Israel opens fire on Gaza aid flotilla; at least 10 dead, 60 wounded

[Mr Skeptic]

In any case, I doubt Israel could realistically accept 4 million people, many of whom don't like Israel, to enter their country. Doing so would significantly weaken Israel's position and put citizens in danger, and can't be undone. A possible 10 year or less truce, on the other hand, is so very easy to undo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna

 

In addition, they would not stop attacks from their territory on Israel during this possible 10 year or less truce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Presidential_and_Legislative_Elections

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1510074/Hamas-offers-deal-if-Israel-pulls-out.html

 

Really, what it seems to come down to is an offer designed to make Israel look bad. It was not a peace offer and not even a truce offer. It just kind of looked like one.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[louis wu]

Let's not make things personal, and try to avoid mockery, please, okay? The thread was great so far - we've managed to have calm and relaxed discussion. Let's try and keep it up.

 

 

I'm well aware of the agreements that were proposed with Hamas and with Fatah, and I will say again that as long as Hamas states *OFFICIALLY* that they intend for the destruction of Israel, then there is no point to talk about peace talks with Israel.

 

How can you discuss peace agreements with anyone that vows to kill you and refuses to drop this vow?

 

~moo

Well I apologise for finding the fact that you informed me of the presidential dates of Jimmy Carter mocking and patronising.

 

As for the Hammas charter it is just a piece of paper. For peace everyone has make compromises. The compromises will be very hard to accept for some people on both sides of the divide.

 

The UK reached peace with the IRA, an organisation whose constitution resembled the Hamas charter in some regards. The town where I live was bombed by the IRA. Still no-one I know prefers the previous situation to the current peace.

The IRA killed royalty in Mountbatten and nearly got the Prime Minister, Thatcher ( I have mixed feelings about that one) and her entire government: but we made peace, why can you not even consider trying it.

[mooeypoo]

Well I apologise for finding the fact that you informed me of the presidential dates of Jimmy Carter mocking and patronising.

I didn't mean to.

 

As for the Hammas charter it is just a piece of paper. For peace everyone has make compromises. The compromises will be very hard to accept for some people on both sides of the divide.

This peace of paper is their charter - and they're not willing to state that they are forgoing that part where they declare that Israel must be eradicated. In that type of situation, there's no option for talk, and hence no option for compromise.

 

You can't really hold only one side accountable for peace talk.

[louis wu]

mooeypoo

 

I would like you to address the rest of my post on how the UK made peace with implacable enemies who killed over 2500 people in a terror campaign and nearly wiped out the whole Government.

 

If it can happen once for us why can it not happen to you.

[Mr Skeptic]

I would like you to address the rest of my post on how the UK made peace with implacable enemies who killed over 2500 people in a terror campaign and nearly wiped out the whole Government.

 

If it can happen once for us why can it not happen to you.

 

Somehow I doubt that the IRA's founding goal was the destruction of England. They just wanted freedom, which is easy enough to grant.

[Pangloss]

Hammas has unilaterally declared and observed several ceasefires, all of which have been ended by Israeli military action.

 

When the peanut king, AKA former US President Jimmy Carter, devised a peace plan Hammas found it acceptable, Israel refused to go along.

 

I don't believe that to be the case, and frankly there is no justification for shooting rockets into civilian areas, regardless of what the Israelis have or have not done.

 

Also Hamas as not at all comfortable with President Carter's 2008 "peace plan", which actually wasn't even a peace plan so much as a few suggestions during an overblown fact-finding mission. As far as I'm aware there have been no circumstances under which Hamas was actually willing to recognize Israel, just political maneuverings that looked as such.

[louis wu]

Somehow I doubt that the IRA's founding goal was the destruction of England. They just wanted freedom, which is easy enough to grant.

They were free citizens of a democracy all along. Perhaps you had better read the provo IRA charter circa 1968, which stated that the governments of both the UK and Ireland were invalid and illegal. The only legal government was the IRA council which the IRA would impose by force.

 

I am typing this from memory so it may not be word perfect. Of course there was a selection of other organisations as well some allied to the IRA and others opposing them. It was simple luck that the entire government was not killed at the Brighton bombing.

 

Hatreds ran very deep on all sides, yet peace seams to have been embraced by all in the end.

Perhaps Israel should try peace they might find they like it.

[mooeypoo]

mooeypoo

 

I would like you to address the rest of my post on how the UK made peace with implacable enemies who killed over 2500 people in a terror campaign and nearly wiped out the whole Government.

 

If it can happen once for us why can it not happen to you.

 

I am not sure I can answer this, as your statement seems to flatten a complex situation to a rather black-and-white innacurate depiction for *both* nations.

 

Israel suffered terrorist attacks on its civilians and had to do something. When the palestinian authority had Arafat, there was at least *some* control over the terrorist organizations during talks, and the situation looked much different - the borders were open much of the time, there was trade and cooperation.

 

However, Israel cannot live with a situation where terrorists are allowed to explode busses, hotels and restaurants and pubs willy-nilly. When Hammas came to power it not only stopped controlling the terrorists, it declared its SUPPORT in those terrorists. As a result, Israel could no longer afford any open border policies. Any attempts to speak to the Palestinians seems to be moot when they claim they want to kill all the jews.

 

You want me to answer you, but you don't answer me at all. How do you speak to a group that declares it doesn't recognize your right to exist?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hatreds ran very deep on all sides, yet peace seams to have been embraced by all in the end.

Perhaps Israel should try peace they might find they like it.

 

Peace is a two-way process. At the very least, we can agree on that, no?

[Mr Skeptic]

Peace is a two-way process. At the very least, we can agree on that, no?

 

Well since we're comparing to England, maybe Israel could try the Ghandi method, trusting that Hamas wouldn't slaughter them all.

[louis wu]

I am not sure I can answer this, as your statement seems to flatten a complex situation to a rather black-and-white innacurate depiction for *both* nations.

 

Israel suffered terrorist attacks on its civilians and had to do something. When the palestinian authority had Arafat, there was at least *some* control over the terrorist organizations during talks, and the situation looked much different - the borders were open much of the time, there was trade and cooperation.

 

However, Israel cannot live with a situation where terrorists are allowed to explode busses, hotels and restaurants and pubs willy-nilly. When Hammas came to power it not only stopped controlling the terrorists, it declared its SUPPORT in those terrorists. As a result, Israel could no longer afford any open border policies. Any attempts to speak to the Palestinians seems to be moot when they claim they want to kill all the jews.

 

You want me to answer you, but you don't answer me at all. How do you speak to a group that declares it doesn't recognize your right to exist?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Peace is a two-way process. At the very least, we can agree on that, no?

The UK made peace with organisations whose constitution was dedicated to the destruction of the UK and Irish governments. These organisations acted with dedication, terror and great force to achieve these aims.

 

To claim that there are no parallels between the two situations is ridiculous. Hamas will have to give up things for peace. Israel will have to do the same.

 

In Europe there is a perception that Israelis do not want peace. Your attitude that we will not even talk to Hamas to see what concessions they want from us and what they are willing to give us seems to reinforce that perception.

 

 

As an aside. I assume that you have done national service. Were you not taught that in combat situations a unit must not be too closely spaced? Such has been standard infantry doctrine since before WWII.

[mooeypoo]

I'm not sure I understand your point, though.

 

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that the issues between hammas and Israel are comparable to those between IRA and the UK (a bit of an oversimplification, but okay).

 

What do you *propose*? Israel and Hamas should talk peace. Agreed. And yet, Hamas seems to not be interested.

 

How do you explain the differences between Hamas-controlled Gaza and Fatah-controlled Ramallah and their relations with Israel, if everything is Israel's fault?

 

You make decent points, my only confusion here is that you seem to be claiming Israel is the only and ultimate villain here - as if everything is Israel's fault. I think that even if we take the position that Israel illegally blockades the Gaza strip, this position is quite one-sided and flattens a complex issue, wouldn't you say? Do you really claim *everything* is on Israel's fault?

 

And what do you propose? What should be done? Let's say you have ultimate power to do whatever you want: how would you have solved the situation?

 

As an aside. I assume that you have done national service. Were you not taught that in combat situations a unit must not be too closely spaced? Such has been standard infantry doctrine since before WWII.

I was not a combat soldier. What I was taught in my national military service I can't share.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well since we're comparing to England, maybe Israel could try the Ghandi method, trusting that Hamas wouldn't slaughter them all.

