December 24 - Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip ratchet up rocket fire towards Israel after Hamas ended a six-month ceasefire.
December 27 - Israel launches air strikes on Gaza in response killing more than 200 people in Gaza, the highest one-day death toll in 60 years of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
December 27 - The United States blames Hamas for breaking the ceasefire and provoking Israeli air strikes.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed concern about the escalating violence and called for immediate restoration of the ceasefire.
“We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire and for the renewal of violence there,” she said in a statement.
December 28/29 - Israel steps up air strikes. The death toll is now close to 350.
In another part of the world, there are now murmurs. Some sections of Indian media have raised eyebrows over what they call a clear case of double standards on the part of Washington.
They say while the United States urged both India and Pakistan to show maximum restraint in the wake of last month’s militant attacks which killed 179 people in Mumbai, the Bush administration was quick to defend Israeli action and condemn Hamas. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe even called the Islamic group “thugs.”
Should India be miffed at Washington’s response?
Tensions are running high between the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours after last month’s attack on India’s financial capital, with both India and Pakistan ratcheting up their rhetoric.
But is war an option? And here’s a question - did India neutralise its military option for conventional strikes against Pakistan, or even target militant training camps, by going nuclear in 1998?
The Congress government faced widespread anger at the security and intelligence failures that led to the Mumbai attacks and must go to the polls by May. A strong response could see people rally behind it.
Despite the rhetoric and, at times, jingoistic approach of some in Indian news television, analysts say it’s not in India’s larger interest to complain about U.S. policy, more so because of Kashmir.
They say a road map is in place to end the Arab-Israel conflict that calls for a Palestinian state living in peace alongside a secure Israel. There exists a Quartet of Middle East peace negotiators — the European Union, United States, Russia and United Nations, with former British prime minister Tony Blair as the envoy.
Can India afford, or rather, would India want similar international attention on Kashmir?
India’s own response to the escalation in violence in the Middle East has been finely calibrated. Maintaining a delicate balance, New Delhi urged “an immediate end to the use of force against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza” while noting the “cross-border provocations resulting from rocket attacks” in southern Israel.
New Delhi’s ties with Tel Aviv have only grown closer over the years although it remains sympathetic to the cause of Palestine, a support that India has extended from days of Yasser Arafat.
But the policymakers know only too well that it’s a tightrope walk for India. The government probably does not want Kashmir back on the agenda, more so at a time when the man on the street in Jammu and Kashmir shunned a perpetual fear of the gun for a date with democracy.
India will pin a lot of hope on a new dispensation in Jammu and Kashmir delivering on developmental goals and silencing the separatists’ shrill call for poll boycott and freedom.
So, with politics in the valley at the crossroads, would New Delhi want the K-word to be raised in the international forum again?
For U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, managing South Asia is a foreign policy priority. Obama has also hinted that he thinks a settlement between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is part of the equation.
But would India accommodate international intervention?
There have also been media reports that Obama is toying with the idea of a South Asia envoy, and that might even be someone as high-profile as Bill Clinton.
India had warmed up to Clinton during his presidential years. But will New Delhi extend the hospitality to Clinton the envoy?
Would India want the Kashmir conundrum to raise its head at a time when violence in the valley is at a 20-year low?
Trackback
27 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
if u want peace
work for justice
- Posted by fashaikh
Wrong. “Si vis pacem, para bellum” - known since the times of ancient Rome. By the way you spell it looks like the probability of you knowing Latin is very low. So here’s the translation: “If you wish for peace, prepare for war”.
- Posted by AnonymousAnd if you happen to encounter a thug armed with a club, or knife, or (in case of Israel) Qassam rocket, you can cry for justice all you want - it won’t help. On the other hand, a Parabellum (aka Luger - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luger_P08_p istol) would. A Merkava tank would help even more.
Pakistani leaders and Pakistani citizens should understand that being a nuke state doesn’t mean that you can do anything to your neighbours.
- Posted by GuruI’m always curious as to what it’s going to take for my fellow americans to change their point of view on Israel. 77 more civilians killed in one day, hundreds killed in a couple weeks of Israeli terror, they’re blocking food support. I can’t imagine any worse version of terror than starving out your enemy, I mean 80% of the people in the Gaza region on partly or fully dependent on those food rations.
It just turns into a chicken-egg argument, who did it first. It’s stupid, for every one person killed by Hamas, the IDF kills 50, Hamas isn’t in the right, both are wrong but it amazes me how we give Israel a pass on everything.
It all stems from soundbites, if Israel blows up a school with one gunman inside and it kills 100 kids also we just brush it off to collateral damage. If a leader of a country says they want Israel gone that’s what we stick to, words are what matter to us, not actions.
- Posted by MichaelPower. Israel has it, but uses it sparingly due to international interference. Hamas has very little power and therefore hides behind international interference while being as disruptive as possible to Israel. Hamas and other like minded Palestinian groups are well aware that they will never succeed in taking back Gaza or Golan, but interference from Europe, the US, and other Middle eastern nations empowers them to fight a protracted war with Israel, preventing the onset of any peace. In the end, if real peace is desired, then power must prevail, and either one side or the other must be the victor. Israel has the power; let them use it and they will solve this problem on their own.
- Posted by Matthew L.Palestinian terrorists will massacre all Israeli civilians if given a chance. That is a fact and they already proclaimed this to the world many times. The only reason they have not done this is because the Israelis are better armed and have more accurate weapons. Don’t fool yourselves by supporting these terrorist for they have no respect for anybody and they will kill you too if they have a chance. So, you better wake up and see the reality of the situation. If you give your hands to the Palestinian terrorists or any Islamic terrorist they will surely bite it and eat you too. That is just the fact. Do you think that if any of these Islamic terrorist ever rule your country or wherever you are that it will become a peaceful and kumbaya place. Just look at what the Talibans have done to women and anybody who do not share their beliefs. DEATH and misery, so, make your choice and I hope you don’t get the “herd mentality” as a result of the result of all the biased reporting that is being broadcast by the media. Think for yourself.
- Posted by Garry…..They say while the United States urged both India and Pakistan to show maximum restraint in the wake of last month’s militant attacks which killed 179 people in Mumbai, the Bush administration was quick to defend Israeli action and condemn Hamas. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe even called the Islamic group “thugs.”
Blindness conveniently afflicts so many people in times like these.
Somehow I doubt that missiles flying over the Pakistan/Indian border from either direction would result in only limited airstrikes. The Mumbai attacks were carried out by non-state terrorists, and showed the faults in both Pakistan and India. In this case, Hamas has tried to behave like a ’state-actor’, i.e. a legitimate government, but has played its hand very badly by demonstrating that it has control over the missiles. Previously, they could hide by saying that they have little control over Islamic Jihad. Then they declared a cease-fire and most of the missile activity stopped. Now that the cease-fire has expired, the missiles are flying.
I am no blind supporter of Israel, but rest-assured if missiles were falling behind my house I would want to declare war in the people who sent it. Israel has been remarkably restrained so far, despite the fact that Hamas continues to launch missiles into Israel.
In a time of war, ALL targets are legitimate, no matter how closely they store the missiles to their wives and children.
- Posted by Robert PrattSvik
- Posted by UmairIf there is any cross-border action, there will be swift and massive retaliation by Pakistan. You need to make an effort to understand Pakistan in the muslim world. This is a unique country, a muslim nation of 160 million people armed with nuclear weapons, want to live in peace with honour and dignity. Just remember this is not an Iraq or an Afghanistan, you have to be clear of the choices you make because you will have to own the consequences. Having stated this, cross-border action will be suicidal for India and nothing less.
regards