Some useful facts to keep in mind:

1. Prior to the Israeli invasion of Gaza on Tuesday night, which resulted in the deaths of six people, there had been an ongoing but uneasy truce between Hamas and Israel for five months. Ma’an News quotes an Israeli spokesperson as saying that the invasion was intended to “protect the ceasefire”. An interesting strategy, but nevertheless, one which failed to raise any eyebrows at The Post. I will ask the question that they seem to have forgotten: “How could an attack protect a ceasefire?”

2. “Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland, former National Security Adviser to the prime minister’s office, and the former head of the IDF’s Planning and Operation Branches” spoke to Jerusalem Post about the need to pre-emptively attack the tunnels as a result of the lessons learned from the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. He said it should have been done years ago. The reason for the threat: “We don’t control what goes in and out of Gaza”. I beg to differ. Israel may not control the arms and money flowing in through the tunnels-that is for certain. They do however control the import and export of goods and services to the civilian population of Gaza and have severely restricted them for well over a year. This makes the population dependant on the tunnels for more than weapons, but also for basic goods. The Post failed to mention the siege on Gaza or the proliferation of tunnels that it has caused. Ha’aretz mentions that Gaza has been sealed in response to the rocket fire, but declined to comment on how this would effectively strengthen Hamas and its ability to provide for people through the tunnel system. The siege affects civilians and does little to undermine the influence of Hamas in the Strip.

3. Israel’s decision to attack the Gaza Strip after nearly five months of not doing, and presumably upon the suspicion that Hamas was planning to use the tunnels to kidnap another soldier, happens to coincide with ongoing internal Palestinian peace talks in Cairo. The Post failed to question whether Hamas had any interest in kidnapping another soldier, as if holding two Gilad Shalits would somehow strengthen their bargaining position vis a vis Israel. They also failed to question the Defense Ministry’s diplomatic-military bureau chief Amos Gilad about how Hamas “still has an interest in maintaining the ceasefire” yet planned to kidnap another soldier which would have effectively ended the ceasefire immediately. I don’t know about you, but I smell something funny. Why is this seemingly unprovoked attack happening now amidst the internal Palestinian dialogue and just prior to Sec. Rice’s final visit to the region? Why are neither of these things mentioned in the Jerusalem Post article?

4. Quite predictably, Hamas’ reaction to the invasion was to launch a number of rockets into the Negev, further terrorizing the civilian population of two small towns who had lived in a rather peaceful state for nearly five months. Though we condemn these attacks whole-heartedly, it is the disturbing logical conclusion to the Israeli invasion. In other words, Israel knew that their invasion would provoke a response, which would lead to the counter response we saw last night in which a member of Islamic Jihad was killed. The cycle of violence between Gaza and Israel has begun anew, and once more both sides are claiming to act in self defense. Buckle up Sderot. If your leaders lack the foresight to see these events coming, then surely they are far from over.

So why has Israel decided to provoke and effectively victimize Hamas today as opposed to last week or last month? It is impossible to know for certain, but I think the answer lies somewhere in what was not mentioned in The Post.

The fact that Palestinians are moving forward in their internal dialogue and attempts to reunite the West Bank and Gaza Strip as we speak; the fact Israel is undergoing a political transition which has effectively frozen the Annapolis Process to the point that Sec. Rice must return once more to ‘thaw’ it out; and the fact that the attacks occurred on Tuesday night while the entire world watched the US elections and where almost no news time could be spared to discuss the events, seems almost too well timed to be purely an act of pre-emptive self defense by the IDF.

A renewal of violence emanating from the Gaza Strip will throw a spanner in the works of the internal Palestinian dialogue. Furthermore, it will provide a justification to continue freezing peace talks with the PA until the transition of a new American administration is complete. Why Israel would be seeking these things is unclear. What should be clear to readers is the predictability of the response(s) and the effect that they will have on the prospects for peace. Wake up Jerusalem Post and start asking some of these questions.