 

We tried that with a one-sided withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. It caused a substantial increase of rocket attacks and Hamas still refused to allow for valid talks.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

In Europe there is a perception that Israelis do not want peace. Your attitude that we will not even talk to Hamas to see what concessions they want from us and what they are willing to give us seems to reinforce that perception.

 

Louis, please read my words carefully. Not only is this NOT my position, I made it quite clear throughout the thread. Please read the first post I made in this thread and my "disclaimers" there. I might be an Israeli citizen, but that doesn't mean I automatically agree with everything my government does or claims. You've joined the thread late - the fair thing to do is read it.

 

~moo

[louis wu]

I don't believe that to be the case, and frankly there is no justification for shooting rockets into civilian areas, regardless of what the Israelis have or have not done.

 

Also Hamas as not at all comfortable with President Carter's 2008 "peace plan", which actually wasn't even a peace plan so much as a few suggestions during an overblown fact-finding mission. As far as I'm aware there have been no circumstances under which Hamas was actually willing to recognize Israel, just political maneuverings that looked as such.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665

http://justworldnews.org/archives/002880.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa1

 

You are wrong; a firm 10 year truce with Hamas recognition of Israel's right to exist was on the cards. Still perhaps Bush and the neocons didn't like the idea. Someone somewhere did not want peace.

[Pangloss]

You are wrong; a firm 10 year truce with Hamas recognition of Israel's right to exist was on the cards. Still perhaps Bush and the neocons didn't like the idea. Someone somewhere did not want peace.

 

Considering the bolded, it sounds like your ideological preferences are coloring your judgment. Plenty of observers at that time questioned the authenticity of Hamas' promises in 2008, without resorting to Fox News, Republicans, or conservative partisans. It's unfortunate to see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict dragged into the Western liberal-conservative political conflict like that (surely they have enough problems without us piling our ideologies onto the fire), but I suppose this is not entirely unexpected.

 

Too many people seem to have forgotten that the 2008 "cease fire" was entirely one-sided. Hamas never stopped firing rockets into Israel, and Israel stopped shooting many times. You're not wrong to hold Israel responsible for its own errors and bad judgment. You're just wrong to view them as entirely responsible. Even Jimmy Carter doesn't do that.

 

That wasn't the case with Northern Ireland either, btw. In no way was the resolution of that conflict as one-sided as you make it out to be. BOTH parties had to work hard to bring it to an end.

 

Such will almost surely be the case with Israel and Palestine as well.

[louis wu]

Considering the bolded, it sounds like your ideological preferences are coloring your judgment. Plenty of observers at that time questioned the authenticity of Hamas' promises in 2008, without resorting to Fox News, Republicans, or conservative partisans. It's unfortunate to see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict dragged into the Western liberal-conservative political conflict like that (surely they have enough problems without us piling our ideologies onto the fire), but I suppose this is not entirely unexpected.

 

Too many people seem to have forgotten that the 2008 "cease fire" was entirely one-sided. Hamas never stopped firing rockets into Israel, and Israel stopped shooting many times. You're not wrong to hold Israel responsible for its own errors and bad judgment. You're just wrong to view them as entirely responsible. Even Jimmy Carter doesn't do that.

 

That wasn't the case with Northern Ireland either, btw. In no way was the resolution of that conflict as one-sided as you make it out to be. BOTH parties had to work hard to bring it to an end.

 

Such will almost surely be the case with Israel and Palestine as well.

A simple search seams to turn up the statistic that the 2008 Hamas ceasefire gave a 97.5 reduction in rocket attacks which seems very useful and effective to me.

 

 

You are missing the whole point of the IRA troubles analogy which was a situation facing the UK government from perceived and feared terrorist organisations which which eerily matches that faced by the Israeli government.

 

Of course the IRA made concessions that stuck in their craw. So did all paramilitary organisations and the UK government.

 

Both Israel and Hamas would have to do the same.

[mooeypoo]

97 percent is not 100 percent -- they kept shooting rockets at Israel, which means the cease fire wasn't kept.

 

But I would like to go back to my original question which is left unanswered. Louis, is your position that Israel is at fault for everything while Hamas is at fault for nothing? If not, then I'd love to hear what, in your opinion, Hamas did wrong.

 

And what, in your view, is the solution - if you could do *anything*, what would you do to solve this as both countries?

[louis wu]

Mooeypoo

 

in response to your last post.

 

Well I do not think that Israel are the sole villains of the peace by any means.

