Gaza situation discussion

[ray245]

Bribe the Hamas leadership if we have to, bribe them, and allow Israel or the US to kick start a Marshall plan in the Gaza region.

I know what you meant to say, but the word "bribe" carries such a negative connotation in the US that perhaps that is not the best word to use. It's a problem, because in some countries what we call bribes are necessary to do business and American companies can wind up prosecuted at home for following normal business practices in those countries. I realize the phrase "pay off the leaders" or even "offer economic inducements to the leaders" isn't significantly different from "bribe" on a certain level, and yet it is. Sort of the difference between "shit" and "bodily waste". Same thing, just one is vastly more polite.

But just between you and me, yeah, "bribe" is accurate. Just crude in the US.

Ahh, guess I have to learn to be more PC.

Well, you get to learn something interesting everyday.

In any case, I'm not suggesting any solution; don't you get it? There aren't any good solutions. Either one side wipes out the other, or the UN plants soldiers in between Hamas and Israel, or this situation continues as it stands today. Option #2 is the best of some bad alternatives, but your idea of supporting a terrorist dictatorship is a phenomenally stupid idea.

Which reminds me, assuming that both sides get tired of fighting, should Israel provide developmental aid to the Palestinians?

[Broomstick]

We could be surprised-- like Sea Skimmer says, another route to peace is to cause such unholy suffering on the other side, across the board, that they're willing to accept whatever terms you dictate if you'll just stop shooting. Things could reach a point where even Hamas is willing to say "enough, we'll do anything you ask!" I am with the people who find this a distasteful option, but I also can't deny it worked for fanatical Nazis, and guys willing to strap on an airplane and die for the Emperor...

While that solution can work, and has worked, I'd rather people didn't leap to it as a first choice. There's a strong argument to be made for trying all other avenues first before moving to total warfare until absolute and unconditional surrender of one side.

[Surlethe]

There's a strong argument to be made for trying all other avenues first before moving to total warfare until absolute and unconditional surrender of one side.

There's more than a strong argument, I'd say. There's an ethical imperative for trying every other avenue first. And even if that fails, you have to seriously weigh whether carpet-bombing Gaza from north to south until Hamas sues for peace is better than simply letting the current situation continue.

[Darth Wong]

It is something of an oversimplification to say that massive butchery was the reason Japan and Germany became US allies, if not an outright mutilation of the truth. It is true that both countries were devastated by war, but it is also true that both countries became beneficiaries of remarkable postwar largesse. If they had not been rebuilt at enormous cost, how can anyone say with any certainty that they would be the US allies that they are today?

At the end of the day, you can temporarily stop hostility by crushing all resistance, but I seriously doubt that you can make an actual ally without a show of generosity and brotherhood, as corny as that sounds.

[ray245]

It is something of an oversimplification to say that massive butchery was the reason Japan and Germany became US allies, if not an outright mutilation of the truth. It is true that both countries were devastated by war, but it is also true that both countries became beneficiaries of remarkable postwar largesse. If they had not been rebuilt at enormous cost, how can anyone say with any certainty that they would be the US allies that they are today?

At the end of the day, you can temporarily stop hostility by crushing all resistance, but I seriously doubt that you can make an actual ally without a show of generosity and brotherhood, as corny as that sounds.

Seconded. Getting tired of war and liking the other side is two different thing.

Well, we all know that many people is tired of world war 1, and we still end up with a world war 2.

By the way, it really seems to me that we can have a civil discussion in regards to the IvP issue you know.

[Kanastrous]

It is true that both countries were devastated by war, but it is also true that both countries became beneficiaries of remarkable postwar largesse.

The first was an essential precondition, for the second.

[MKSheppard]

Bullshit. They would send military troops, but on a policing mission. They would not shell entire neighbourhoods where these groups are suspected of being. That is how you fight an all-out war, not a police action.

Actually, the Philly PD burned down most of a neighborhood after dropping a package of C-4 from a helicopter onto a fortified building being held by some whackaloon group. Oops.

[Beowulf]

Bullshit. They would send military troops, but on a policing mission.

Stop the Israeli Occupation of Gaza!

[Sea Skimmer]

It is something of an oversimplification to say that massive butchery was the reason Japan and Germany became US allies, if not an outright mutilation of the truth. It is true that both countries were devastated by war, but it is also true that both countries became beneficiaries of remarkable postwar largesse. If they had not been rebuilt at enormous cost, how can anyone say with any certainty that they would be the US allies that they are today?

