Israeli forces attack humanitarian convoy in intl. waters

[Thanas]

Also, nevermind if there are more guys than needed for offloading the cargo (though nobody has proved that yet and if the cranes are not working, you really need that many people at least to offload a decent freighter), it raises public awareness. From the objective view, that is still a net benefit to the Palaestinians. This just sounds like a smokescreen to steer the discussion away from the real issue.

[Coyote]

Or do you also decry that the US sends along personnel whenever they deploy humanitarian aid to an unstable country as more mouths to feed?

Not entirely comparable; the US has an extensive logistical support network backing them up so that personnel deployed on humanitarian aid missions are not drawing from local resources. Do these Gaza Fleet people really have an organized and sustainable supply chain backing them up?

If you were the organization, why would you not want to send your guys along?

A valid concern, but then we're back at the notion that these people were brought to be 'security', which puts them potentially in the position as being seen as dockyard thugs-- and drawing off of either local resources or the very resources they brought themselves. Besides, isn't Hamas there to provide security?

Nevermind that the U.S. dallied about after the Haitian disaster waiting for adequate 'security' to be in place. Assholes! More mouths to feed. There's no reason to do anything but dump shit on the wharf.

No, actually, Thanas raises a valid point in that the Gaza relief fleet will provide their own distribution network upon arrival-- one problem with just kicking humanitarian aid out the door as we drive by is that it leads to either riots as people scramble for food (and the weakest are sidelined by local toughs) or it ends up in the hands of warlords.

Hamas has been accused in the past of appropriating humanitarian aid before and keeping most of it for their fighters while letting crumbs go to the populace, so this could be a valid concern.

[Thanas]

Or do you also decry that the US sends along personnel whenever they deploy humanitarian aid to an unstable country as more mouths to feed?

Not entirely comparable; the US has an extensive logistical support network backing them up so that personnel deployed on humanitarian aid missions are not drawing from local resources. Do these Gaza Fleet people really have an organized and sustainable supply chain backing them up?

Also, not the point. Your goods, your people. It is not as if they want the goods to be sold on the black market, which is what will happen if you simply turn them over to corrupt authorities. I would not want to trust Hamas with the supply. In any case, assuming they eat 1500 meals per day, that is still trivially simple compared to what they are actually carrying. Remember that a 10.000 tons freighter was considered sufficient to feed over 20.000 people for a month in WWII, so really they are not that much, unless they eat seven-course orgies every day.

[Qwerty 42]

I'm not really getting this whole "Oh my God! Free Gaza just wants attention!"

Well, publicity is definitely a desirable goal of the exercise. They're even pretty open about wanting to call attention to the situation in the Gaza Strip. If they'd just wanted to get supplies in, they wouldn't have put webcams on their boats or even announced that they were going and when.

[The Yosemite Bear]

question?

what happens if the kurds who are pro-AQ kidnap the Isreali students?

[Elfdart]

We can now put to rest once and for all the notion that the blockade has anything to do with "security".

Posted on Wed, Jun. 09, 2010
Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn't about security
Sheera Frenkel | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 09, 2010 06:24:03 PM

JERUSALEM — As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as "economic warfare" against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.

Israel imposed severe restrictions on Gaza in June 2007, after Hamas won elections and took control of the coastal enclave after winning elections there the previous year, and the government has long said that the aim of the blockade is to stem the flow of weapons to militants in Gaza.

Last week, after Israeli commandos killed nine volunteers on a Turkish-organized Gaza aid flotilla, Israel again said its aim was to stop the flow of terrorist arms into Gaza.

However, in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.

"A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using 'economic warfare,'" the government said.

McClatchy obtained the government's written statement from Gisha, the Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, which sued the government for information about the blockade. The Israeli high court upheld the suit, and the government delivered its statement earlier this year.

Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn't imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. Gisha focuses on Palestinian rights.

(A State Department spokesman, who wasn't authorized to speak for the record, said he hadn't seen the documents in question.)

The Israeli government took an additional step Wednesday and said the economic warfare is intended to achieve a political goal. A government spokesman, who couldn't be named as a matter of policy, told McClatchy that authorities will continue to ease the blockade but "could not lift the embargo altogether as long as Hamas remains in control" of Gaza.

President Barack Obama, after receiving Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, said the situation in Gaza is "unsustainable." He pledged an additional $400 million in aid for housing, school construction and roads to improve daily life for Palestinians — of which at least $30 million is earmarked for Gaza.

Israel's blockade of Gaza includes a complex and ever-changing list of goods that are allowed in. Items such as cement or metal are barred because they can be used for military purposes, Israeli officials say.

According to figures published by Gisha in coordination with the United Nations, Israel allows in 25 percent of the goods it had permitted into Gaza before the Hamas takeover. In the years prior to the closure, Israel allowed an average of 10,400 trucks to enter Gaza with goods each month. Israel now allows approximately 2,500 trucks a month.

The figures show that Israel also has limited the goods allowed to enter Gaza to 40 types of items, while before June 2007 approximately 4,000 types of goods were listed as entering Gaza.

Israel expanded its list slightly Wednesday to include soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy, said Palestinian liaison official Raed Fattouh, who coordinates the flow of goods into Gaza with Israel.

"I think Israel wants to defuse international pressure," said Fattouh. "They want to show people that they are allowing things into Gaza."

It was the first tangible step taken by Israel in the wake of the unprecedented international criticism it's faced over the blockade following last week's Israeli raid on the high seas.

While there have been mounting calls for an investigation into the manner in which Israel intercepted the flotilla, world leaders have also called for Israel to lift its blockade on Gaza.

At his meeting with Abbas, Obama said the Security Council had called for a "credible, transparent investigation that met international standards." He added: "And we meant what we said. That's what we expect."

He also called for an easing of Israel's blockade. "It seems to us that there should be ways of focusing narrowly on arms shipments, rather than focusing in a blanket way on stopping everything and then, in a piecemeal way, allowing things into Gaza," he told reporters.

Egypt, which controls much of Gaza's southern border, reopened the Rafah crossing this week in response to international pressure to lift the blockade.

Egypt has long been considered Israel's partner in enforcing the blockade, but Egyptian Foreign Minister Hossam Zaki said the Rafah crossing will remain open indefinitely for Gazans with special permits. In the past, the border has been opened sporadically.

Maxwell Gaylard, the U.N.'s humanitarian coordinator in the Palestinian territories, said the international community is seeking an "urgent and fundamental change" in Israel's policy regarding Gaza rather than a piecemeal approach.

"A modest expansion of the restrictive list of goods allowed into Gaza falls well short of what is needed. We need a fundamental change and an opening of crossings for commercial goods," he said.

Hamas officials said that they were "disappointed" by Israel's announcement, and that the goods fell far short of what was actually needed.

"They will send the first course. We are waiting for the main course," Palestinian Economy Minister Hassan Abu Libdeh said in Ramallah, specifying that construction materials were the item that Gazans need most. Many Palestinians have been unable to build their homes in the wake of Operation Cast Lead, Israel's punishing offensive in the Gaza Strip in December 2008 and January 2009.

Israel said the cement and other construction goods could be used to build bunkers and other military installations.

Some of those goods already come into Gaza via the smuggling tunnels that connect it to Egypt.

(Frenkel, a McClatchy special correspondent, reported from Jerusalem. Warren P. Strobel and Steven Thomma contributed to this article from Washington.)