 

Hamas is conducting a terror campaign or asymmetrical warfare, call it what you will.

The rocket attacks are rather ineffectual with something like 10 deaths in 10 years. The suicide bombing campaigns are far more effective, and not dissimilar to the bombing of public places in the UK & Ireland troubles.

 

I might feel that the blockade fails the humanitarian test, but the blockade has been in place for some time without any legal challenge and before recent days there was no prospect of any legal challenge.

 

I feel that the intervention in international waters has been a PR disaster for Israel. Apparently there have been anti-Israeli demonstrations in Greece in support of the dead Turkish activists (something I would have thought impossible). If Israel is determined to continue the blockade it will have to keep interventions inside territorial waters where international law is clear that Israel has stop and search rights on any ship of whatever flag. I have heard speculation that Turkey may send naval ships to accompany any new Turkish blockade runners.

 

I think that possibly the blockade is doomed. Activists will believe they have a weak spot in Israeli policy and are going to keep chipping away. It might be best for Israel to give up the blockade voluntarily in order to extract worthwhile concessions from Hamas in an agreement that is public knowledge (so that if Hamas reneges the fact is obvious)

 

I would start building bridges with Hamas first because they have shown some control in the past over their terror campaign, and also because I have the possibly erroneous impression that they are less corrupt than Fatah.

 

So here is my simple masterplan. All you need to do is overcome the accumulated hatred of the last few decades and get on with it.

It should be simple for a girl like you!

[ewmon]

Can I ask what relevance you think the San Remo manual has?

 

Well... now I've become ambivalent (and confused). The world is not clear on "what" Gaza is. It seems that it is recognized as a sovereign entity by half the world, the exceptions being mostly Australia, Japan, North and South America, and western Europe. So, who issues passports to Palestinians/Gazans? What do countries recognize as passports for them?

[Newbies_Kid]

Except that it doesn't appear they came in peace, and I would suspect both Somali pirates and the Italian mafia would both defend themselves when lethal force is used on them, probably with quite a bit less restraint than the IDF.

 

If you care to examine why many in this thread contend they "did not come in peace" or the various explanations, legality, and ethics for the actions of both parties, I recommend reading this thread.

 

"did not come in peace"??? is it a joke? where the aid convoys heading to? are they marching straight to israel like those hijacked airplane heading straight to world trade centre on 11/9? and who the hell of israel to intercept other nation convoy who clearly come to deliver aid to trapped Palestinian. I can't see any reason of their action except total annihilation of Palestinian. May be our opinion get differ because our mainstream media is different. But as a human, we can clearly judge which one is humanity and which one we call bestiality.

[Mr Skeptic]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665

 

This one is false. It mistakes the meaning of a hudna and its false conclusions stem from this. There was no offer to acknowledge Israel as a nation.

 

http://justworldnews.org/archives/002880.html

 

Khaled Mishaal has affirmed on Monday that his Movement was amenable to establishing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital but without recognizing the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

...

"Our main objective of reaching a comprehensive truce with the IOA [israeli Occupation Army] was to protect our Palestinian people, to lift the siege, and to open the Rafah crossing point, which spurred us to reject Carter's proposal", asserted Mishaal during the conference.

They weren't going to acknowledge Israel and in any case they rejected Carter's proposal.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa1

 

To be fair, I suppose, Israel doesn't acknowledge Hamas either. On the other hand, neither does most of the world.

 

You are wrong; a firm 10 year truce with Hamas recognition of Israel's right to exist was on the cards. Still perhaps Bush and the neocons didn't like the idea. Someone somewhere did not want peace.

 

Including links that refute your own claim is not really very convincing. Also, I don't think the US has nearly as much influence here as you'd like to believe.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A simple search seams to turn up the statistic that the 2008 Hamas ceasefire gave a 97.5 reduction in rocket attacks which seems very useful and effective to me.

 

Or, it could be entirely useless. It's not like they stopped making rockets during that time, they just temporarily shot off less of them.

 

Were the rocket attacks few enough that Israelis could feel safe living outdoors?

Edited June 5, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-other-side-of-the-gaza-blockade-1992076.html

 

The economic collapse in Gaza is striking. A decade ago, annual per capita income in Gaza was $2,500, and some $400m of goods was exported to Israel annually. When Israel imposed the siege after Hamas seized power in 2007, per capita income fell to around $900. Last year, it was just $600, plunging most Gazans below the poverty line to survive on less than $2 a day.

