By Isabel Kershner
A12
Israel is not a “fractious” country, one on the verge of breaking as the word fractious implies. It is one of passion and contention.
Kershner quotes one volunteer for a petition-signing campaign calling upon the government to swap over 1000 Palestinian prisoners for Gilad Shalit to demonstrate that "many Israelis" see the attack in Gaza as "a clear subjugation of Corporal Shalit's safety to broader military goals." The "broader military goals" to which Kershner refers in a rather cold, objective manner include restoring calm to the Southwest Negev and protecting Israeli citizens there from rocket attack.
Although Shalit's parents are not quoted in the article, Kershner indicates that they were likely against the recent six month truce since it did not secure their son's release. She uses this fact, however, to subvert the rationale for the IAF action - a rather underhanded move.
Posts
Your point on fractious was well made.
ReplyDeleteAbout opposing the operation...underhanded indeed.
-Of course no mention of the tunnel Israel destroyed, which is what commentators suggest brought down the truce (in reality it would've been a number of things). The tunnel brought mention in Israel of Schalit, as he was dragged back to Israel through such a tunnel.
No mention. Instead there's room for "many Israelis".
Good point by the writer at the end:
"Columnists noted both were essentially saying the same thing." Which essentially means he's not coming home.