Enormous cost? And you fucking accuse me of mutilating the truth just the sentence before? The US spent 288 billion dollars to fund its own part of WW2 over four years, and 13 billion dollars on the Marshal Plan over four years. Of that sum Germany got just 1.4 billion, in comparison the far smaller and less damaged Netherlands got 1.1 billion, and wartime lend lease aid was nearly 50 billion. What’s more aid only began arriving in late 1947, while for the first two years after the war the allies actually continued the destruction of Germany by dismantling industry and hauling it home, even the United States took part in this looting. We also seized all German patents, and all German assets in the US, which had already been frozen during the war and were worth billions. What’s more Marshal Plan aid to Germany actually had to be repaid until 1953 when the terms were changed, so this initially constrained how the Germans could actually spend the capital, it had to go into stuff that would turn a profit quickly, not say rebuilding infrastructure.
No the real fucking truth is that Europe rebuilt itself, and would have without the US’s help. As it was the rebuilding defied all expectations, and the US might well not have bothered with aid if we’d known the truth of how fast it would be.

Japan ultimately got 1.8 billion in aid, but most of it only came after the rushed 1951 end of the occupation, because Japan was literally THE frontline in the war against communism thanks to Korea. In comparison the B-29 bomber program which so successfully burned down Japan cost over 3 billion alone, and that’s just the price of the planes, not actually manning and operating them. Meanwhile Japan was stripped of over 20 billion in overseas assets at the end of the war, and ultimately she was required to pay reparations during the mid and late 1950s.

Actually, the Philly PD burned down most of a neighborhood after dropping a package of C-4 from a helicopter onto a fortified building being held by some whackaloon group. Oops.

Hell yeah, go Philadelphia. MOVE cut down trees in public parks and used them to build a bunker on the roof and block up all the windows and basement access. Ten pounds of C-4 and dynamite dealt with that, and 61 other houses by the time the Police finally let the fire trucks in. And then the city rebuilt with a corrupt contractor to such awful standards they began collapsing and all had to be demolished. Many of the folks who lost there homes a second time to that still haven’t gotten resettled. But hey, anyone who understands true brotherly love would know why it had to burn.

[Guardsman Bass]

Not to mention that the post-war Japanese government had to foot the bill for a large part of the US force occupying them, although their contribution decreased over time.

[Elfdart]

Sure, the tangos can leave. But they can't take along the arms cache they planted (or a significant portion, anyway). And those caches are the point of this exercise.

And what exactly do they have in those caches? Small arms and oversize bottle rockets. As if those would be any great trouble to replace.

[Guardsman Bass]

Sure, the tangos can leave. But they can't take along the arms cache they planted (or a significant portion, anyway). And those caches are the point of this exercise.

And what exactly do they have in those caches? Small arms and oversize bottle rockets. As if those would be any great trouble to replace.

I'd hardly call lethal rockets - particularly those that can actually reach into Israel proper - "oversized bottle rockets." Moreover, you can't really manufacture these things in Gaza, and Hamas isn't rich.

[Kanastrous]

Aren't the Quassams manufactured in Gaza? I guess real milspec artillery rockets would have to be brought in, but I thought those 'workshops' you keep hearing about were being bombed because they were part of producing the Quassams...

[Broomstick]

No the real fucking truth is that Europe rebuilt itself, and would have without the US’s help. As it was the rebuilding defied all expectations, and the US might well not have bothered with aid if we’d known the truth of how fast it would be.

Given that former adversaries almost never provide ANY aid to the defeated, do you think there was no value in making the gesture?

And if that money was so insignificant, why so long to repay? Last I heard, among our allies only Finland and Great Britain ever paid us back in full (thanks, guys!)

As for Japan - even "token" gifts like flying a few mutilated women to the States for reconstructive surgery had considerable PR value. A little kindness goes a long way. We could have been vindictive bastards and made the Japanese impoverished vassels. We didn't. We helped heal the wounded, helped them rebuild, gave them back their country, and swore that in exchange for them renouncing anything but a purely defensive military force we'd protect them from everyone else. That didn't make all the boo-boos better, didn't reconstruct everything lost, but it was a fuck of a lot better than most conquerors have treated the vanquished. By foregoing revenge we gained an ally. I'd much rather have an ally than a multi-generational blood feud.

