? A mistake? Or an interpretation of grey?

I do regard Goldstone’s report as authoritative, and thus I accept the view that Hamas shelled civilians, a war crime, and that Israle shalled a lot more, a much graver war crime.

Goldstone explained why he reported incidents. He investigated the incidents that were unambigious. Investigating 100% therfore, would not have provided any more insight.

Gettign back to my countless requests for you to provide evidence that the ceasefire was re-established after November 4th, the best youcan come up with is NYT coverage that you describe as “not frequent enough to conclude one way or another”.

This is astounding Witty, but not surprising. You’ve been ramming this factoid of your home for months on this, and other blogs, but when you are challenged on the veracity, you can’t even come up with a single link to back up your claims.

So Witty, when you say “I read other sources today which did not conclude that the cease-fire had been reinstated, as I understood” should we accept this as a mea culpa?

BTW. The term “Calm” was used by the Israeli MFA REport on the ceasefire, the same report that concluded that Hamas had been “very careful” to observe the ceasefire.