Sticky post. Come back throughout the day.
7:48 p.m. Traveling to Finland might not need an IDF advisory about war crimes lawsuits. According to Tundra Tabloids, a so-called legal expert says "the shadow of the Holocaust" prevents Finns from seeing that Israel is a "rogue state."
7:28 p.m. This aerial map of one section of Gaza City lays out how Hamas places rocket launchers, weapons depots, bunkers, rigged explosives, military positions, tunnels, and obstacles adjacent to schools, mosques and medical facilities.
Call it collateral damage waiting to happen. Via IDF Spokesperson Blog.
6:52 p.m. With human rights groups intending to file war crimes charges, IDF officers travelling abroad are advised to first check with the Judge Advocate General. YNet News writes:
While the State is likely to be able to thwart such attempts in The Hague, having suits of this nature filed with local European courts quashed is more complex: Many of the European courts have taken it upon themselves to hear cases of alleged war crimes perpetrated in other countries, even if they themselves have no affinity to the case . . . .
According to political sources, the situation may take another turn for the worst after the foreign media will be allowed back into Gaza Strip, and the devastation in Gaza becomes more evident.
6:06 p.m. Daniel Flitton, diplomatic editor at The Age, examines the biases poisoning debate on both sides of the Gaza conflict. I like his general direction, but is it a slippery slope to moral equivalence?
6:02 p.m. I hope I'm wrong, but I expect The Economist will prove correct in the long-term on one point:
Unfortunately for Israel the rest of the world will remember the heavy civilian casualties without necessarily accepting Mr Barak’s attribution of most of them to Hamas’s “murderous cynicism” operating out of “schools, mosques and hospitals…using the civilian population as a human shield.”
If the press, "history's first-draft," proved itself reliable, there would certainly be a greater awareness of Hamas's "murderous cynicism."
5:41 p.m. This Chicago Tribune staff-ed lays out exactly what Hamas gained from the war:
Now Hamas—and the people of Gaza—should be wondering what they gained from this war. The answer: Hamas gained nothing and its people paid a heavy price.
Hamas was left Sunday demanding that all the entries to Gaza be opened—just what it was demanding before the fighting began.
Hamas wrested control of Gaza on the promise that it would govern more effectively than its corrupt rival Fatah. It promised Gazans prosperity. Instead, by provoking this war, it showed again that it would eagerly sacrifice its people's lives and security in the name of its terrorist goals.
5:20 p.m. According to this staff-ed in The Guardian:
Hamas can claim it has withstood Israel's fury and emerged intact. The core of this conflict, the blockade of Gaza, remains unchanged.
The Palestinians were firing weapons before disengagement, after disengagement under Abbas, and before Israel blockaded Gaza's Hamastan regime.
The only thing that remains unchanged is Hamas's refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist, accept previous peace agreements, and renounce violence.
4:37 p.m. Via Hadassah Levy, Richard Cravatts of the History News Network wonders why the Ontario chapter of Canada's largest trade union is defending Islamic University:
. . . virtually every leading figure of Hamas has taught or studied at Islamic University. The research labs of the university were also being used to refine the lethality and range of the Qassam rockets that have been terrorizing southern Israeli towns. A professor there, Jameela El Shanty, was quoted in 2006 as admitting that "Hamas built this institution. The university presents the philosophy of Hamas. If you want to know what Hamas is, you can know it from the university."
Read more about Islamic U.'s extracurricular activities.
4:25 p.m. As the military operation draws down, the media war continues. HonestReporting's latest communique's online: Holding Fire: IDF Withdraws From Gaza.
4:18 p.m. Dry Bones on the "naive newsman":
3:32 p.m. Shimon Shapira writes that Iran is already positioning itself to be a mover and shaker in Gaza's post-war rebuilding efforts.
In 2006, the Washington Times blew the lid on Hezbollah's own "home improvement program" that went on before the Second Lebanon War. (Hezbollah's better known Iranian-financed Construction Jihad project was after that war.)
3:02 p.m. Military force can defeat terror. Today's WSJ points to Sri Lanka, where the government has quietly recorded an impressive string of victories over the Tamil Tigers. The WSJ concludes with this thought:
But a political settlement is something to discuss after the Tigers have been subdued.
We recount this history at length to make a simple point: Colombo's military strategy against Tamil terrorists has worked. Negotiations haven't. That's an important reminder as Israel faces its own terrorism problem . . .
2:49 p.m. After fisking him, Australian columnist Caroline Overington notes that The Age yanked Michael Backman's screed, "Israelis are Living High on US Expense Account."
2:36 p.m. The Globe & Mail assesses Op Cast Lead's winners and losers. Do you agree with Patrick Martin?
2:26 p.m. Columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's off her rocker:
How many Palestinian Anne Franks did the Israelis murder, maim or turn mad?
Anne Frank and Dutch Jewry didn't fire Qassams or Iranian-supplied Grad rockets at Germany for seven years . . .
2:14 p.m. Wow. Azad Ali, a Muslim civil servant in the UK's treasury ministry was suspended from work and may be sacked after making hardline comments on his personal blog, Between the Lines, about the UK government's reaction to the fighting in Gaza.
The Daily Telegraph explains why it's a touchy issue:
Mr Ali has had a central community role in helping to tackle Islamic fanaticism in Britain. He is head of the Muslim Safety Forum’s counter-terrorism team, working with the Home Office, senior police officers and the Security Services.
The civil service code restricts political activities “which impinge wholly or mainly on party politics” including “speaking in public on matters of national political controversy; expressing views on such matters in letters to the Press, or in books, articles or leaflets”.
The Daily Mail adds that Ali also appeared to advocate the killing of British troops in Iraq.
1:47 p.m. The Guardian presents one reason hiding among civilians and bringing widespread destruction upon Gaza will bring legitimacy for Hamas:
Salam Fayyad, Abbas's prime minister, warned that reconstruction aid for Gaza – which he estimated would need $1.5bn at once – must be channelled through the Ramallah-based administration. But EU governments and the UN have signalled that they are prepared to deal with Hamas.
1:35 p.m. Fisk's being Fisk again.
1:15 p.m. AP sums up Hamas's lack of reliability:
Hamas says it lost 48 fighters during Israel's latest offensive in the Gaza Strip.
The claim in the militant group's first statement on its losses is far below the hundreds of militants that Israel says it killed.
It was impossible to verify the figures released by Hamas spokesman Abu Obeida.
9:56 p.m. The NY Times Opinionator picks up on the Battle Over the Battle in Gaza, including links to some nice J-bloggers.
9:35 a.m. Foreign journalists began returning to Gaza. Although there are no more Israeli restrictions on reporting, Hamas is restricting journalists. BBC reporter Paul Wood describes one incident:
Hamas officials stopped the BBC from filming at one site where bodies were still being removed – a sign, perhaps, that there had been some kind of military target nearby, our correspondent says.
