Shalom Rav verweist in einem aktuellen Beitrag auf einen Zeitungsartikel von David Grossman in Haaretz. Dieser führt in gewisser Weise die Diskussion aus meinem vorherigen Beitrag über die Schuld der Hamas an der Eskalation (wie ich meine) fort. So plädiert Grossman für einen kühlen Kopf:

After its severe strike on Gaza, Israel would do well to stop, turn to Hamas’ leaders and say: Until Saturday Israel held its fire in the face of thousands of Qassams from the Gaza Strip. Now you know how harsh its response can be. So as not to add to the death and destruction we will now hold our fire unilaterally and completely for the next 48 hours. Even if you fire at Israel, we will not respond with renewed fighting. We will grit our teeth, as we did all through the recent period, and we will not be dragged into replying with force. Moreover, we invite interested countries, neighbors near and far, to mediate between us and you to bring back the cease-fire. If you hold your fire, we will not renew ours. If you continue firing while we are practicing restraint, we will respond at the end of this 48 hours, but even then we will keep the door open to negotiations to renew the cease-fire, and even on a general and expanded agreement. von hier

Amos Oz sieht die Schuld ebenfalls bei der Hamas, rät aber auch zu weitergehenden Überlegungen:

Oz told Corriere della Sera that “Hamas is responsible” for the outbreak of violence, but “the time has come to seek a cease-fire.” He called for a “complete cease-fire, in which they don’t fire at us, in exchange for us easing the blockade of the Gaza Strip.” von hier

Im gleichen Text wird auch A.B. Yehoshua zitiert, der die Operation wohl für nötig hielt aber ein schnelles Ende der Kampfhandlungen wünscht. Die Frage die nun noch (wie auch in der Diskussion hier) im Raum schwebt ist, wie kann Israel den Raketenbeschuss stoppen, wenn die Hamas nicht selbstständig davon ablässt? Was sie wohl nicht tun wird.

Kleines Update: Auch das Movement for Reform Judaism hat einen Kommentar veröffentlicht. In diesem heißt es:

Abraham Bell of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs reminds us that “if the attempt has been made to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage–but is directed at a target with very large military value–would be lawful” (Abraham Bell, “International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel’s Right to Self-Defense, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29, January 28, 2008, Institute for Contemporary Affairs/Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs). The fact that the number of civilian deaths, as tragic as they are, have been minimal, attests to Israel’s care in striking only Hamas military targets. One must also take into account the fact that most armies seek to achieve military victory by the defeating the military capacity of an enemy. That is what Israel is now doing. The targets thus far have been training facilities, bomb depots, and Hamas military headquarters. Again, any loss of civilian life is regrettable. No one in Israel rejoices when such casualties occur. von hier