The Status in Gaza

The BBC has a map of the attacks in Gaza here, but on a lame, flat map. I added the information to the Gaza map we showed here at CA in 2007 here, and show the amended map below.


Also, The Independent has a unique “Mind Map” chart of the Gaza crisis that you can see here. And what’s more, Robert D. Kaplan has a piece on Gaza in the Atlantic here, with the following analysis:

Hamas does not have to win this war. It can lose and still win. As long as no other political group can replace it in power, even as some of its diehards can continue to lob missiles, however ineffectually, into Israel, it achieves a moral victory of sorts. Moreover, if Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement tries to replace Hamas in power, Fatah will forever be tagged with the label of Israeli stooge, and in the eyes of Palestinians will have little moral legitimacy. Israel’s dilemma is that it is not fighting a state but an ideology…

About Curzon

Lord George Nathaniel Curzon (1859 - 1925) entered the British House of Commons as a Conservative MP in 1886, where he served as undersecretary of India and Foreign Affairs. He was appointed Viceroy of India at the turn of the 20th century where he delineated the North West Frontier Province, ordered a military expedition to Tibet, and unsuccessfully tried to partition the province of Bengal during his six-year tenure. Curzon served as Leader of the House of Lords in Prime Minister Lloyd George's War Cabinet and became Foreign Secretary in January 1919, where his most famous act was the drawing of the Curzon Line between a new Polish state and Russia. His publications include Russia in Central Asia (1889) and Persia and the Persian Question (1892). In real life, "Curzon" is a US citizen from the East Coast who has been a financial analyst, freelance translator, and university professor; he is currently on assignment in Tokyo.
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Status in Gaza

  1. Alfred Russel Wallace says:

    What a witless thing that ‘mind map’ is…..

  2. Psudo says:

    According to the Mind Map, Israel’s response is certainly legal by international law (two affirmative arguments), certainly not proportional (by statement alone with no argument, but hard to doubt), and disputably moral (one affirmative argument and one negative argument).

    Even when it’s a widely popular belief, it worries me when statements are offered with no affirmative argument. That’s the kind of popular belief that shocks the world when it’s overturned by proof.

  3. Jim says:

    The Atlantic article also states:

    “That [2006] attack failed for a number of reasons, not least of which was Israel’s poor intelligence on Hezbollah: historically, its intelligence on the Palestinians has been much better.”

    What evidence is there that intelligence is “historically” better on the part of the Isrealis when it comes to the Palestinians? Is that just code for the Isreali army has beaten them into dazed submission four times now?

  4. Curzon says:

    ARW & Psudo: Let’s face it, The Independent is just a completely crap paper.

    Jim: No, the Israelis have better intelligence on the Palestinians because that is THE most important security concern they have. Lebanon is an occasional afterthought.