On top of that, the blockade has made Hamas stronger because they control most of the smuggling and reap the profits.

Gaza blockade is a blessing for the black economy – and for Hamas

By sealing Gaza off from import and export, the Israeli blockade has laid waste to the territory's legitimate employers

Gaza City The port at Gaza City. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP

When Usama Kuhail's construction business collapsed almost overnight following Israel's dramatic intensification of its siege of the Gaza Strip three years ago, he knew that the prospects for the 120 building workers he employed on a casual basis were grim.

Along with Kuhail's firm, 3,000 businesses were to go under in the ensuing months. For each job lost, another seven or eight people who relied on that income faced impoverishment.

So what did Kuhail's men do? About 40% now work in the tunnels under the border with Egypt that are used to smuggle huge amounts of goods into Gaza, a dangerous job only for the desperate. The rest, he said, probably either joined the Hamas security services or are paid piecemeal by militant factions to launch rockets into Israel.

"It's hard to blame them when there is no alternative," he said.

Was this what Israel intended when it tightened the noose around Gaza? Does it make Israel more secure to cripple a functioning economy, with trade ties to Israel, Europe and beyond, which provided a degree of stability and security? And to drive honestly employed men into the arms of black marketeers and those Israel sees as its enemies?

The traditional economy is now in such a parlous state that some here in Gaza question whether it can ever recover. But to do so it certainly needs more than simply the easing of the blockade to allow in more aid – crucial though that is for Gaza's population.

Before Israel began its regime of closures at the start of the second intifada, the Gazan economy was dominated by traditional businesses focused on construction, agriculture, furniture-making and textiles. Raw materials were imported; much of the resulting produce was exported. It was the kind of economic model, valued and promoted by western democracies, which forms an essential pillar of any functioning society.

Then, after Hamas's bloody and successful struggle with Fatah for dominance in Gaza and increasing rocket fire from the territory, Israel declared Gaza a "hostile entity" and almost totally sealed its borders.

Unable to either import or export goods, the legitimate economy collapsed. Gaza used to have almost 4,000 factories and workshops; following the blockade – and the destruction wrought in the three-week war of 2008-9 – only 500 or 600 are still operating. In their place there has sprung up a flourishing pirate industry bringing in goods through tunnels to Egypt.

"We are now a nation of tunnel diggers," said economist Omar Shaban. "The tunnels were seen as a tool to overcome the hardship. Now they have become socially, politically and morally acceptable."

There is a black market in most countries, he added, but it normally doesn't exceed 10% of the total economy. "Ours is now entirely black."

The tunnel entrepreneurs – "young men, who used be poor and now are rich," said Kuhail dismissively – are the new elite of Gaza, supplanting the old guard, buying up land, building new houses with smuggled concrete and generally swaggering around Gaza City.

"These emerging families who have never been in business before now have the upper hand over our economy," said Shaban.

Initially, the traditional businessmen shunned the upstarts. "Then they began to realise they were losing power and influence," said Shaban. "Now you begin to see a connection between the tunnel men and the old legitimate businessmen. They are crossing the line."

Some are investing directly, some are servicing the tunnels through related businesses such as haulage, he said.

But there is also another player on the scene: Hamas. Starved of funds after both Israel and the Fatah regime in the West Bank withheld tax revenues, the rulers of Gaza saw an opportunity for income and control.

Tunnel owners are now required to pay hundreds of dollars for licenses, giving Hamas badly needed revenue and the entrepreneurs a veneer of political legitimacy. Earlier this year, Hamas imposed taxes on smuggled goods, including fuel, to help pay its burgeoning salary bill.

But Hamas also understood that if unchecked, the tunnel operators' influence would grow. "The people who own the economy also own the political influence," said Shaban.

By controlling the tunnels, said Mkhaimar Abusada, professor of political science at Gaza's Al-Azhar university, "Hamas has turned the siege to its own advantage. Instead of being squeezed by the blockade, Hamas has become stronger and more powerful."

The net result is the legitimate businesses of Gaza have all but disappeared, dismantled by Israel's siege policy or destroyed in its military offensives, rendering impossible a normal functioning society or state.

Their place has been taken by what some call a new Islamic oligarchy – an alliance between Hamas and the pirate entrepreneurs.

Many question whether this is in the interests of either Israel or the west, which has, until the past week at least, failed convincingly to agitate against the blockade.

Abusada says the policy has backfired against Israel and its allies.

"Instead of weakening Hamas, it has consolidated its grip and its power over the Gaza Strip," he said. "Hamas has already won the battle of the siege."

[Coyote]

Eh, Hamas openly calls for the destruction of Israel in its charter; of course the Israelis will try to engage in some sort of restriction. The US and other countries can (and does) pick and choose who it trades with-- a major Iran sanctions motion recently passed at the UN.

Now, it can be pointed out that this is counter-productive (since Hamas controls the black market) and politically troublesome (like the US's zombie blockade of all things Cuban) but a stance of "economic warfare" really isn't that surprising.

[bobalot]

Eh, Hamas openly calls for the destruction of Israel in its charter; of course the Israelis will try to engage in some sort of restriction. The US and other countries can (and does) pick and choose who it trades with-- a major Iran sanctions motion recently passed at the UN.

"Some" sort of restriction? That's a bit disingenuous. You make it sound like it is like any other embargo. It is not. As shown in this thread , it has embargoed a whole range of goods that have no military value. Its embargo is so tight large sections of the population suffer malnutrition. It has embargoed any good that could make Gaza self reliant in anything, including food production. Israel is in fact quite happily profiting off the situation by selling some of the goods that are no longer able to be produced locally because of the embargo (Elfdart posted that article in this gigantic thread somewhere).

Can you name any other embargo that almost completely destroyed the private sector of a nation?
Or caused wide spread malnutrition?
Or cripples a nations ability to produce its own food?

Can you name an embargo where the local industries are systemically destroyed and the blockading nation then profits off the situation by selling those once locally produced goods?

I'm tired of hearing this bullshit excuse for this embargo. Most countries don't try to make literal ghettos when they set up their embargoes (a bit of a irony considering who is doing it now) .

[Axiomatic]

Of course, there used to be other political factions in Palestine. Too bad the Israelis killed them all.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Jews should know a ghetto when they see one. But as one can see, the sky is the limit for apologism for the most crude barbaric state oppression.

[Elfdart]

I'm glad to see Code Pink showing up at that asshole Brad Sherman's office dressed in prison stripes, offering to turn themselves in (he's the fucktard who wants relief workers thrown in jail):

[[R_H]]

Of course, there used to be other political factions in Palestine. Too bad the Israelis killed them all.

Fatah? Which part of Palestine are you talking about, Gaza or West Bank?

[CJvR]

Of course, there used to be other political factions in Palestine. Too bad the Israelis killed them all.

I think Hamas did most of the killing there in the Palestinian civil war which you might have forgotten.
As for the blockade strenghtening Hamas, perhaps relatively in Gaza but in absolute terms? More doubtful IMPO.

[bobalot]

Of course, there used to be other political factions in Palestine. Too bad the Israelis killed them all.

I think Hamas did most of the killing there in the Palestinian civil war which you might have forgotten.
As for the blockade strenghtening Hamas, perhaps relatively in Gaza but in absolute terms? More doubtful IMPO.

Could you actually make the effort to justify that claim?

[CJvR]

Could you actually make the effort to justify that claim?

Which one? That there were a Palestinian civil war should hardly be disputable, and after that war I at least have heard little of any opposition to Hamas rule of Gaza.
As for Hamas being weaker in an absolute sence, well they are shooting far fewer rockets from the figures I can find on the web than they used to indicating that they are having fewer of them.

[Coyote]

Eh, Hamas openly calls for the destruction of Israel in its charter; of course the Israelis will try to engage in some sort of restriction. The US and other countries can (and does) pick and choose who it trades with-- a major Iran sanctions motion recently passed at the UN.

"Some" sort of restriction? That's a bit disingenuous. You make it sound like it is like any other embargo. It is not. As shown in this thread , it has embargoed a whole range of goods that have no military value. Its embargo is so tight large sections of the population suffer malnutrition. It has embargoed any good that could make Gaza self reliant in anything, including food production. Israel is in fact quite happily profiting off the situation by selling some of the goods that are no longer able to be produced locally because of the embargo (Elfdart posted that article in this gigantic thread somewhere).

Everything you've mentioned here so far is pretty a typical "embargo" goal. Limiting military production? Making life miserable? You may want to do some research into embargoes, sanctions, and blockades. They are tools for making a rival nation or faction unhappy to live in. For example, the UN sanctions in Iran are in place to make Iran an uncomfortable place to live. The sanctions in place against North Korea are there to make North Korea an uncomfortable place to live.

Sanctions, embargoes, and blockades are there to make the local population go without something. It could be luxury items or it could be basic staples. The British blockade of Germany in World War One made life miserable, for example. It weaken war efforts, it erodes morale and resolve, and it causes the population to question their leadership. That is the whole idea.

Can you name any other embargo that almost completely destroyed the private sector of a nation?
Or caused wide spread malnutrition?
Or cripples a nations ability to produce its own food?

Can you name an embargo where the local industries are systemically destroyed and the blockading nation then profits off the situation by selling those once locally produced goods?

I'd have to see how much the embargoes of North Korea and Cuba have hurt those nations, but the historical examples I gave above of Germany in WW1 also works. But remember, the goal of an embargo (or in this case, actually, a blockade) is precisely this.

I'm tired of hearing this bullshit excuse for this embargo. Most countries don't try to make literal ghettos when they set up their embargoes (a bit of a irony considering who is doing it now) .

What about repercussions for actions, though? It has been pointed out time and again here that Israel complied 100% with all demands about withdrawing every person, Settlement, base and checkpoint from Gaza and returning to the (much-demanded) 1967 border lines. They gave Gaza everything that was demanded of them by the international community and in return they got rocket attacks, civilian casualties, and terrorism. So what are they supposed to do? If they attack with force, they get hammered by the international community. If they try blockades and sanctions, they get hammered by the international community. So what's the answer, here, then? How are you going to sell the Israelis on the idea "but of you lay off of Gaza this time, it'll be fine!"

Like I said before-- there's a reason why it is so damned easy for Israelis to dismiss all this as anti-Semitism. The international community and all the people who "care" about "human rights and suffering" constantly set up no-win scenario after no-win scenario for Israel. If they dare to defend themselves, they're evil. If they try non-violent means such as economic warfare/embargoes, they're evil. It really does seem that the "international community" just wants them to just sit there and take it, and die as they are the eternal pincushion for irresponsible Gazan "leaders" who'd rather push a losing war to cover for their domestic failures. What was it people had against W. Bush all this time?

The Israeli actions are very heavy-handed, but at the same time, what are they supposed to do? What about chastising the Hamas leaders... and actually hammering them for their irresponsibility? If they hadn't been such cocksmokers and dragged their people into a no-win war, they could have invested in Gaza and the West Bank could be negotiating its freedom by now. Good luck convincing Israelis that a free and unoccupied Wast Bank will be a haven of rationality now.

Really? The only difference between Hamas and the GOP is that at least the GOP was smart enough to pick an unnecessary war against an opponent we could actually beat. Provoke bullshit wars? Check. Use war to mask failed domestic policy? Check. Wither government to near-uselessness and neglect needed public services? Check. Run government based on ideology and terrorize anyone who disagrees with them? Check. Smart enough to pick a war they could actually win? Bzzt!

The only thing helping Hamas is that Israel foolishly plays right into their hands. If Israel was more media-savvy and more politically deft, they could have the international community united against Hamas easily. But they see every fucking problem as a nail because they believe their own propaganda about what an awesome hammer the IDF is. Hamas is lucky in that they have fools for enemies.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Of course its a no-win scenario for Israel: Israel-as-it-exists is an oppressive, racist, rogue state which needs to have its borders trimmed back, its colonies taken away, and civilized more generally or be destroyed as an entity (constitutionally Jewish state; i.e., replaced by a binational state). No state will ever even consider doing this, its not in the nature of its power structure and internal systemic logic. Therefore, of course it will be no-win for it, and it will resist all challenges.

[CJvR]

... i.e., replaced by a binational state

Except that is what we have with Gaza now, and the result is hardly encouraging.

[Stark]

Not encourgaging because they're under a blockade by Israel, or not encouraging because they have the gall to elect a government you don't like?

[Ryan Thunder]

Not encourgaging because they're under a blockade by Israel, or not encouraging because they have the gall to elect a government you don't like?

Both, actually.

Wouldn't a single state with a constitution be a better solution? Nix the racist stuff, make it the responsibility of the government to actually improve the formerly Palestinian parts of the country (and other things like that)?

[bobalot]

Eh, Hamas openly calls for the destruction of Israel in its charter; of course the Israelis will try to engage in some sort of restriction. The US and other countries can (and does) pick and choose who it trades with-- a major Iran sanctions motion recently passed at the UN.

"Some" sort of restriction? That's a bit disingenuous. You make it sound like it is like any other embargo. It is not. As shown in this thread , it has embargoed a whole range of goods that have no military value. Its embargo is so tight large sections of the population suffer malnutrition. It has embargoed any good that could make Gaza self reliant in anything, including food production. Israel is in fact quite happily profiting off the situation by selling some of the goods that are no longer able to be produced locally because of the embargo (Elfdart posted that article in this gigantic thread somewhere).

Everything you've mentioned here so far is pretty a typical "embargo" goal. Limiting military production? Making life miserable? You may want to do some research into embargoes, sanctions, and blockades. They are tools for making a rival nation or faction unhappy to live in. For example, the UN sanctions in Iran are in place to make Iran an uncomfortable place to live. The sanctions in place against North Korea are there to make North Korea an uncomfortable place to live.

Wow..."uncomfortable", what is it with pussy shit apologists and euphemisms or deliberate understatements? This is past the point of mere being a mere "uncomfortable" embargo. Despite the embargo on Iran, Iran's real GDP is still growing. North Korea is a shitty place to live mainly because it's a autarkic Stalinist command economy.

Despite all your hand waving about many embargoes being "uncomfortable", you haven't bothered to name a single one that goes to the extreme lengths the Israel does. The closest thing is a ghetto.

Sanctions, embargoes, and blockades are there to make the local population go without something. It could be luxury items or it could be basic staples. The British blockade of Germany in World War One made life miserable, for example. It weaken war efforts, it erodes morale and resolve, and it causes the population to question their leadership. That is the whole idea.

You do realise you just admitted the blockade isn't to stop Hamas from building weapons as such but collective punishment? Something that Israel has been strenuously denying to the world? So who is correct? Is it you or Israel?

