The hope for an early end was dashed when an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire proposal (supported by India and most countries in the international community) was accepted by Israel, but was met by Hamas with a new barrage of rockets aimed at the Jewish state.
Israel is dealing with a situation that no other democratic country has had to face in recent years. Try to imagine that a neighbour of the US or India has smuggled or assembled thousands of missiles with a range of hundreds of miles, and that neighbour has declared a goal of inflicting the greatest possible damage on our countries, whose legitimacy it does not recognize. What would our governments do?
They could bury their head in the sand pretending the threat did not exist, until one day the first missile comes flying across the border.
They could attempt to show restraint, hoping this would set an example for the other side, unless, of course, the other side interprets our behaviour as weakness and lack of political will.
They could respond "proportionately" to any attack by firing, say, one missile for each one sent our way, but that could lead to an interminable war and countless casualties.
They could follow the tempting prescription put forth by all those calling for coexistence, as if every conflict has a negotiated settlement built in, and as if our adversary were not ideologically determined to destroy us.
Or they could conclude, as Israel has, that the adversary is determined at all costs to wage war, won't change its outlook, and seeks to maximize murder and mayhem, and that this adversary must therefore be answered with a strong, unambiguous response.
It is important to recall that it did not have to be this way.
In 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew all settlers and soldiers from Gaza, giving this narrow strip of land its first chance in history, following previous occupations by the Egyptians, British, Ottomans, and others, to exercise sovereignty.
That could have become the springboard for a new start, perhaps the beginning of a Singapore on the Mediterranean.
But within two years, Hamas, categorized as a terrorist group by the U.S. and EU, similar to the LTTE in Sri Lanka, seized power. Rather than Gaza's construction, the goal became Israel's destruction. The Hamas Charter chillingly spells it all out. Building missiles became a national obsession. Concrete and metal allowed into Gaza and intended for construction of homes and schools have been used to construct tunnels to Egypt and Israel, channelling weapons and terrorists bent on kidnapping and killing Israeli civilians. Where schools were built, too often education for "martyrdom" was the norm— and a special facility was set aside for an arms depot, just as in many hospitals and mosques.
Hamas does not play by the rules governing democratic societies. In that spirit, it does not try to protect civilians, but uses them as human shields for rocket launchers and other weapons systems.
This, then, is a time for moral clarity in the international community. We need to make a fundamental distinction between Israel and Hamas— between the fireman and the arsonist, between the democratic society and the despotic regime.
If Hamas's indiscriminate firing of missiles aimed at any Israeli target, be it a kindergarten or a nursing home, does not stand in stark contrast to Israel's warnings for Palestinian civilians to evacuate specific planned targets in Gaza— warnings that come at great cost to Israeli strategy and lives— then something essential is missing from an understanding of the conflict.
This is also a time for the many countries around to world to reconsider their regrettable decisions to recognize the so-called Palestinian Authority-Hamas "unity" government. After all, that Hamas is the very same terrorist organization waging this war.
If peace based on two states for two peoples is ever to come—and I pray it will—then Israel's neighbours must understand the country is strong and here to stay, and that only a decisive Palestinian leadership committed to peace, and not in league with Hamas, can help get us there.
Shira Loewenberg is Director, AJC Asia Pacific Institute, New York
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
This is perhaps the only sensible piece on OUTLOOK w.r.to Israel-Palestine conflict..
Still would have helped if the guy also mentioned the role played by West Asian Theocracies in aggravating the conflict. Secularisation of Saudi Arabia is a critical input in solving the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Israelis look ridiculous when they try to show themselves as better than those "terrorists" Hamas. The ruling Likkud party's major component is the former Herut party of the former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who himself was a terrorist who blew up the King David Hotel in 1946. Netanyahu's government has extremist coalition partners, e.g. the Jewish Home Party and others, who do not only work for continued expansion of occupation but do not want any Palestinians living in Palestine.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT