Gaza situation discussion

[Broomstick]

History has shown us that improvement of relationship is possible, no matter what kind of enemy they are. Hell, if Americans and Japanese can get along each other eventually after WW2, I fail to see why the idea that the Gaza region can improve is a flawed idea.

That's a good point - the US trashed Japan by the end of WWII, burned entire cities, etc. yet today we are allies (if not always friends). We don't have young Japanese men blowing themselves up in American cafes, do we? (And it's not due to a cultural ban on suicide missions, either - they proved willing to kill themselves for a cause during WWII) Then again, even after total surrender of Japan to the US we didn't scrape the Japanese off their own land and build "American settlements" in their place. By the end of WWII the Japanese were desperate and starving, yet that horrific conflict did not morph into a multi-generational feud, did it?

Look at modern Germany and Europe. Holy fuck, what Germany did to the rest of Europe in WWII! (And what the Allies did to Germany...) Yet, again, you don't have young men blowing themselves up in German cafes to continue to battle another generation, do you?

Why do these things go multi-generational in the Middle East? It's NOT inevitable! It can't be biology because they are humans just like the rest of us. What else is there but culture? If we had a better understanding of what causes these prolonged conflicts, not in the sense of "X did Y to Z 500 years ago" but why people feel compelled to take up arms rather than find other solutions, we might be able to find a way out of the mess. And I really do mean we, because, like it or not, the Middle East is connected to the rest of the world and conflict there affects other people outside the region and is in turn affected by outsiders.

[ray245]

I'm not of the impression downtown LA is under rocket bombardment or has militia running around. But extremely violent groups being hammered by extreme force was the point. The IDF has a tendency of fighting an enemy with conventional weapons that won't get the job done entirely, so in the end you'll have to do what the LAPD do sooner or later, and keep the peace, rather than bug out, find rockets landing in your garden again, then pound some other buildings and leave it be for a while.

The LA gang problem dates back to the 1930s, and its been really bad since the 1960s… police have NOT solved it in decades of trying, nor even come remotely close. At best its containment through constant attrition, yeah really great situation hun? The attrition is only sustinabul because LA gangs don’t have explosives, they don’t have hoards of automatic weapons and they aren’t willing to lose ten men just to kill one cop.

You might also notice, Israel was policing Gaza until about a decade ago, and what did it do, spawned more terrorists, harden the resistance. Gaza wasn’t so bad back in say 1971. Police cannot work at all unless the population supports the idea of being policed. The Palestinians will never accept being policed by Israel so it’s a fucking war if you like it or not.

So what kind of benefits did the people living in Gaza gain in the 70s? Did their social-economic situation improve?

Why do these things go multi-generational in the Middle East? It's NOT inevitable! It can't be biology because they are humans just like the rest of us. What else is there but culture? If we had a better understanding of what causes these prolonged conflicts, not in the sense of "X did Y to Z 500 years ago" but why people feel compelled to take up arms rather than find other solutions, we might be able to find a way out of the mess. And I really do mean we, because, like it or not, the Middle East is connected to the rest of the world and conflict there affects other people outside the region and is in turn affected by outsiders.

Well, I have mentioned it for a while now. Mainly due to the fact that the US after WW2, instead of doing what Israel is doing, choose to provide aid and help them build up their economy.

What do you think will happen if people as a whole is jobless as a whole? Unrest.

Except in this case, those who cause unrest has a very visible target, which is Israel. Violence is seen as a viable option to the Hamas mainly due to the fact that 'peace' does not bring about any visible benefits to their land.

And this isn't limited to the middle-eastern culture. Wars in the past has been used as a crowd-pleasing tool to keep the crowd occupied, and ensure that unrest is not directed towards the government. For all we know, the Hamas do seen violence as threats against Israel as a tool to secure their power, and preventing the Palestinians from turning against them.

There is another solution the Hamas can do...

Keynesian economics, a stimulus plan to develop and build large scale infrastructure all over the region, create those make-work job to keep those young people occupied and etc.


If Israel really wanted to stop the Hamas, it is time to roll out their version of a Marshall plan. If it is implemented correctly, Israel can potentially gain benefits from such a huge investment, just like how the US gain substantial benefits from the Marshall plan.

[Sea Skimmer]

That's a good point - the US trashed Japan by the end of WWII, burned entire cities, etc. yet today we are allies (if not always friends). We don't have young Japanese men blowing themselves up in American cafes, do we? (And it's not due to a cultural ban on suicide missions, either - they proved willing to kill themselves for a cause during WWII) Then again, even after total surrender of Japan to the US we didn't scrape the Japanese off their own land and build "American settlements" in their place. By the end of WWII the Japanese were desperate and starving, yet that horrific conflict did not morph into a multi-generational feud, did it?

And that is directly related to the unrestrained manner in which WW2 was fought, because earlier more limited wars sure as shit did breed multi generational feuds. If someone was defenseless in WW2 that just meant it was easier to kill them and death came in huge portions. It was violent enough to make people reject the idea of fighting at all. That’s the whole fucking problem with Israel and Palestinian; it is NOT fought with enough violence at any one time to mean anything. The ceasefires (aka time to reload) and other bullshit just ensure both sides can accept a very drawn out conflict with no end. Japan lost nearly 4% of its entire population in WW2, and if you consider all the deaths they suffered in China from 1937-1939 the toll is significantly worse. Germany lost over 10% of its population and was cracked in half for the next forty years. That’s what made people willing to accept each other with no further feuding, the introduction of nuclear weapons sure helped too. Meanwhile the restrained end to WW1 precisely ensured that WW2 would happen. The quick German victory in 1870 ensured WW1, and if you go back any earlier then that then you’re just in a fundamentally earlier era of thinking on matters of warfare, an era the Isreali-Palastinian conflict is stuck in.

Meanwhile the entire Second Intifada has killed something like .15-.20% of the Palestinian population, but in fact the rate is so low that population has been growing by a good clip throughout the fighting at a significant rate. That means Hamas can easily sustain the fight, and the Palestinians go along with it as much choice as they have, because it can be sustained.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I'm not of the impression downtown LA is under rocket bombardment or has militia running around. But extremely violent groups being hammered by extreme force was the point. The IDF has a tendency of fighting an enemy with conventional weapons that won't get the job done entirely, so in the end you'll have to do what the LAPD do sooner or later, and keep the peace, rather than bug out, find rockets landing in your garden again, then pound some other buildings and leave it be for a while.

The LA gang problem dates back to the 1930s, and its been really bad since the 1960s… police have NOT solved it in decades of trying, nor even come remotely close. At best its containment through constant attrition, yeah really great situation hun? The attrition is only sustinabul because LA gangs don’t have explosives, they don’t have hoards of automatic weapons and they aren’t willing to lose ten men just to kill one cop.

You might also notice, Israel was policing Gaza until about a decade ago, and what did it do, spawned more terrorists, harden the resistance. Gaza wasn’t so bad back in say 1971. Police cannot work at all unless the population supports the idea of being policed. The Palestinians will never accept being policed by Israel so it’s a fucking war if you like it or not.

So what kind of benefits did the people living in Gaza gain in the 70s? Did their social-economic situation improve?

The biggest economic (And living standards) growth in Palestinian history was during the 90's after the OSlo accords. Y'know, just before they started to send out suicide bombers (and as soon as they had the capabilities - rockets) at the peak of the growth (Which stopped after that for obvious and understandable reason).

[Admiral Valdemar]

The LA gang problem dates back to the 1930s, and its been really bad since the 1960s… police have NOT solved it in decades of trying, nor even come remotely close. At best its containment through constant attrition, yeah really great situation hun? The attrition is only sustainable because LA gangs don’t have explosives, they don’t have hoards of automatic weapons, they aren’t willing to lose ten men just to kill one cop and in the end, they just aren’t nearly as organized as Hamas. Hamas is actually one organization, meanwhile some gangs in LA are big, in the thousands, but in terms of actual control they have hundreds of small branches that operate independently.

You might also notice, Israel was policing Gaza until about a decade ago, and what did it do, spawned more terrorists, harden the resistance. Gaza wasn’t so bad back in say 1971. Police cannot work at all unless the population supports the idea of being policed. The Palestinians will never accept being policed by Israel so it’s a fucking war if you like it or not.

I don't expect policing to solve anything here, I'm merely following Mike's rationale for it coming off as more acceptable globally than plinking whole tower blocks from the air with guided munitions. The only way any of this will end is through education and rehabilitating the whole region, and I just don't see these blood feuds vanishing long enough to make any of that practical. Additionally, Israel is wary of putting boots on the ground anyway, because of the very history of getting bogged down there and still getting no real results, as you say. It didn't quite kill as many people in as short a time as these air strikes and arty barrages are doing, which is why there is so much condemnation.

It's just a vicious circle that only makes the news when a particularly notable violent event crops up.

[Darth Wong]

The urban gang problem is related to shit economic opportunities for large swathes of the population in American urban centres. That's another element of the problem, for sure. One of the reasons Japan and Europe are friends with the US is the rebuilding of their economic base after WW2. If Japan was kept permanently weak and economically impoverished by the US for the last 60 years in order to ensure that they never become a threat again, I don't think they'd be our friends right now.

[ray245]

The biggest economic (And living standards) growth in Palestinian history was during the 90's after the OSlo accords. Y'know, just before they started to send out suicide bombers (and as soon as they had the capabilities - rockets) at the peak of the growth (Which stopped after that for obvious and understandable reason).

