Massive Israeli Air Raids on Gaza

[Bellerophon]

In fact, the African Union is.

A fair point. I'm slapping my forehead now -- I knew that. If I were thinking properly, I would have written non-regional powers. The African Union has a security interest in the conflict.

Also, would you have supported a full-scale invasion if it had occurred, or would the complaint have been, why not Iraq?

No, I wouldn't. In fact, I'd oppose it for precisely the same reason I opposed the invasion of Iraq. We'd need to totally reform the country or they'd go right back to killing each other when we left. The attempt would be very costly and highly unlikely to succeed. If an international coalition asked for our help, however, I would provide it. Ditto in Palestine. I bristle when we unilaterally align ourselves so closely with one party that our involvement is inimical to peace. That doesn't benefit anybody -- the United States least of all. I may be a bad person, but I'm a bad person who puts his country first. The raison d'être of a nation state isn't charity for others. If we're helping a combatant, we should get something out of it that's better than what Switzerland gets. And moreover, it should be proportional to the risk we assume. Goodwill isn't going to cut it when half the world hates us. In the Levant, our ally should be willing to make big concessions so we get to play peacemaker. Instead, our ally gets its way in all things and we're the Great Satan.

[LadyHawke]

If you don't have credibility in foreign policy, you don't have anything. Nobody is sending troops to Darfur . . .

HEL-lo! Thank you, this is what I've been screamin.

In fact, the African Union is. Also, would you have supported a full-scale invasion if it had occurred, or would the complaint have been, why not Iraq?

Lastly, Darfur is the size of Western Europe with very little infrastructure, and access would have to be conducted across equally unforgiving (and highly hostile territory).

I doubt I would support a full scale invasion of any country that hadn't sent troops into my country first. But while we overreacted and manipulated and lied to go into war with Iraq, we ignored Darfur. Has nuttin to do with infrastructures or hostile terrority (tho that does factor into larger interests, tho prolly not the ones you meant) but it has everything to do with oil and money and power. Plus, we gotta kiss Bashir's butt cuz the so-called 'war on terror' ranks as priority.... We only care about helping people when we have a 'vested interest' (define- resource to exploit worth the risk) to watch out for. Also why we turned blind ears and eyes to the Mymar monks.....

But there ARE diplomatic solutions other than ignoring or full scale assult and invasion....... The logic behind 'it's wrong for you to use bombs, shoot missles, and kill people, and so I will use bombs on you, shoot missles at you, and kill you to prove that point,' just kinda escapes me.

[Qu Klaani]

*Kicks thread*

Hitch, as ever, when right* is a good read.

*By which I of course mean when I agree with him, well mostly anyway.

[Philharmonic]

the latest position (yesterday) is Israel have bombed three schools and killed many, including children. WHY?

seriously, that is intolerable-bomb three places filled with a) people taking refuge from the fighting and b) kids.

i think its time america stepped in and deprived israel of their military equipment. or use airstrikes against their runways to stop them launching planes.

[Yrael]

i think its time america stepped in and deprived israel of their military equipment. or use airstrikes against their runways to stop them launching planes.

no

Come on, if America, who is struggling to support itself, tired to take action, then all sorts of chaos would break out, depriving them of their military equipment wont stop terrorists! Do you think that they are supplied by the army? Taking away military equipment would just mean that you would anger the country and make it so that they couldn't take appropriate action to STOP these things from happening. "Stepping in" would do no good whatsoever.

[Philharmonic]

i think its time america stepped in and deprived israel of their military equipment. or use airstrikes against their runways to stop them launching planes.

no

Come on, if America, who is struggling to support itself, tired to take action, then all sorts of chaos would break out, depriving them of their military equipment wont stop terrorists! Do you think that they are supplied by the army? Taking away military equipment would just mean that you would anger the country and make it so that they couldn't take appropriate action to STOP these things from happening. "Stepping in" would do no good whatsoever.

i think we are thinking on different terms.

i remember seeing a broadcast by the Israeli prime minister saying he had ordered the bombings. if america 'liberates' them of any american tech, it would cripple the israeli operation, and if gaza attack them back, i say they have it coming because if i recall correctly, a couple years ago, a cease-fire was called between the two nations.

and if 'stepping in would do no good whatsoever', then as i said, cripple their airbases-destroy the runways. that way, minimal casualties, operation would be crippled and if gaza attacks back then israel still has military equipment to defend itself-maybe not fighter jets but ground troops and tanks.

i'd like to know whose idea it was to put a jewish state in the middle of a load of islamic ones.

[Bellerophon]

Hitch, as ever, when right is a good read.

I agree with that for the most part. I'm a little uncomfortable with his unqualified insistence that Gaza could have been a model Palestinian state. Why does he think Hamas won in the first place? The people there freakin' hate Israel, and with good reason. The Israelis left the territory in ruin, the people destitute, and behaved like they were making a big concession by withdrawing. Those who create a power vacuum bear some responsibility for the crap that fills it. I would have known not to vote for Hamas, but that's because I was fortunate in my education. The Palestinians in Gaza aren't a brain trust. Hamas promised desperate men the moon.

Maybe if Israel made a better effort to win hearts and minds none of this would have happened. The Israelis should take a lesson from our failed Cuba policy. Embargo hasn't worked too well, has it?

I'm not pleased that my country is still undercutting international efforts to broker a resolution to the crisis. And for what?

[Qu Klaani]

Why does he think Hamas won in the first place?

*puts hand up*

Ooh, ooh, I know why!

It's because some people (a lot of them to be fair) think elections = democracy. They're quite wrong of course.

[Bellerophon]

It's because some people (a lot of them to be fair) think elections = democracy. They're quite wrong of course.

Quite right, but as I recall the election of Hamas was certified by impartial observers. The result was unfortunately (for all concerned) an antidemocratic regime. Is that what you're getting at? If so, we can both be right about something. In your case, that the election foreseeably did not lead to democracy. In mine, that the election was free and fair. My point was that the outcome might have been more conducive to peace if the Israelis showed a bit more consideration for the plight of the Palestinians.

If you wouldn't have held an election, what would you have done instead?

[jessia]

so... rockets from lebanon into israel now...

[Qu Klaani]

I wasn't dismissing the fairness of the elections, I really don't know the details. My point is that a democracy requires so much more than just elections. Democracy needs a free press, an effective separation of powers, a well developed civil society, a well-informed electorate etc etc etc. It also needs time to develop. You can't just go "here, have some elections" and expect anything other than a disaster. I know little about the 06 Palestinian elections, but as soon as the results became public and the massive debate started over Hamas the above was what came hurtling to mind.

[Melancholy Man]

It's because some people (a lot of them to be fair) think elections = democracy. They're quite wrong of course.

Quite right, but as I recall the election of Hamas was certified by impartial observers.

Yes, it was. They fairly received 42% of the vote for the regional assembly. This was not a Presidential election. They then proceeded to seize 100% of the executive power in Gaza.

[Bellerophon]

It's because some people (a lot of them to be fair) think elections = democracy. They're quite wrong of course.

Quite right, but as I recall the election of Hamas was certified by impartial observers.

Yes, it was. They fairly received 42% of the vote for the regional assembly. This was not a Presidential election. They then proceeded to seize 100% of the executive power in Gaza.

Good, we all agree. I would only add that Israel foolishly contributed to the antidemocratic outcome when it left the territory a smoldering ruin. Perhaps I'm naive, but I doubt Hamas could have pulled it off with 2% of the vote.

Edit: Pretty good article about the rise of Hamas in Gaza.

[LadyHawke]

There was a VERY good, erm, kinda question raised, whose idea was it to put that 'democratic state' where it is, is a history far too many are ignorant of. When really educated on it, from BOTH sides, an even more disturbing history emerges.....

[jessia]

interesting developments re: israeli military conduct: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8490646.stm

[Melancholy Man]

I wonder if planning objections in Western cities raise as much ire.

Was I the only one who who saw the humour in agents in fake beards, and sun-glasses whacked a terrorist on an arms-buying expedition.