Can you name any other embargo that almost completely destroyed the private sector of a nation?
Or caused wide spread malnutrition?
Or cripples a nations ability to produce its own food?

Can you name an embargo where the local industries are systemically destroyed and the blockading nation then profits off the situation by selling those once locally produced goods?

I'd have to see how much the embargoes of North Korea and Cuba have hurt those nations, but the historical examples I gave above of Germany in WW1 also works. But remember, the goal of an embargo (or in this case, actually, a blockade) is precisely this.

Nice try.

Cuba is not on the verge of starvation and didn't have much private industry to destroy. Until the collapse of the USSR it had been growing at a fast pace, and after the shock has returned to growth. The embargo is carried by the U.S forbids companies and citizens from the United States from trading goods with Cuba. It is not an actual blockade of the island which restricts imports and exports to everybody. So it is NOT in anyway comparable to Israel's creation of a ghetto.

North Korea is a Stalinist shithole and doesn't have any private industry. It's wide spread starvation was caused by the collapse of its main trading partner, natural disasters, record flooding and shitty autarkic economic policies. Despite all that, there isn't an actual blockade of the country.

As for your WW1 example, please show why the two situations are comparable. Please explain why (apparently according to you) why total war on every man, woman and child in Gaza is required. Keep in mind, Israel has being saying that this is not what they are doing.

I'm tired of hearing this bullshit excuse for this embargo. Most countries don't try to make literal ghettos when they set up their embargoes (a bit of a irony considering who is doing it now) .

What about repercussions for actions, though? It has been pointed out time and again here that Israel complied 100% with all demands about withdrawing every person, Settlement, base and checkpoint from Gaza and returning to the (much-demanded) 1967 border lines.

You know what else I'm sick and tired of? People who want congratulations for THINGS THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO FUCKING DO.

"We withdrew our colonies from land we should have never colonised and occupied in the first place!" What do you want? A fucking cookie?

They gave Gaza everything that was demanded of them by the international community and in return they got rocket attacks, civilian casualties, and terrorism. So what are they supposed to do? If they attack with force, they get hammered by the international community. If they try blockades and sanctions, they get hammered by the international community. So what's the answer, here, then? How are you going to sell the Israelis on the idea "but of you lay off of Gaza this time, it'll be fine!"

Nice strawman, asshole. Where did I say sanctions or blockades couldn't be used to stop weapons getting into Gaza? I'm pointing out the current blockade goes far further than that and blocks out huge amounts of non-military goods entering or leaving Gaza.

I noticed you missed my point about deliberately destroying the ability of local industries to produce goods and then flooding those markets with Israeli produced goods. What military purpose is this supposed to solve? How does it stop a single rocket? All it appears to do is enrich Israel under the guise of "defending themselves". It reeks of corruption.

Like I said before-- there's a reason why it is so damned easy for Israelis to dismiss all this as anti-Semitism. The international community and all the people who "care" about "human rights and suffering" constantly set up no-win scenario after no-win scenario for Israel. If they dare to defend themselves, they're evil.

When did I or anybody else in the thread say this? Please provide an example of someone in the international community who has said that if Israel dares "defend" itself it is "evil". Also, please define your idea of "self-defence". After WWII, most nations agreed that it doesn't involve causing mass malnutrition or collective punishment.

If they try non-violent means such as economic warfare/embargoes, they're evil. It really does seem that the "international community" just wants them to just sit there and take it, and die as they are the eternal pincushion for irresponsible Gazan "leaders" who'd rather push a losing war to cover for their domestic failures. What was it people had against W. Bush all this time?

Holy shit, another strawman. No one is saying that using a blockade or embargo to deprive assholes like Hamas weapons and funding is a bad idea. People are against Israel's deliberate attempt to create a ghetto.

The Israeli actions are very heavy-handed, but at the same time, what are they supposed to do? What about chastising the Hamas leaders... and actually hammering them for their irresponsibility?

Nice job there shifting the topic. The nature of the blockade and the criticism of it has nothing to with chastising Hamas Leaders (Who I think are worthless assholes).

If they hadn't been such cocksmokers and dragged their people into a no-win war, they could have invested in Gaza and the West Bank could be negotiating its freedom by now. Good luck convincing Israelis that a free and unoccupied Wast Bank will be a haven of rationality now.

You are full of shit. The West Bank is currently run by the people Israel want in charge of Gaza. Israel is actually building settlements at an expanded rate on lands it has "zoned"* before. The West Bank is split into three bantustans, where Israeli settlers control the vast majority of water and a great part of the fertile land (out proportion to their numbers). So what did cracking down on militants, co-operating with Israel and even fighting Hamas get the West Bank? More settlements. Somehow you have created this fantasy world where if the retarded Hamas didn't start a fight with Israel, Israel would have stopped building settlements and grabbing more land. In fact, apparently they would have packed up their 300,000 squatters and left. All this without a shred of evidence. Amazing.


Here is a better map.

* Natural Expansion is the present euphemism.

[bobalot]

Not encourgaging because they're under a blockade by Israel, or not encouraging because they have the gall to elect a government you don't like?

Both, actually.

Wouldn't a single state with a constitution be a better solution? Nix the racist stuff, make it the responsibility of the government to actually improve the formerly Palestinian parts of the country (and other things like that)?

That idea does have merits. With the present Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a Palestinian state there will simply not be economically viable.

The plan is called the "One State Solution" (Link here)

[Coyote]

Wow..."uncomfortable", what is it with pussy shit apologists and euphemisms or deliberate understatements? This is past the point of mere being a mere "uncomfortable" embargo.

Gosh, I'm sorry-- I'll try to use appropriately emotionally satisfying words to describe the effects next time-- but then I forget, to most pampered young Westerners the phrase "uncomfortable" probably means the silk pillows weren't fluffed and the cereal got soggy in milk. "Uncomfortable" can mean quite a lot, while not yet entirely "unliveable". Gaza is still liveable, as far as we know, just probably not to the standards that the average Westerner can appreciate.

And, "apologist"? Really. You clearly have not been paying attention. But then I guess anyone who levels criticism at the Palestinian side of the conflict for their contribution to the situation, as well as the Israeli side, must be an "apologist" to you. I have criticised both sides equally, but here I do tend to point out the Palestinian side because they do, in fact, bear some responsibility for this. Most of the people here at SDN already do a stellar job of leveling emotional invective at the Israelis, so I kinda feel like that part is covered.

Despite the embargo on Iran, Iran's real GDP is still growing.

Bear in mind my comparison of various embargoes, sanctions, and the like was primarily to point out that blocking trade is intended to make life uncomfortable for the people being sanctioned. Not that the people of Iran are in as deep a shit as the people of Gaza. Iran is a larger country, with internal resources, and they get a lot of help from outside nations like Russia and China who have business interests there and feel that most of the US-pushed sanctions are baseless.

North Korea is a shitty place to live mainly because it's a autarkic Stalinist command economy.

Internal mismanagement and poorly placed priorities on the behalf of the leadership, yes-- in a way this dovetails with the piss-poor choices that Hamas has made with the responsibility handed to them by the people of Gaza. As much as has been said about the miserable conditions in Gaza, so to have there been posts detailing that there is a surprising amount of food in the Strip as well.

Despite all your hand waving about many embargoes being "uncomfortable", you haven't bothered to name a single one that goes to the extreme lengths the Israel does. The closest thing is a ghetto.