 

By the most conservative estimates, unemployment runs at 45 per cent, and the UN Relief and Works and Agency says it gets some 40,000 applications for even the most menial jobs. About 80 per cent of the population is now dependent on UN food parcels, quarterly packages comprising rice, milk, flour, cooking oil, sugar and cans of meat. "We are not Darfur," says Palestinian economist Omar Shaban. "If you removed the siege, people could live as they do in the South of France. We have everything in our homes. But we deserve better lives."

 

Worth reading.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/jun/05/flotilla-raid-henning-mankell-diary

 

Henning Mankell is a Swedish crime novelist who was on one of the ships. You can skip to "Monday 31 May, midnight" if you don't want to read it all.

[mooeypoo]

Mooeypoo

 

in response to your last post.

 

Well I do not think that Israel are the sole villains of the peace by any means.

Okay.

 

Hamas is conducting a terror campaign or asymmetrical warfare, call it what you will.

The rocket attacks are rather ineffectual with something like 10 deaths in 10 years. The suicide bombing campaigns are far more effective, and not dissimilar to the bombing of public places in the UK & Ireland troubles.

... is that a suggestion to the Hamas on how to improve? I.. am not sure I understand the point of this paragraph..?

 

I might feel that the blockade fails the humanitarian test, but the blockade has been in place for some time without any legal challenge and before recent days there was no prospect of any legal challenge.

Right. There were a few posts on this thread talking about the possible legality of the blockade and the action taken.

 

I feel that the intervention in international waters has been a PR disaster for Israel. Apparently there have been anti-Israeli demonstrations in Greece in support of the dead Turkish activists (something I would have thought impossible). If Israel is determined to continue the blockade it will have to keep interventions inside territorial waters where international law is clear that Israel has stop and search rights on any ship of whatever flag. I have heard speculation that Turkey may send naval ships to accompany any new Turkish blockade runners.

Agreed. But as I said, I don't see an alternative. Risking Hamas getting more rockets or explosives is not a viable alternative, and we know they're *trying* to get those through the sea.

 

What should've been done differently is the *way* this action was taken. I'm not a military tactician, and I don't pretend to know how those operations work in the sea, but clearly something went wrong.

 

It should be done differently, but I don't see how the IDF could afford letting this ship through, considering the potential price.

 

I think that possibly the blockade is doomed. Activists will believe they have a weak spot in Israeli policy and are going to keep chipping away. It might be best for Israel to give up the blockade voluntarily in order to extract worthwhile concessions from Hamas in an agreement that is public knowledge (so that if Hamas reneges the fact is obvious)

That won't happen. First, as we've said many times here, the blockade isn't strictly Israel's it's a *joint* blockade Israel and Egypt. Second, there were quite a large number of ships found on their way to Gaza carrying tons of armaments and explosives and rockets; Since there is no "customs" in Gaza, and there is no international party to check *in Gaza* that there are no weapons and explosives, the ships are to go through an inspection (like all ships, in all ports, all over the world do) in another port. Israel offers that the UN conducts these inspections with the supervision of the ship's owners. This is better than what happens in many other countries where customs and port control does its own checks and makes its own decision according to the rules of their own state.

 

But here, it's different, so Israel and Egypt offer to have a third party checking anything and everything that goes into the strip - because no on else does.

 

In the choice between good PR and national security, Israel elects for national security. The citizens would love it if the PR was a bit better, too, but the world thinks we're constantly doing propaganda anyways, so that doesn't seem to help us any either.

 

I would start building bridges with Hamas first because they have shown some control in the past over their terror campaign, and also because I have the possibly erroneous impression that they are less corrupt than Fatah.

Yes, I would too. *How* ? How do you start building a bridge with a group that vows to kill you?

 

So here is my simple masterplan. All you need to do is overcome the accumulated hatred of the last few decades and get on with it.

I agree. That's not a solution though. I ask *how*? What do I do? What to do? How do we overcome this hatered?

 

(I shall ignore, for a moment, the generalization that was done here about both nations, I assume it was done for the sake of delivering a stronger point).

 

It should be simple for a girl like you!

