By 5th January or Day Ten of the conflict, Israeli sources claimed conducting 1000 raids on Gaza. Now the intensity and impact of strikes of this magnitude remain unclear and incomplete. Urban Gaza has a population of approximately 410,000 in the inner city and 1.4 million people in the metropolitan area. One waits to see when the details of the strikes on Gaza publicly available such as those aired by the Israeli Army Radio are brought to public’s attention. One example is how Jerusalem Post shared details of what happened on the first day of operation : On 27 December at 11:30 a.m., more than 50 Israeli Air Force fighter jets and attack helicopters swept into Gazan airspace and dropped more than 100 bombs on 50 targets. The planes reported “alpha hits,” IAF lingo for direct hits on the targets, which included Hamas headquarters and offices. Thirty minutes later, a second wave of 60 jets and helicopters struck at 60 targets.

Consider this quote concerning the severity of Israel’s ongoing strikes on Gaza? According to Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent “Israel’s opening salvo is not merely another surgical operation or pinpoint strike. This is the harshest IDF assault on Gaza since the territory was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967.”

There seems to be clear inconsistencies regarding the voices from Israel that are often heard on news channels vis-a-vis those which await adequate attention.

It seems that some media sources oversubscribe a few well known spokespersons of Israel who mostly cycle and recycle known arguements and hence offer little or no new perspective. On the contrary other credible voices coming out of Israel are under-represented if not overlooked. I reproduce some selections from primarily Israeli sources to illustrate the need to get opinins from across the board.

What were the considerations as the earlier truce was about to expire? According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, “told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms.” Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms.

Has there been enough discussion as to what aims were under consideration when the hostilities broke out? Gilbert Kahn, a Kean University political scientist, quoted in the NY Jewish Weekly, said once the truce deadline passed,”Israel was determined to do several things.
First they wanted to maximize the good will and support they expected from Bush administration. Secondly, they wanted to maximize the likelihood that the incoming administration would continue to display a strong sensitivity to the need for Israeli leaders to defend their citizens in the south, while at the same time setting a positive tone for their relationship with the new administration.”

David Horovit reminds Jerusalem Post’s readers that Israeli Premier Ehud “Olmert has relentlessly insisted that he was the man best placed to oversee the rehabilitation from 2006 – from a war mismanaged by an inexperienced prime minister, a defense minister (Amir Peretz) who was entirely unqualified for the job, and a chief of staff (Dan Halutz) who placed exaggerated confidence in the air force’s capacity for destroying carefully protected underground infrastructure and a highly mobile Hizbullah fighting force” in Lebanon.

Has there been enogh discussion as to who can be considered a responsibe party to restore peace? The sound of Gaza burning should be drowned out by the words of the Israeli writer Larry Derfner. He says: “Israel’s war with Gaza has to be the most one-sided on earth… If the point is to end it, or at least begin to end it, the ball is not in Hamas’s court – it is in ours.”