Maybe so, I don't study embargoes much. But again, my general understanding of them is that they are not designed to make life pleasant. I was trying to illustrate how embargoes and sanctions are supposed to work--to varying degrees, they make life unpleasant so as to make a political point. If I gave the impression that I thought these sanctions I exemplified were the same as the Gaza blockade, then I misspoke. They are not as tight, with the possible exception fo the North Korea one, where tight controls are exercized by most nations.

Sanctions, embargoes, and blockades are there to make the local population go without something. It could be luxury items or it could be basic staples. The British blockade of Germany in World War One made life miserable, for example. It weaken war efforts, it erodes morale and resolve, and it causes the population to question their leadership. That is the whole idea.

You do realise you just admitted the blockade isn't to stop Hamas from building weapons as such but collective punishment? Something that Israel has been strenuously denying to the world? So who is correct? Is it you or Israel?

What the hell do you think? Of course it is collective punishment, I never claimed otherwise. Israel claims otherwise because they know, at some level, that it is politically troublesome for them to admit it. You seem to be operating on the assumption that I am in favor of Israel's actions here and that I support the blockades, Settlements, etc. If you really think that, you seriously need to pay more attention before you go shooting from the hip.

I'd have to see how much the embargoes of North Korea and Cuba have hurt those nations, but the historical examples I gave above of Germany in WW1 also works. But remember, the goal of an embargo (or in this case, actually, a blockade) is precisely this.

Nice try....

...As for your WW1 example, please show why the two situations are comparable. Please explain why (apparently according to you) why total war on every man, woman and child in Gaza is required. Keep in mind, Israel has being saying that this is not what they are doing.

I gave examples of nations under embargoes and sanctions, illustrating how the goal of blockades and sanctions are tools to make life unpleasant for the people in that country. I said above that the blockades, sanctions, and embargoes can be light (luxury goods) to heavy (staple items for survival). An embargo, sanction, or blockade can be targeted, or broadly applied, and the goal can be merely to deliver a political message of displeasure or it can be to starve a country into submission. It appears you are looking for examples that were directly comparable to Israel's blockade of Gaza. I can't give you one because I don't know of any that are being enforced right now.

As to why Israel feels it is necessary to declare total war on every man, woman and child in Gaza is probably because they feel like it is necessary. That would be, from their point of view, a likely factor. Because Hamas, popularly elected in Gaza, continues to make war on every man, woman, and child in Israel. Hamas is not firing rockets at military bases, they are firing rockets at any civilian population center in range of their home-made mini-V2s. Mostly the town of Sderot. Before you say it, I know that the level of destruction is not comparable, Hamas's raids are pinpricks in comparison to Israel's retaliations. But again, no country in the world is going to just sit there and do nothing while it's people are killed and cities bombed.

I'm tired of hearing this bullshit excuse for this embargo. Most countries don't try to make literal ghettos when they set up their embargoes (a bit of a irony considering who is doing it now) .

I never denied it was heavy-handed. What are you looking for? I'm explaining the embargo and why the Israelis feel justified. I didn't say I agreed with it, but that there are legitimate grievances on Israel's side. You seem to want to boil this down to some simple-minded but emotionally satisfying situation where you can just say "Palestinians are just poor victims of evil Nazi douchebag Israel for no reason at all!"

What about repercussions for actions? It has been pointed out time and again here that Israel complied 100% with all demands about withdrawing every person, Settlement, base and checkpoint from Gaza and returning to the (much-demanded) 1967 border lines.

You know what else I'm sick and tired of? People who want congratulations for THINGS THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO FUCKING DO.

"We withdrew our colonies from land we should have never colonised and occupied in the first place!" What do you want? A fucking cookie?

How about, "we withdrew from the lands we weren't supposed to be in, now how about you quit bombing us?"

Israel never should have invaded and colonized Gaza in the first place. I'm with you there. The Palestinians attacked them relentlessly. The Israelis eventually left, and withdrew to the borders they were supposed to. Now, in most situations, that means the Palestinian attacks would stop. But they did not. They continued to attack even though the Israelis complied with the demands that were told to them.

The Palestinians in Gaza are, in fact, partially responsible for the mess they are in. Israel is justified, I think, in doing something. The blockade and ongoing military reprisals, however, are not it. I think they are disproportionate, and a sure-fire loser on the international PR front.

They gave Gaza everything that was demanded of them by the international community and in return they got rocket attacks, civilian casualties, and terrorism. So what are they supposed to do? If they attack with force, they get hammered by the international community. If they try blockades and sanctions, they get hammered by the international community. So what's the answer, here, then? How are you going to sell the Israelis on the idea "but of you lay off of Gaza this time, it'll be fine!"

Nice strawman, asshole. Where did I say sanctions or blockades couldn't be used to stop weapons getting into Gaza? I'm pointing out the current blockade goes far further than that and blocks out huge amounts of non-military goods entering or leaving Gaza.

Fuck you. I already said the blockade as it is is too much, I'm explaining the Israeli point of view. From their point of view they complied with everything that was demanded of them, and they still get attacked, and people engage in maximum apologism for continued terrorist attacks (while wrapped in the blanket of "human rights"). And so, now, the very people of Gaza itself elected Hamas into power, knowing that Hamas propogated a "total war" standing with Israel.

So now we're at the situation where Israel feels justified in blocking, say, the delivery of wheelchairs. On the surface you can say, "well, Israel wants all the people it has crippled to crawl in the dirt like dogs!" because making Israel into a mustache-twirling villain is emotionally satisfying. It doesn't help that folks like Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman actually seem to be trying to live up to that image. But if the people elected Hamas, then they get to suffer the consequences, when you're thinking in that frame of mind. (Remember, before you come unglued, that I am simply explaining it, not advocating it).

I noticed you missed my point about deliberately destroying the ability of local industries to produce goods and then flooding those markets with Israeli produced goods. What military purpose is this supposed to solve? How does it stop a single rocket? All it appears to do is enrich Israel under the guise of "defending themselves". It reeks of corruption.

I can only suppose that it is part of a multi-pronged approach to continually undermine their economy, making support for Hamas erode and make it more difficult to fund terrorism overall. To fund anything, really. I am not on the IDF's planning committee for such things, so I don't know if this is true or not. It may not even be intentional but ends up that way. But "stopping rockets" can be a lot more complex than just putting up a shield or restricting things that are specifically related only to rockets. In World War Two, the Allies bombed the crap out of everything, to make Germany miserable. It degraded their economy, their industry, their morale, everything. I'm sure at some point, things like rocking-chair factories --to pick an innocuous example-- got bombed. Did it have anything to do with making war materiel? No. But it (supposedly) would made German civilians less happy, less comfy, and productivity would suffer. The pain for starting the war was to be borne by everyone.

Most of the modern world, or I should say the more developed world, doesn't play by the WW2 rules anymore. Israel seems to still be playing by those rules, as near as I can guess. It's obviously a PR disaster for them when they should be much smarter than this and have the world condemning Hamas for what should be recognized as its warmongering and irresponsibility to its electorate. Admittedly, people like Avigdor Lieberman are pretty much openly racist assholes so that no doubt plays into the decision to use punishing force rather than politics.

When did I or anybody else in the thread say this? Please provide an example of someone in the international community who has said that if Israel dares "defend" itself it is "evil". Also, please define your idea of "self-defence". After WWII, most nations agreed that it doesn't involve causing mass malnutrition or collective punishment.

Again, if you read my replies here, you'll see that I am explaining why the Israelis do the things they do, which seems nonsensical and done out of sheer choler to the outside world. The Israelis feel that the international community is full of hypocrites and liars and apologists for terrorism, as well as anti-Semites because they apply rules to Israeli behavior that bind it's ability to defend their people even after Israel complies with stated demands. They feel that as far as the world is concerned, any Palestinian death is a horrific tragedy, and any Israeli death is a footnote.

When a Hamas rocket goes into Israel and kills someone, it passes with little comment (unless the news wants to build up the tension about "what Israel will do in retaliation"). But when Israel strikes back, there are loud and vocal rounds of condemnation when the Israeli strike causes civilian casualties. People decry the Palestinian civilian deaths but fail to mention that unlike the initial Hamas strike, which was random and purposefully targeted at a civilian population center, the Israelis make some effort to target Hamas leaders who may actually have had a hand in the attack. But Israel gets condemned constantly when they do this, usually because of the disproportionate amount of casualties.

If they hadn't been such cocksmokers and dragged their people into a no-win war, they could have invested in Gaza and the West Bank could be negotiating its freedom by now. Good luck convincing Israelis that a free and unoccupied Wast Bank will be a haven of rationality now.

You are full of shit. The West Bank is currently run by the people Israel want in charge of Gaza. Israel is actually building settlements at an expanded rate on lands it has "zoned"* before. The West Bank is split into three bantustans, where Israeli settlers control the vast majority of water and a great part of the fertile land (out proportion to their numbers). So what did cracking down on militants, co-operating with Israel and even fighting Hamas get the West Bank? More settlements. Somehow you have created this fantasy world where if the retarded Hamas didn't start a fight with Israel, Israel would have stopped building settlements and grabbing more land. In fact, apparently they would have packed up their 300,000 squatters and left. All this without a shred of evidence. Amazing.

No, I don't believe that having a peaceful Gaza would mean a free and un-occupied West Bank or that the Israeli Settlers would just pack up and leave. ( )-- but hey, thanks for putting words in my mouth. You really couldn't see what I have been saying all along, have you? You really seem to think that just because I hold the Palestinians responsible for certain criticisms that they've earned that I am completely behind Israel on this?

Gaza provides Israel a perfect excuse to say "hey, look, we tried to play fair and this is what we got". With Gaza absorbing all the headlines and attention, the world is not looking at the West Bank. So the Israelis are moving to build Settlements there, because the global attention is on Gaza. If you'd been paying attention, you'd have seen where I pointed out that this was the real problem.

You see, in Gaza, the Palestinians met their goals. They got Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders and allow self-rule for the Palestinians. If Hamas had actually taken care of the people and public services, world attention would shift to the West Bank. So you see, it's not that Settlers would have "peacefully left on their own", it's that global political attention would have been focused on the West Bank, and using Gaza as an example, there'd be no more wind in the sails to justify holding on to the West Bank. But no-- even though Gaza has what it asked for, they are still throwing tantrums down there and lobbing rockets.

If you'd been paying attention, you'll notice that my posts cast a lot of blame on Hamas, Israel, and the bone-headed stubborn ignorance of both all along. Just because I hold the Palestinians responsible for their fuck-ups doesn't mean I'm "apologizing" for Israel's actions. And just because I criticize Israel's stupid-ass handling of this in PR terms, and their ongoing and uncommented grabs in the West Bank, doesn't mean I have too much sympathy for Hamas and the people who elected them knowing full well that Hamas was still calling for war with Israel.

What you really seem to want is a bone to chew on. Because I don't join the frothing-zombie "Israel evil Nazis!" chanting, you latch onto that as some sort of "proof" that I'm not enjoying my "Hate Minute" as much as I should be. Well, this is a complex situation full of layers and layers of justifications, rationales, bullshit, propaganda, and conflicting points of view. I try to look at and understand all of them even if I don't support them.

So summarizing my point of view, yes, Hamas got what they wanted from Israel. What they should have done was build up Gaza and rallied for freedom for their West Bank cousins. But instead, they launched a stupid and unecessary war with a powerful neighbor based on ideology and to cover failed domestic policy. Everyone knows that Israel tends to over-react, and now they are over-reacting, and the people of Gaza are suffering. Put the onus of responsibility on where it belongs. The people of Gaza elected Hamas, and Hamas initiated hostilities which is what they have always advertised. Yes, I think Israel's over-reaction is unecessarily heavy and costs them more in PR what they get in dubious-at-best security.

Justified or not, though, they see the political options as a deck stacked against them. Maybe if the international community of supposedly concerned people had cracked down on Hamas when it maintained its bullshit war with Israel in the first place, Israel would have more faith in the global community's political efforts.

In my eyes, Israel and the Palestians were on their way to a two-state solution. Frankly, Hamas fucked it up by making Palestinians come across as people who cannot be bargained with. Now the West Bank is fucked, and the pro-Settlement assholes are having a field day because now, no one is watching them and they can say "we tried to be reasonable in Gaza and look what it got us". Hell, Hamas practically greased Avigdor Lieberman's dick for him.

[bobalot]

Wow..."uncomfortable", what is it with pussy shit apologists and euphemisms or deliberate understatements? This is past the point of mere being a mere "uncomfortable" embargo.

Gosh, I'm sorry-- I'll try to use appropriately emotionally satisfying words to describe the effects next time-- but then I forget, to most pampered young Westerners the phrase "uncomfortable" probably means the silk pillows weren't fluffed and the cereal got soggy in milk. "Uncomfortable" can mean quite a lot, while not yet entirely "unliveable". Gaza is still liveable, as far as we know, just probably not to the standards that the average Westerner can appreciate.

Let me get this straight, you seriously believe that enforced mass malnutrition and stunted growth in children is simply making people "uncomfortable"? What would you classify as a situation as more than "uncomfortable"?

And, "apologist"? Really. You clearly have not been paying attention. But then I guess anyone who levels criticism at the Palestinian side of the conflict for their contribution to the situation, as well as the Israeli side, must be an "apologist" to you. I have criticised both sides equally, but here I do tend to point out the Palestinian side because they do, in fact, bear some responsibility for this. Most of the people here at SDN already do a stellar job of leveling emotional invective at the Israelis, so I kinda feel like that part is covered.

No, I said apologists like to use euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation" instead of torture, or in your case describing an area which has deliberately been turned into a ghetto with mass malnutrition, 80% unemployment, stunted growth in children and a completely destroyed private industry as a merely "uncomfortable" place to live. I can't help it if you happen to fit my description of an apologist. The fact that you criticise both sides is irrelevant.

Despite the embargo on Iran, Iran's real GDP is still growing.

Bear in mind my comparison of various embargoes, sanctions, and the like was primarily to point out that blocking trade is intended to make life uncomfortable for the people being sanctioned. Not that the people of Iran are in as deep a shit as the people of Gaza. Iran is a larger country, with internal resources, and they get a lot of help from outside nations like Russia and China who have business interests there and feel that most of the US-pushed sanctions are baseless.

There is also the fact, that Iran is not under an actual blockade and free to trade with many countries not participating in sanctions which makes your comparison basically worthless.

North Korea is a shitty place to live mainly because it's a autarkic Stalinist command economy.