I will take my ponytails and my jump-rope outside right now.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

... is that a suggestion to the Hamas on how to improve? I.. am not sure I understand the point of this paragraph..?

 

[...]

 

Agreed. But as I said, I don't see an alternative. Risking Hamas getting more rockets or explosives is not a viable alternative, and we know they're *trying* to get those through the sea.

I think louis's point was that the consequences of rockets getting into Gaza aren't, in fact, very big, since the rocket attacks have had relatively few casualties compared to the number of rockets launched.

 

Of course, forcing people to dodge into air-raid shelters daily isn't good, either, but retaliating by starving other people may seem disproportionate. It'd be different if the rocket attacks killed hundreds or thousands of Israelis.

[mooeypoo]

I think louis's point was that the consequences of rockets getting into Gaza aren't, in fact, very big, since the rocket attacks have had relatively few casualties compared to the number of rockets launched.

I understand, but as you point out in the rest of your post -

 

Of course, forcing people to dodge into air-raid shelters daily isn't good, either, but retaliating by starving other people may seem disproportionate.

It's not just "isn't good", it is an act of war.

 

And Israel isn't starving the people of Gaza; truckloads of humanitarian aid is entering the Gaza strip every day with tons and tons of food and supplies. There's a problem (as we've discussed before in this thread) of distributing the food to the people who need it rather than to Hamas officials (and the UN has had problems with Hamas stealing its supplies more than once.. it's not just "israel having a problem" here).

 

Reducing this problem into a rather one-dimensional view where israel is starving people and hamas is not killing enough people isn't really representing the situation as it is.

 

It'd be different if the rocket attacks killed hundreds or thousands of Israelis.

Only emotionally.

 

If Canada or Mexico were to fire the same amount of rockets into the USA regularly (hell, even irregularly.. even one rocket..) is it still relevant that the number of dead wasn't in the thousands? People are in bunkers, people are hurt, economy is hurt, and people are at severe risk. I don't know if you've ever lived in a bunker for extended periods of time, but this is not a way to live, and it's not something you'd expect your government to just.. "accept" until more of your own citizens would die.

 

Hamas uses civilians as human shields - there is proof of that, it's a claim the UN is making as well, not just "horrible Israel" - which contributed to their death toll. Are we really claiming that until the death toll is similar (if not equal) on both sides, then one side has a right to continue shooting rockets and force a million people into bunkers for months at a time?

 

The fact Israel is good at protecting its civilians with Bunkers doesn't mean Israel should just settle with this situation because people didn't die enough.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's not just "isn't good", it is an act of war.

Fair enough.

 

And Israel isn't starving the people of Gaza; truckloads of humanitarian aid is entering the Gaza strip every day with tons and tons of food and supplies. There's a problem (as we've discussed before in this thread) of distributing the food to the people who need it rather than to Hamas officials (and the UN has had problems with Hamas stealing its supplies more than once.. it's not just "israel having a problem" here).

 

Reducing this problem into a rather one-dimensional view where israel is starving people and hamas is not killing enough people isn't really representing the situation as it is.

 

Again,

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-other-side-of-the-gaza-blockade-1992076.html

 

The economic collapse in Gaza is striking. A decade ago, annual per capita income in Gaza was $2,500, and some $400m of goods was exported to Israel annually. When Israel imposed the siege after Hamas seized power in 2007, per capita income fell to around $900. Last year, it was just $600, plunging most Gazans below the poverty line to survive on less than $2 a day.

 

By the most conservative estimates, unemployment runs at 45 per cent, and the UN Relief and Works and Agency says it gets some 40,000 applications for even the most menial jobs. About 80 per cent of the population is now dependent on UN food parcels, quarterly packages comprising rice, milk, flour, cooking oil, sugar and cans of meat. "We are not Darfur," says Palestinian economist Omar Shaban. "If you removed the siege, people could live as they do in the South of France. We have everything in our homes. But we deserve better lives."

 

Incidentally, the IDF transfers something like 1300 tons of aid into Gaza daily. Given that the Strip has a population of 1.5 million, that's 800 grams of aid per person.

 

Given that many Gazans are homeless and unemployed, they can't afford much more than the food aid that's handed out to them, and that aid isn't enough to live on daily.

 

Also, a large percentage of Gazan buildings were destroyed in the Gaza War, and of course they have no building materials to rebuild them.

 

If Canada or Mexico were to fire the same amount of rockets into the USA regularly (hell, even irregularly.. even one rocket..) is it still relevant that the number of dead wasn't in the thousands? People are in bunkers, people are hurt, economy is hurt, and people are at severe risk. The fact Israel is good at protecting its civilians with Bunkers doesn't mean Israel should just settle with this situation because people didn't die enough.

 

And we would not respond with a blockade. The question isn't whether action is justified, it's whether this particular action is justified.

 

Take Iran, for instance. They've test-fired long-range missiles, pursued a nuclear program, trained Taliban fighters who attack us in Afghanistan, and so on. Have we blockaded Iran to prevent these activities? No, nobody in the US would support that, because we do not want to punish the entire Iranian populace for the actions of a few.

 

Instead, the Western world has pursued diplomatic means of forcing Iran to change its ways. Brazil and Turkey have negotiated nuclear deals. The UN imposed sanctions that try not to harm the populace.

 

In short, we have responded to their antics not by escalating militarily but with diplomacy and restraint. Even when our troops are being shot by Iranian-trained fighters.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The Economist in its latest issue makes the argument that Israel's blockade only strengthens Hamas's political power, rather than weakening it:

 

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16274281 (subscription required)

 

Initially Hamas and other militant groups, drunk on their self-claimed success in forcing Israel’s departure, sought to fight their way out with projectiles. The number of mostly home-made rockets hitting Israel rose from 281 in 2004 to 1,750 in 2008; and their range rose from a few kilometres to reach Tel Aviv’s outskirts. But stung by the ferocity of Israel’s reprisals, most lethally in the January 2009 war, Hamas reined in its fire and forced others to do likewise. So far this year 34 rockets have landed in Israel, none launched by Hamas. “Hamas is defending Israel,” chuckles an Israeli foreign ministry official.

 

(bold mine, since I thought that a particularly important point)

 

Co-ordinating the effort is a remarkably well-oiled bureaucracy. To finance its half-billion-dollar annual budget, the Hamas government has instituted an effective tax regime, raising duties on tunnel imports, including cigarettes, petrol, clothes and bread. Officials claim to have achieved self-sufficiency in melons (piled high on the roadsides) and onions; and the price of eggs has fallen to half what it is in the West Bank. With fishing in the seas restricted by Israel’s navy, Hamas is opening fish-farms in former Israeli settlements. Its institutions publish online compendia of the government’s directives, the results of civil service exams (based, they claim, on merit, not factional allegiance), and send text messages to the lucky few cleared for travel to Egypt to update them on bus and crossing times.

 

More damagingly for Gaza’s people, the siege has also allowed for much greater control. Manned by militants from its Ezz al-Din al-Qassam brigades hitherto deployed against Israel, Hamas’s internal security applies the brigades’ blinkered codes to harness society. This has created stability but at the price of a reign of fear. When rival Islamists decried Hamas’s rule in Rafah, the militants stormed the mosque and killed its worshippers. When leftists protested that the tax rises hit a people already burdened by siege, they were hauled to jail. The death penalty has been reinstituted. And insensitive to comparisons with Israel, Hamas’s forces have bulldozed the homes of Gazans who had moved onto former settlement land without authorisation. A thriving political culture has been culled to a one-faction state.

[mooeypoo]

Incidentally, the IDF transfers something like 1300 tons of aid into Gaza daily. Given that the Strip has a population of 1.5 million, that's 800 grams of aid per person.

 

Given that many Gazans are homeless and unemployed, they can't afford much more than the food aid that's handed out to them, and that aid isn't enough to live on daily.

 

Also, a large percentage of Gazan buildings were destroyed in the Gaza War, and of course they have no building materials to rebuild them.

I agree. Something should be done. What I have trouble with is seeing *what can* be done.

 

Israel has a lot of infrastructure projects with Gaza (example of some here). The main thing here also is that untreated sewage in Gaza affects Israel directly - because sewage runs into the streams that go into Israel's water supply. Israel has a motive to help here. The problem is that Gaza needs to cooperate, and at the moment, that doesn't happen. The treatment plant, for example, in Jenin, is inoperable because of maintenance problem; Technically, it's the palestinian authority's responsibility, but also Israel can't really send technicians in there without promise for their safety -- something Hamas is *not* prepared to do.

