As with Part One, I'm going to keep this short on commentary and long on recommended reading, then open up the discussion. Last time, we had a really interesting and almost totally civil thread, and I'd be ever so grateful if we could do the same thing again. (If you didn't read the first thread, it's worth a look.)
The Guardian: Israeli warplanes destroy Gaza houses and mosque as air strikes continue
WaPo: Senior Hamas Leader Killed: Israelis Stand Ready to Invade Gaza by Land
New York Times: Striking Deep Into Israel, Hamas Employs an Upgraded Arsenal
LA Times: Israel can't bomb its way to peace
Ezra: An Occupied Nation and a Threatened One
Glenn: More oddities in the U.S. "debate" over Israel/Gaza
For those interested in my position, this time I'll quote Hava: "This is an extremely complicated situation and both sides are at fault and both have legitimate arguments against the other. My main concern is to move past the crap and try to create conditions for peace. I'm not interested in condemning either side as the sole instigator of a very ugly situation."
And, for the record, I believe in the right of any nation or people to defend itself; I don't believe, however, that axiomatically means any and every method or scope of defense is justifiable.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus