Gaza Campaign and Israel’s SecurityTestaments are violated and solemn promises broken by the custodians of the Promised Land on the pretext of securing the state of Israel from the rockets and mortars and to restore Israel's deterrent credibility which was seriously discredited by the Lebanon fiasco. However, it has been aptly argued by many
analysts that the real intent and purpose of Israel's unleashing this reign of terror is the creation of ‘Greater Israel' . It is hell bent upon controlling all of what was used to be known as the Mandate Palestine, which includes Gaza and the West Bank. As per the pernicious scheme, the Palestinians would have limited autonomy in a handful of ‘disconnected and economically rippled enclaves', one of which is
Gaza. Israel would control the ‘borders around them, the air above and the water below them' (John Meirsheimer, "Another War, Another Defeat" , The American Conservative, 2009.) One of the corollaries of the scheme is to instill in the minds of the Palestinians that they are the defeated people thereby having no choice but to surrender their future to the Israelis.
The primary aim of
Israel's military campaign was to neutralize Hamas's ability to carry out rocket attacks against Israel, but it also led to the death of more than 1300 Palestinians, wounding even a greater number of them and destroying at least 41 Mosques besides wiping out the already antiquated and overloaded infrastructure in Gaza. Damage to vital infrastructure, including many roads, bridges, hospitals and power stations, has severely limited local capacity to care for the injured and displaced. UNDP has already warned that Gaza campaign and the collateral damage will have long term impact on Palestinians.
Security Council Resolution 1860(2009) called on the international community to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation in Gaza. The United Nations is about to unveil a
US $ 613 million aid appeal for war-torn Gaza. The funding will be used to provide food, shelter, healthcare and other assistance to victims of Israel's 22-day attack on the Palestinian territory, said John Holmes, chief of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. According to the agency, an assessment on the long-term needs in the conflict-hit territory is already underway. The Resolution called for an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.
Israeli claims have been that
Hamas consistently violated the ceasefire that it so ‘diligently' observed, therefore leaving it with no other choice but to destroy Hamas's capacity to launch missiles into southern Israel. The claim does not hold water in the face of record. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce. As per the understanding, Hamas was to stop missile attacks on Israel, and in return the latter was bound to ease its iron grip on Gaza. Ironically Israel tightened it further. (Henry Siegman, "Israel's Lies" , London Review of Books, 29 January, 2009). This was confirmed by many neutral observers and NGOs operating there. Even Brigadier General (Res.) Shamuel Zakai, a former Commander of IDF's Gaza Division, accused the Israeli government of making a ‘central error' during the six months period of truce i.e. ‘failing to take
advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the
economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip……….you cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress, they are in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing' (Interview in Ha'artz on 22 December, 2008).
Israel would have tactically won the war against the defenceless Palestinians, but its strategy of making Israel securer is nowhere in sight. The timing of the war was in narrow terms well calculated by its architects. Many observers are of the opinion that even if Israel is successful in uprooting or expelling Hamas from Gaza, which is a remote possibility in the face of the ‘we are all Hamas' phenomenon, it will be replaced by a more radical and ferocious organization taking up the flag of resistance. Such a group may establish its links with Al Qa'ida as well. Ironically some Israeli newspapers have absurdly attempted to create a kinship between Hamas and the latter. This is a mistake, says Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad and Sharon's national security adviser, because {The Hamas Political Bureau Chief, Khalid} Mashal's declaration diametrically contradicts Al Qa'ida's approach, and provides Israel with an opportunity, perhaps a historic one, to leverage it for the better. Most of the observers are of the opinion that the results of the campaign have been inconclusive for Israel – even in terms of its immediate aim of preventing Hamas or any other group to fire rockets into it. Its wider strategic implications, moreover, are far from comforting. ( Paul Rogers, "After Gaza: Israel's Last Chance)
Israel has to understand that it can continue flouting international understandings and conventions in total disregard to the international public opinion yet it would do so only at the expense of its security both in the longer and shorter run, further vitiating the prospects of its viability and both external and internal security in the hostile environment. Gaza offensive meted out a serious setback to the euphoria in the Arab world in general, and Saudi Arab in particular about the success of the peace process spearheaded by Saudi Arabia. The latter urged its ally the United States to intervene in order to end Israel's attack on Gaza. "Superpowers should take responsibility to stop these attacks," the official Saudi Press Agency reported, citing a telephone conversation between Saudi King Abdullah and U.S. President George W. Bush.