 

It's a big problem. Big. It must be solved, I do agree, I am simply saying that there are two sides for this crisis, not just one, and both sides need to talk and find a solution.

 

Things weren't always like that, and they got worse in the past few year, and *much* worse since Hamas took control over the strip.

 

And we would not respond with a blockade. The question isn't whether action is justified, it's whether this particular action is justified.

I understand that. But in order to say that this particular action isn't justified, you need to have an alternative action that is considered justified.

 

What do you recommend instead of a blockade?

 

Take Iran, for instance. They've test-fired long-range missiles, pursued a nuclear program, trained Taliban fighters who attack us in Afghanistan, and so on. Have we blockaded Iran to prevent these activities? No, nobody in the US would support that, because we do not want to punish the entire Iranian populace for the actions of a few.

Completely different scenario here.

 

For one, you're dealing with a full fledged country, and as such, actions are military. Israel does not have a war against the palestinians, but rather against terrorist groups. As it were, this particular time, the terrorist group is in control of the government, but Israel recognizes that it's not representing the entire palestinian people in their claims, desires and actions, and hence is at least attempting to avoid large scale damages.

 

In this case, there is little more to do than a blockade. There is food in Gaza, the problem is that the people can't buy it - the problem is shared between Israel and the palestinian authority. The fact that Israel should try to find better solutions is clear. I agree with that. I am simply saying that (a) it's not *only* Israel's problem to solve, and (b) that at the moment, I'm not sure there are any other viable solutions to be found other than a blockade.

 

In the past, the borders were open, allowing palestinians to work in israel - allowing for trade, export and import from and to the gaza strip. The people were much better off then, of course. Then, though, the terrorist organizations started to take advantage of the situation, sending terorrists - sometimes women and children - with explosives to bomb civilian facilities. Israel increased security measures, but the attacks kept coming.

When Arafat declared that he can't stop the bombs from going through, Israel closed the borders. When Arafat cooperated, the borders were open and allowed traffic in and out - with security measures, of course, but still allowed traffic.

 

Today, however, not only is there no real partner in the Gazan side, this "partner" vows to use any means necessary to kill Israeli civilians. The borders cannot be open. What, then, is the alternative?

 

I agree the situation is shitty. I really do, and i actually remember living in *better* times of cooperation between Israelis and Pelstinians. I remember going to their markets and having them come to ours. We might not have been "BFFs forever" but there wasn't any fear going to their towns, and them coming to ours.

 

Today, though, that's impossible. Even electricity workers sent by Israel to fix a faulty infrastructure were shot by palestinian terrorists. There's a big problem here of trust on both sides, and without trust, you can't talk compromise.

 

I will repeat again - I agree that this is a shitty situation, and that we need to find a solution, and that I *HOPE* with all my heart that the blockade will one day no longer be needed. At the moment, however, I don't quite see any other method that assures Israeli citizens they can be safe.

 

Do you?

 

Instead, the Western world has pursued diplomatic means of forcing Iran to change its ways. Brazil and Turkey have negotiated nuclear deals. The UN imposed sanctions that try not to harm the populace.

 

In short, we have responded to their antics not by escalating militarily but with diplomacy and restraint. Even when our troops are being shot by Iranian-trained fighters.

Yes, (a) that doesn't seem to work, (b) they also resorted to other means like sanctions (which is not a physical blockade, but is a political blockade) and © Iran isn't in close proximity to be considered an *immediate* danger as Hammas is. We're not talking about a country thousand miles away, we're talking about a country 50 feet off the other side of the fence. That's immediate.

 

You don't escalate with Iran because you have a CHOICE. The danger they pose isn't immediate. But what do you think would happen if Iran started bombing the USA (and I'm not talking about US military bases in Iraq, I'm talking about actual cities in north america)? Do you really think the US will remain placid with political talks? If entire cities will have continous rocket attacks from Iran (even without a large death toll)?

 

Would you *expect* your government to stay placid with political sanctions if rockets were to fall on your head inside the USA?

 

The Economist in its latest issue makes the argument that Israel's blockade only strengthens Hamas's political power, rather than weakening it:

 

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16274281 (subscription required)

Yeah, Israelis tend to agree, and I do too. However, I shall repeat the point, that letting guns and explosives in (and we know for a fact that if we drop the blockade and not check ships, those *will* get in) is much worse consequence than the one suggested above.

 

~moo