Bloodshed in the Gaza Strip

Since Wednesday the 27^th, Israeli air raids have killed at least 28 Palestinians in the Gaza strip. The first attack resulted in the death of 11 people among whom were a twelve-year-old child and a six-month-old baby. Then, in response to the death of an Israeli killed by a Hamas rocket, the attacks intensified and on Thursday morning 8 members of Hamas2 other combatants and 4 children aged7 to 12died. The UN spokesperson strongly condemned the deaths of the children, describing them as “tragic and condemnable”. He called Israel “not to put the civilian lives in danger”.
However, the Israeli Prime minister, actually in Tokyo, showed his determination to pursue these attacks against rocket launchers. He even said that “Israel has to be ready in case of an escalation” and that “a large scale ground battle is highly likely to be considered”. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who is expected to be in Israel next week, stated that the “rocket attacks must stop” and she expressed her concern about the fate of “innocent people and the humanitarian situation in the Palestinians territories”.
On the Palestinian side, Ismaïl Haniyeh, a Hamas leader who is not recognized by the international community, condemned “the repeated crimes committed by the Zionist occupation”. He called for the Arab countries to “break their regrettable silence and to immediate action in order to end the aggression”.
In this article of the February 28^th edition of Le Monde, it is interesting to see that we get different point of views. We don’t have simply two sides of the story but I might say 4: First we have the “neutral” point of view from the UN spokesperson. Then we have the position of the Israeli Prime minister, which I would have expected to come first in the article. For the third position, there is the US point of view embodied by Condoleeza Rice, which doesn’t surprise me at all, as the US has always given its support to Israel. But at the same time she expressed her concern for the lives of the Palestinian so she might be viewed as kind of “neutral”. Finally, there is the Palestinian point of view, which is not official , as the leader is not even recognized by the international community. I would have expected someone from the government, but maybe as we said today in class, what if you don’t have someone from the other side to talk about the issue? Do we accept any source to represent this ‘other side,’ even when it is unofficial, simply for the sake of having two sides of the story? In order for democracy to be respected, I think it would be strongly recommended that both sources carry equal diplomatic weight.