It is unfortunate that after the
Israelis have withdrawn from the Gaza area, and returning the land
to the Palestinians, the Hamas Government "allowed" its activists
to attack an Israeli guard post (located on Israeli soil) and to
kidnap an Israeli Draftee-Soldier as hostage for
negotiations.
It was an unproked and senseless attack by the Hamas activists,
which resulted in deaths on both sides during the attack, and with
the safety of the kidnapped Israeli soldier becoming an added
burden to Hamas game-plan.
The Israeli response was heavily punitive to show that they will
not tolerate such Hamas attacks - whether kidnapping an Israeli
citizen or a military personnel.
The strong and continuing Israeli military push - at the risk of
endangering the life of the kidnapped soldier - clearly show that
they will exact a high price from the Hamas provocation.
The Israeli seems to make it clear that no such actions will have
any beneficial outcome - that even with a final exchange of
prisoners (if it happens), the other costs to damaged properties
and additional lives lost will have to be taken into final
accounting.
Hamas will experience a "hollow
victory" after all events are taken into
consideration.
As much as the Israeli actions can be seen to be justifiable, it is
unforgiveable that the safety of civilian has not been given
priority during the Israeli military actions.
Are the Israelis to be blamed singly in their military actions that
resulted in collateral damage to civilian lives and properties
?
Unfortunately, being provoked by the indiscriminate rocket attacks
by Hamas activists on Israeli civilian townships does not make
callous Israeli military action any more justifiable.
However, as outsiders to the conflict, without being immersed into
the psychic of the daily Israeli-Palestinian Life - can we give any
definite and fair comments to the actions taken by both sides
?
Small State like Singapore that spend billions in defence, armed to
the teeth already, ought to refrain from insensitive purchase such
as aggressive and very expensive Apache helicopters which would end
up as white elephants or worst cause an arms race in the region
which lead to the endless vicious cycle of tensions and arms
purchase.
The Apache helicopters, F-16 C/D
planes, new stealth Frigates, adopting of submarines warfare - and
investments in the development of the F-35 Future Fighter Plane -
are all not 'White Elephants'.
We will never know when the crunch comes, and raising the expertise
levels to be able to defend ourselves will require us to
train for at least five to ten years; and all
these trainings will be expended in a short and explosive
conflict that will determine our future,
Can we afford to sleep and then learn the art of military warfare
in six months or a year - depending on when we perceive a threat to
be one, before stepping onto the starting block to begin training
?
How much time do we need to develop the expertise and smoothen out
the kinks in managing the intricacies of mobilising, co-ordinating
an army of different specialists weapons and support systems; all
trained to be integrated to provide one decisive punch to
decide an outcome in as short as possible one explosive moment in
time ?
Our SAF has taken a course of 40 years - from 1966 to this date -
to be where we are today.
Looking back at the early days of 1966, can the SAF of that year -
with the weapons systems of that period - give us any credible
deterrent against anyone who may wish us harm, or can we contribute
to regional security in any convincing way when facing current
potential threats ?
Without a "credible stick in our drawer" - will anyone take us
seriously to be able to look after ourselves, and contribute to any
regional team efforts ?
Why take a negative view
as an "Arms Race" ?
Look at it as a "Positive
Regional Contribution " to our "mutually assured security and
survival "
And did the historical baggage of Spore resulted in not issuing
statement to urge restraint on the Israelis let alone condemnation?
Yet quick to comment on N Korea missile launch when it is very much
the arena of the world powers.
Comments, views pls
Although Singapore was aided by
Israeli to help set up the early SAF - almost immediately after
Singapore was evicted from Malaysia, our gratitude has to be
tempered by the morality of the events.
Can we allow our moral values to take second place as a result of
gratitude ?
During the April 1996 UN General Assembly debate on a 'Resolution
Condemning Israeli military attacks against the civilian population
in Lebanon - which was introduced by Indonesia - Singapore spoke
out against attacks on civilians and supported the
resolution.
Prior to this, the Singapore UN Representative also made clear our
position in a speech to the UN General Assembly:
BILAHARI KAUSIKAN (Singapore) said
that, while Israel had claimed the right to security, Lebanon, too,
had legitimate rights to security and territorial integrity. All
States in the region should enjoy the same rights which should be
respected. Any attacks against civilian targets were unwarranted.
The world deplored terrorist acts and military attacks against
civilian populations. The deaths of the United Nations Interim
Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) peace keepers was also a cause for
concern. The United Nations force should not be obstructed and the
safety of its personnel and the civilians it protected
ensured.
He welcomed Security Council resolution 1052 (1996) adopted on 18
April, expressing the hope that it would be implemented
immediately. The Assembly should also strongly and directly
reaffirm the importance of a comprehensive, just and lasting
settlement of the Middle East conflict as a significant
contribution to international peace and security, as set out in
General Assembly resolution 50/21 of 4 December 1995
General Assembly Plenary - 4 - Press Release
GA/9069 116th Meeting (AM) 25 April 1996