Israel is also fast losing its erstwhile friends and strategic allies. Its attempts to barter peace deals with the surrounding states may also flounder on this very count. Syrian sponsorship of Hamas has had an enormous impact on the group's operational capacities. Since the mid-1990s, Damascus has been the operational headquarters of the Hamas military wing and a nexus for the transfer of external
funds to Hamas operatives in the territories.
Syria and Syrian-occupied Lebanon have become major conduits for funneling weapons and explosives to Hamas and safe havens for training hundreds of its operatives. (Middle East Intelligence Unit. http://www.meib.org/articles/0210_s1.htm) Israel has the bargaining chip of Golan Heights which it had wrested and occupied from Syria in the 1967 War. In fact Turkey had been mediating the process between the two bitter enemies for a year. The idea was to create a more peaceful or at least predictable neighbourhood for Israel before tackling the increasingly complex Palestinian problem. Now in the wake of the Gaza offensive, the talks have been stalled and Syria has bitterly condemned the Israeli attacks.
Yet another fallout of the same had been a spectacular public criticism of Israel by the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Turkey is one of the regional countries that have the closest ties with Israel besides Egypt. It has struck arms procurement deals with Israel as well. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan went to the extent of demanding American President to declare Israel as a terrorist state for its unleashing a reign of terror on the innocent civilian Palestinians. As a mark of protest against the partisan treatment/behaviour of the moderator of the programme at the World Economic Forum, the Prime Minister walked out of the debate. Later in an interview to the Newsweek, Tayyip Erdogan termed Gaza as an ‘open air prison' . In response to a query, he said, ‘Hamas is a political party and not an "arm of Iran" or for that matter of Syria. As a matter of fact, the international community has not respected the Palestinians' verdict.
On the one side, it wishes to flourish democracy in the Middle East, and on the other it doesn't respect the ballot box results.
"If the whole world had given [Hamas] the chance of becoming a political player maybe they would not be in a situation like this after the elections that they won."
[SigmaForex Funding Methods] 
Safety of funds plays an important role in any type of business; we make our best efforts to ensure protection of customers’ money.
Minimum deposit required for funding new accounts: Our accounting department is ready to help you
fund your new
account or add funds to an existing account. For Standard Dealing Desk Accounts the minimum deposit is $ 500, and for the No Dealing Desk Accounts the minimum deposit is $ 2000.
Deposit instructions: You must open a web account and associate it with your live account to insure security of transactions in your account
How to do so? 1. Open web account
2. Login and associate your Live Trading Account with your Web Account
3. Login to your Web Account and click 'Make a Deposit"
Deposit methods 1- Bank wire transferA wire transfer is a transfer of
money from one bank account to another. The actual transfer is done by the bank, and neither the sender nor the recipient of the money sees or touches the actual funds.
Deposit Time1-5 business days
SigmaForex does not guarantee deposit times in the event of a margin call
FeesNone
SigmaForex will not be held responsible for charges or fees assessed by going through an intermediary bank.
Withdrawal Eligibility Immediate availability
RestrictionsThe account holder name of the funds must always match the name listed as the customer on the
trading account.
2-
E-gold payments Open
www.e-gold.com- Create new e-gold account - Issue transfer request from your e-gold account to SigmaForex e-gold account.
Deposit TimeImmediate deposit SigmaForex does not guarantee deposit times in the event of a margin call
FeesNone
SigmaForex will not be held responsible for charges or fees assessed by going through an intermediary bank.
Withdrawal Eligibility Immediate availability
RestrictionsThe account holder name of the funds must always match the name listed as the customer on the trading account.
You do not have an account yet? Open Live Account