Internal mismanagement and poorly placed priorities on the behalf of the leadership, yes-- in a way this dovetails with the piss-poor choices that Hamas has made with the responsibility handed to them by the people of Gaza. As much as has been said about the miserable conditions in Gaza, so to have there been posts detailing that there is a surprising amount of food in the Strip as well.

North Korea's direct internal economic management has caused it's internal problems. Hamas is responsible the massive pounding that Gaza took a while back because they were stupid assholes. There is one reason for Gaza's chronic malnutrition, stunted growth in children and other woes while at the same time strengthening Hamas and even alienating traditional Israeli allies. The blockade.

Despite all your hand waving about many embargoes being "uncomfortable", you haven't bothered to name a single one that goes to the extreme lengths the Israel does. The closest thing is a ghetto.

Maybe so, I don't study embargoes much. But again, my general understanding of them is that they are not designed to make life pleasant. I was trying to illustrate how embargoes and sanctions are supposed to work--to varying degrees, they make life unpleasant so as to make a political point. If I gave the impression that I thought these sanctions I exemplified were the same as the Gaza blockade, then I misspoke. They are not as tight, with the possible exception fo the North Korea one, where tight controls are exercized by most nations.

So you can't name a single one that turns a nation into a virtual ghetto, but still insist it's a "typical" embargo.

What the hell do you think? Of course it is collective punishment, I never claimed otherwise. Israel claims otherwise because they know, at some level, that it is politically troublesome for them to admit it. You seem to be operating on the assumption that I am in favor of Israel's actions here and that I support the blockades, Settlements, etc. If you really think that, you seriously need to pay more attention before you go shooting from the hip.

My mistake. I apologise.

I'd have to see how much the embargoes of North Korea and Cuba have hurt those nations, but the historical examples I gave above of Germany in WW1 also works. But remember, the goal of an embargo (or in this case, actually, a blockade) is precisely this.

Nice try....

...As for your WW1 example, please show why the two situations are comparable. Please explain why (apparently according to you) why total war on every man, woman and child in Gaza is required. Keep in mind, Israel has being saying that this is not what they are doing.

I gave examples of nations under embargoes and sanctions, illustrating how the goal of blockades and sanctions are tools to make life unpleasant for the people in that country. I said above that the blockades, sanctions, and embargoes can be light (luxury goods) to heavy (staple items for survival). An embargo, sanction, or blockade can be targeted, or broadly applied, and the goal can be merely to deliver a political message of displeasure or it can be to starve a country into submission. It appears you are looking for examples that were directly comparable to Israel's blockade of Gaza. I can't give you one because I don't know of any that are being enforced right now.

You can't name one that isn't comparable to a ghetto, that's why you can't give an example.

As to why Israel feels it is necessary to declare total war on every man, woman and child in Gaza is probably because they feel like it is necessary. That would be, from their point of view, a likely factor. Because Hamas, popularly elected in Gaza, continues to make war on every man, woman, and child in Israel. Hamas is not firing rockets at military bases, they are firing rockets at any civilian population center in range of their home-made mini-V2s. Mostly the town of Sderot. Before you say it, I know that the level of destruction is not comparable, Hamas's raids are pinpricks in comparison to Israel's retaliations. But again, no country in the world is going to just sit there and do nothing while it's people are killed and cities bombed.

When have I ever said that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself? All I am pointing out that that instead using a strict embargo to cripple Hamas's ability to fight Israel is using this blockage to turn Gaza into a ghetto, which goes far beyond what is reasonable self defence.

I'm tired of hearing this bullshit excuse for this embargo. Most countries don't try to make literal ghettos when they set up their embargoes (a bit of a irony considering who is doing it now) .

I never denied it was heavy-handed. What are you looking for? I'm explaining the embargo and why the Israelis feel justified. I didn't say I agreed with it, but that there are legitimate grievances on Israel's side. You seem to want to boil this down to some simple-minded but emotionally satisfying situation where you can just say "Palestinians are just poor victims of evil Nazi douchebag Israel for no reason at all!"

I have never said that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself or portrayed them as evil Nazi's. Please point out where in this thread where I have said that.

What about repercussions for actions? It has been pointed out time and again here that Israel complied 100% with all demands about withdrawing every person, Settlement, base and checkpoint from Gaza and returning to the (much-demanded) 1967 border lines.

You know what else I'm sick and tired of? People who want congratulations for THINGS THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO FUCKING DO.

"We withdrew our colonies from land we should have never colonised and occupied in the first place!" What do you want? A fucking cookie?

How about, "we withdrew from the lands we weren't supposed to be in, now how about you quit bombing us?"

Israel never should have invaded and colonized Gaza in the first place. I'm with you there. The Palestinians attacked them relentlessly. The Israelis eventually left, and withdrew to the borders they were supposed to. Now, in most situations, that means the Palestinian attacks would stop. But they did not. They continued to attack even though the Israelis complied with the demands that were told to them.

You seem to have seem missed the 300,000 "settlers" that are currently squatting elsewhere on Palestinian land. That's like saying that if someone occupied and colonised several states in America and then withdrew from one those States, that particular State should stop fighting.

The Palestinians in Gaza are, in fact, partially responsible for the mess they are in. Israel is justified, I think, in doing something. The blockade and ongoing military reprisals, however, are not it. I think they are disproportionate, and a sure-fire loser on the international PR front.

Agreed.

Fuck you. I already said the blockade as it is is too much, I'm explaining the Israeli point of view. From their point of view they complied with everything that was demanded of them, and they still get attacked, and people engage in maximum apologism for continued terrorist attacks (while wrapped in the blanket of "human rights"). And so, now, the very people of Gaza itself elected Hamas into power, knowing that Hamas propogated a "total war" standing with Israel.

Lets go through this again because I'm honestly confused.
1. You said: "So what's the answer, here, then? How are you going to sell the Israelis on the idea 'but of you lay off of Gaza this time, it'll be fine!' "giving the impression that I was in favour of doing nothing against Hamas.
2. I point out I never in favour of that position and what you were strawmaning my position.
3. You accuse "people" of maximum terrorist apologism and whine about something barely related to my rebuttal.

BTW, Israel as done a fraction of what was asked of them for over the last 40 years, which is to withdraw from land it conquered and colonised. While it was withdrawing from Gaza it was accelerating construction of settlements in the West Bank. That's why the world (including America to an extent when it comes to settlements) has little sympathy for Israeli crying over how hard it was to give up a fraction of the property they were squatting on.

So now we're at the situation where Israel feels justified in blocking, say, the delivery of wheelchairs. On the surface you can say, "well, Israel wants all the people it has crippled to crawl in the dirt like dogs!" because making Israel into a mustache-twirling villain is emotionally satisfying. It doesn't help that folks like Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman actually seem to be trying to live up to that image. But if the people elected Hamas, then they get to suffer the consequences, when you're thinking in that frame of mind. (Remember, before you come unglued, that I am simply explaining it, not advocating it).

Yes, I'm saying it's immoral even that frame of mind.

I noticed you missed my point about deliberately destroying the ability of local industries to produce goods and then flooding those markets with Israeli produced goods. What military purpose is this supposed to solve? How does it stop a single rocket? All it appears to do is enrich Israel under the guise of "defending themselves". It reeks of corruption.