I can't help but wonder if some of the adversaries in the Middle East were less focused on revenge for the past they might achieve actual peace. That doesn't make the bad stuff go away - there is still a lot of bitter animosity in the WWII generation between the US and Japan - but going forward the odds of us being on opposite of a shooting war are considerably less than they might have been otherwise and I can't see that as anything but good.

[Beowulf]

Sure, the tangos can leave. But they can't take along the arms cache they planted (or a significant portion, anyway). And those caches are the point of this exercise.

And what exactly do they have in those caches? Small arms and oversize bottle rockets. As if those would be any great trouble to replace.

Lets see: Anti-Aircraft guns aren't exactly easy to acquire. Rockets that are longer than than you are tall can't be easy to replace either. And of course, it's not just the arms themselves, but the fairly large amount of ammunition.

[Sea Skimmer]

Given that former adversaries almost never provide ANY aid to the defeated, do you think there was no value in making the gesture?

Probably was some value, but the US did a lot of things as both gestures and real aid. It also did a lot to make the situation worse. You know for the first two years of the occupation it was fucking official allied policy to reduce German productivity and standards of living to what they’d had before Hitler was in power, to those of the middle of the great depression?

Still any way you cut it, Western Europe was going to be strongly in the US camp in the face of the Iron Curtain unless we openly rejected them. Japan meanwhile was literally going from upgraded feudalism to a modern state, and was equally paranoid as fuck about the communists whom it had indoctrinated its people to fear far long before the war, while the US was basically ignored until 1940.

And if that money was so insignificant, why so long to repay? Last I heard, among our allies only Finland and Great Britain ever paid us back in full (thanks, guys!)

Finland was not part of the Marshal Plan in the first place, and no, Britain did not pay us back in full because the vast majority of the Marshal Plan was in the form of grants. Britain did pay back its lend lease debts (only in 2006), which involved three times more money then the entire Marshal Plan, but it still owes us billions from WW1 which will never be paid. That’s why I made the specific point that Germany alone was given most of its Marshal Plan money in the form of loans, though in the end the US decided to effectively cancel them anyway because we felt bad about having Germany looted even while Marshal aid was delivered. The US actually provided more aid to Europe in 1945-1947 before the Marshal Plan anyway, but in the case of German the occupation tax exceeded the value of the aid and a huge number of Germans died in prisoner of war camps from disease, while much of the civilian population starved.

But of course, history is written by the victors, and so the Marshal Plan is played up as a miracle while all the details are ignored.

As for Japan - even "token" gifts like flying a few mutilated women to the States for reconstructive surgery had considerable PR value.

Yeah, it helped counter balance all the bad press from US troops raping thousands of women upon arrival in the country, something which was so bad that US units were confined to barracks when not actually on duty. Course in 1946 while Japan was starving so badly our local commanders were letting Japanese women take half drunk glasses of milk from our dinning halls we made the Japanese take out loans to pay for basic food imports.

A little kindness goes a long way. We could have been vindictive bastards and made the Japanese impoverished vassels. We didn't. We helped heal the wounded, helped them rebuild, gave them back their country, and swore that in exchange for them renouncing anything but a purely defensive military force we'd protect them from everyone else.

It also sure helped that we let Hirohito and the entire Imperial family get away with fucking mass murder so that they could praise the US publicly for being so kind, and then cut short the trials of the handful of war criminals we were actually willing to go after. None of this changes the fact that all of this happened only after both Axis powers were not just beat, but utterly defeated and shoved into the ground, then occupied and stripped of armaments making any call the continue resistance look insane.


I can't help but wonder if some of the adversaries in the Middle East were less focused on revenge for the past they might achieve actual peace. That doesn't make the bad stuff go away - there is still a lot of bitter animosity in the WWII generation between the US and Japan - but going forward the odds of us being on opposite of a shooting war are considerably less than they might have been otherwise and I can't see that as anything but good.[/quote]

[Master of Ossus]

It is something of an oversimplification to say that massive butchery was the reason Japan and Germany became US allies, if not an outright mutilation of the truth. It is true that both countries were devastated by war, but it is also true that both countries became beneficiaries of remarkable postwar largesse. If they had not been rebuilt at enormous cost, how can anyone say with any certainty that they would be the US allies that they are today?

I don't know where you're getting your history, but the US invested very little in Japan's economic development after the war. Japan became a US ally largely because it was so strongly opposed to communism, and its economic resurgence can be explained quite well by Solow-growth model.

For that matter, Europe's recovery was basically the same and essentially an example of Solow Growth. The Marshall plan involved paltry sums, and even the lend-lease loans given to most countries were fairly small but moreover concentrated among countries that were either US allies (England, Greece, etc.) or not especially involved in the heaviest fighting.

[Qwerty 42]

I've got a friend flying to Israel tomorrow. I can only hope she stays safe.

[ray245]

Given that former adversaries almost never provide ANY aid to the defeated, do you think there was no value in making the gesture?

Probably was some value, but the US did a lot of things as both gestures and real aid. It also did a lot to make the situation worse. You know for the first two years of the occupation it was fucking official allied policy to reduce German productivity and standards of living to what they’d had before Hitler was in power, to those of the middle of the great depression?

Still any way you cut it, Western Europe was going to be strongly in the US camp in the face of the Iron Curtain unless we openly rejected them. Japan meanwhile was literally going from upgraded feudalism to a modern state, and was equally paranoid as fuck about the communists whom it had indoctrinated its people to fear far long before the war, while the US was basically ignored until 1940.

So, will providing developmental aid have an actual effect on the Gaza region? That is the question we are all curious about. The Marshall plan do have its flaws, but we have to question ourselves if we can do better than what has been done in the past.

What does the Palestinians need to have a real economy so to speak? Not those tourism economy, actual economy that produces goods.

[Master of Ossus]

So, will providing developmental aid have an actual effect on the Gaza region? That is the question we are all curious about. The Marshall plan do have its flaws, but we have to question ourselves if we can do better than what has been done in the past.

There is ample evidence to suggest that such a development program would be effective: Gaza essentially has no capital because it's been consistently wiped out by cyclical violence for the last half century. Developmental aid programs would probably work by helping Palestine (and Gaza, specifically) reach the Solow-steady-state more quickly. However, the effects of such a program will never help Palestine reach the levels of economic development that Israel enjoys, because its population growth rate is much faster than the Israeli population growth rate and because there is at least anecdotal evidence that its steady-state savings rate would be lower.

What does the Palestinians need to have a real economy so to speak? Not those tourism economy, actual economy that produces goods.

It basically needs a trained labor force and it needs a non-zero savings rate. Development aid helps them reach the steady state, but it cannot let them remain persistently above that level of output/capita.

And let's not mince words about it: in order for that to happen, Hamas needs to give up its fight against Israel, because until that happens Israel is going to come in and kick down the sand castles every once in a while. In the meantime, IMF loans and things will actually harm Palestine because they'll have little chance of recouping any real rate of return on the funds in the brief respites, even if they don't outright default on the loans.

[MKSheppard]

There is ample evidence to suggest that such a development program would be effective

Wrong. Remember the greenhouses that Bill Gates bought and donated to the Gazans when the Israelis withdrew? They were looted wrecks within a few weeks, and within months, were nothing but convient covers for weapons tunnels.

If you tried building a honest to god factory in Gaza, within a few months, HAMAS or whoever would come, loot it, and use the machinery to stamp out quality Quassam bodies or fins.

[Master of Ossus]

Wrong. Remember the greenhouses that Bill Gates bought and donated to the Gazans when the Israelis withdrew? They were looted wrecks within a few weeks, and within months, were nothing but convient covers for weapons tunnels.

If you tried building a honest to god factory in Gaza, within a few months, HAMAS or whoever would come, loot it, and use the machinery to stamp out quality Quassam bodies or fins.

Which is why you pretty much need to stop Hamas from launching its Palestine-as-suicide-bomber v. Israel campaign, first, and why it should be done with loans after a persistent peace is established. If Gates had listened to what people were telling him, and had donated the funding for those greenhouses to Palestineans, I'm guessing they wouldn't have been looted because the people running them would have an investment in keeping them up and running (of course, I'm also guessing that if he were just financing them then they wouldn't have built greenhouses but something more productive for the area).

[Stormin]

Not all the greenhouses were chop-shopped. Some are still going but the owners are having a bit of trouble actually selling the product because of the blockade.
New York Times 2005
There are plenty of people on the Palestinian side that are trying to make things better but again those in charge and those that just want to fight are making it impossible.

[MKSheppard]

If Gates had listened to what people were telling him, and had donated the funding for those greenhouses to Palestineans

The money would then be used to smuggle in components for Quassams and finance the construction of several smuggling tunnels along the Philadelphi corridor.

[ray245]

So should those aid be given and the seige of Gaza be lifted in the event of a ceasefire?