I can only suppose that it is part of a multi-pronged approach to continually undermine their economy, making support for Hamas erode and make it more difficult to fund terrorism overall. To fund anything, really. I am not on the IDF's planning committee for such things, so I don't know if this is true or not. It may not even be intentional but ends up that way. But "stopping rockets" can be a lot more complex than just putting up a shield or restricting things that are specifically related only to rockets. In World War Two, the Allies bombed the crap out of everything, to make Germany miserable. It degraded their economy, their industry, their morale, everything. I'm sure at some point, things like rocking-chair factories --to pick an innocuous example-- got bombed. Did it have anything to do with making war materiel? No. But it (supposedly) would made German civilians less happy, less comfy, and productivity would suffer. The pain for starting the war was to be borne by everyone.

Except Hama's support hasn't eroded, in fact it has been strengthened (Much like Germany's morale under massive bombing). It's making a killing off smuggling and has been for some time, which begs the question why persist with attempting to destroy local industry when it only appears to enrich Hamas?

If I were a cynical person I would say it was because Israeli producers are making a killing after destroying local competition.

Most of the modern world, or I should say the more developed world, doesn't play by the WW2 rules anymore. Israel seems to still be playing by those rules, as near as I can guess. It's obviously a PR disaster for them when they should be much smarter than this and have the world condemning Hamas for what should be recognized as its warmongering and irresponsibility to its electorate. Admittedly, people like Avigdor Lieberman are pretty much openly racist assholes so that no doubt plays into the decision to use punishing force rather than politics.

Agreed, sometimes I wonder if the Middle East and Jerusalem in particular must be some supernatural magnet for assholes.

When did I or anybody else in the thread say this? Please provide an example of someone in the international community who has said that if Israel dares "defend" itself it is "evil". Also, please define your idea of "self-defence". After WWII, most nations agreed that it doesn't involve causing mass malnutrition or collective punishment.

Again, if you read my replies here, you'll see that I am explaining why the Israelis do the things they do, which seems nonsensical and done out of sheer choler to the outside world. The Israelis feel that the international community is full of hypocrites and liars and apologists for terrorism, as well as anti-Semites because they apply rules to Israeli behavior that bind it's ability to defend their people even after Israel complies with stated demands. They feel that as far as the world is concerned, any Palestinian death is a horrific tragedy, and any Israeli death is a footnote.

No, that's not what you said at all. Let me repost exactly what you said:

Like I said before-- there's a reason why it is so damned easy for Israelis to dismiss all this as anti-Semitism. The international community and all the people who "care" about "human rights and suffering" constantly set up no-win scenario after no-win scenario for Israel. If they dare to defend themselves, they're evil.

You presented the highlighted bit above as your own opinion, which I responded to.

When a Hamas rocket goes into Israel and kills someone, it passes with little comment (unless the news wants to build up the tension about "what Israel will do in retaliation"). But when Israel strikes back, there are loud and vocal rounds of condemnation when the Israeli strike causes civilian casualties. People decry the Palestinian civilian deaths but fail to mention that unlike the initial Hamas strike, which was random and purposefully targeted at a civilian population center, the Israelis make some effort to target Hamas leaders who may actually have had a hand in the attack. But Israel gets condemned constantly when they do this, usually because of the disproportionate amount of casualties.

Do you have any actual evidence for anything of this or do we just take your word?

No, I don't believe that having a peaceful Gaza would mean a free and un-occupied West Bank or that the Israeli Settlers would just pack up and leave. ( )-- but hey, thanks for putting words in my mouth. You really couldn't see what I have been saying all along, have you? You really seem to think that just because I hold the Palestinians responsible for certain criticisms that they've earned that I am completely behind Israel on this?

This is unbelievable. Let me just repost what you actually posted.

The Israeli actions are very heavy-handed, but at the same time, what are they supposed to do? What about chastising the Hamas leaders... and actually hammering them for their irresponsibility? If they hadn't been such cocksmokers and dragged their people into a no-win war, they could have invested in Gaza and the West Bank could be negotiating its freedom by now. Good luck convincing Israelis that a free and unoccupied Wast Bank will be a haven of rationality now.

I don't have to put words into your mouth. It's fucking right there. You posted the implication that if Gaza quietened down, Israel would have seriously considered the possibility of an unoccupied West Bank (when in fact they were accelerating settlement construction in the West Bank while they were withdrawing from the Gaza strip) and the possibly giving the West Bank its "freedom". You have failed to show how this is the case.

Gaza provides Israel a perfect excuse to say "hey, look, we tried to play fair and this is what we got". With Gaza absorbing all the headlines and attention, the world is not looking at the West Bank. So the Israelis are moving to build Settlements there, because the global attention is on Gaza. If you'd been paying attention, you'd have seen where I pointed out that this was the real problem.

So what if global attention is focused on Gaza instead of the West Bank? Israel hasn't given a shit about world opinion regarding its settlements for 40 years, in fact it has recently announced more settlements in the West Bank in defiance of its most important ally. Please explain how this supposed attention was going to make Israel seriously consider withdrawing from the West Bank or stop expanding their settlements. Please some provide some sort of evidence rather than your say so.

You see, in Gaza, the Palestinians met their goals. They got Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders and allow self-rule for the Palestinians. If Hamas had actually taken care of the people and public services, world attention would shift to the West Bank. So you see, it's not that Settlers would have "peacefully left on their own", it's that global political attention would have been focused on the West Bank, and using Gaza as an example, there'd be no more wind in the sails to justify holding on to the West Bank.

But no-- even though Gaza has what it asked for, they are still throwing tantrums down there and lobbing rockets.

1. There has never been any "wind in the sails" to justify holding the West Bank before Hamas started acting like retards.
2. You make it sound like "global attention" was the major deciding factor for Israel's withdrawal form Gaza. Please provide evidence for this.
3. You make it sound like "global attention" would have eventually forced more major withdrawals from the West Bank if the Gaza withdrawal went well, please provide evidence for this. Since "global attention" on the West Bank has done precisely jack shit over 40 years.

If you'd been paying attention, you'll notice that my posts cast a lot of blame on Hamas, Israel, and the bone-headed stubborn ignorance of both all along. Just because I hold the Palestinians responsible for their fuck-ups doesn't mean I'm "apologizing" for Israel's actions. And just because I criticize Israel's stupid-ass handling of this in PR terms, and their ongoing and uncommented grabs in the West Bank, doesn't mean I have too much sympathy for Hamas and the people who elected them knowing full well that Hamas was still calling for war with Israel.

Sorry, I jumped on you. I think I will avoid this thread from now on.

In my eyes, Israel and the Palestians were on their way to a two-state solution. Frankly, Hamas fucked it up by making Palestinians come across as people who cannot be bargained with. Now the West Bank is fucked, and the pro-Settlement assholes are having a field day because now, no one is watching them and they can say "we tried to be reasonable in Gaza and look what it got us". Hell, Hamas practically greased Avigdor Lieberman's dick for him.

With all due respect, I think that's a load of bullshit. Israel has never had any intention of withdrawing from the West Bank (which is what is required for an actual viable Palestinian state) regardless of how the Gaza operation went. It was accelerating construction of settlements while it was withdrawing from Gaza. It has 300,000 settlers in the West Bank and billions of dollars worth of investments. It literally sources a lot of its water from the West Bank.

One of the reasons they could so easily withdraw from Gaza is that it was only 10 thousand people and not much in the way of investments (relatively). The idea that this continue onto the West Bank is unsupported.

[Terralthra]

Please don't use yellow text to emphasize something. It's completely illegible on the low-bandwidth theme for the forum. I suggest bold or italic if you need to emphasize some text.