Any reason why Palestinians decides to send the suicide bombers in the 90s? If anything, Israel's aids towards the Palestinian should continue even in the face of rocket attacks and etc. Why? Convince people once again that there is no real benefits to attack Israel, and isolate those suicide bombings fanatics. Make the people reject them, by giving them time to think of this question 'What the fuck are you bombing the Israel for?'

Give people more economic prosperity, and more importantly, more time to weight their option in a more rational manner.

[Sea Skimmer]

So what kind of benefits did the people living in Gaza gain in the 70s? Did their social-economic situation improve?

The population was just way smaller, so they could make a living a lot easier. Also Israel simply looked undefeatable, and could certainly be expected to reply to any attack with overwhelming force, not half assed ‘withdrawal after a week’ bullshit. Since there was peace, Palestinians could go to work in Israel. Today Gaza is just completely cutoff from that, though to a limited extent people in the West Bank are allowed work permits, they got a whole lot more of them before the Second INfdaita. The West Bank also has more space, and it was subject to alot more violence earlier in this (2000 to present) stage of the conflict... and its not ruled by Hamas... surprise surprise that its now fairly peaceful.

If you look at a map of Gaza in 1967, it’s a couple small cities surrounded by big open areas. The refugee camps were actual refugee camps, and the refugees were not in control, nor much liked at all by the locals. Today the population having quadrupled, the refugee camps are cities, and the cities are beginning to merge together into one totally urbanized strip of land, and that’s just a fucked situation for anyone. Singapore and Hong Kong and Monaco and other modern city states only make it work through sustaining very high volumes of international trade. That of course can’t happen when you engage in constant armed conflict, and Hamas is committed to a constant struggle.

[ray245]

So what kind of benefits did the people living in Gaza gain in the 70s? Did their social-economic situation improve?

The population was just way smaller, so they could make a living a lot easier. Also Israel simply looked undefeatable, and could certainly be expected to reply to any attack with overwhelming force, not half assed ‘withdrawal after a week’ bullshit. Since there was peace, Palestinians could go to work in Israel. Today Gaza is just completely cutoff from that, though to a limited extent people in the West Bank are allowed work permits, they got a whole lot more of them before the Second INfdaita. The West Bank also has more space, and it was subject to alot more violence earlier in this (2000 to present) stage of the conflict... and its not ruled by Hamas... surprise surprise that its now fairly peaceful.

If you look at a map of Gaza in 1967, it’s a couple small cities surrounded by big open areas. The refugee camps were actual refugee camps, and the refugees were not in control, nor much liked at all by the locals. Today the population having quadrupled, the refugee camps are cities, and the cities are beginning to merge together into one totally urbanized strip of land, and that’s just a fucked situation for anyone. Singapore and Hong Kong and Monaco and other modern city states only make it work through sustaining very high volumes of international trade. That of course can’t happen when you engage in constant armed conflict, and Hamas is committed to a constant struggle.

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.

No, I do not mean improving their economic status through day labour work permit. I mean investing heavily in Gaza and West Bank.

Industries the Gaza region if you have to. Israel military force can focus on taking on the Insurgents in a low key policing action while actual assets are being developed in Gaza.

Ensure that Gaza is heavily linked economically, yet is able to sustain their economic development by themselves.

[Sea Skimmer]

[
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.

And why would Hamas agree to be bribed? More then one peace package has included very generous expansions of foreign aid. However accepting that means abandoning the struggle, abandoning the right to return and accepting a huge loss of political power and control. All those brothers Martyred for nothing? No, sorry you’d have to be crazy to think Hamas would agree to any of that. And of course such aid could only be effective if there was actual peace, not limp wrested ceasefires, because otherwise it would all just end up destroyed or converted into weapons.

Hamas does not want peace. They want power, and they get it from getting everyone to think that impossible goals are the only acceptable ones. Until that changes nothing else is going to. Poverty just plays into extremists hands, its how Hitler and Mussolini got into power too.

Industries the Gaza region if you have to. Israel military force can focus on taking on the Insurgents in a low key policing action while actual assets are being developed in Gaza.

Fighting a war and engaging in development do not do hand in hand. I’ve pointed out the stupidly of thinking Israeli army troops can act as ‘police’ already. Such idealistic thinking is just dangerous and is half the reason why this conflict has spiraled down to such a pathetic state.

[Big Phil]

So what kind of benefits did the people living in Gaza gain in the 70s? Did their social-economic situation improve?

The population was just way smaller, so they could make a living a lot easier. Also Israel simply looked undefeatable, and could certainly be expected to reply to any attack with overwhelming force, not half assed ‘withdrawal after a week’ bullshit. Since there was peace, Palestinians could go to work in Israel. Today Gaza is just completely cutoff from that, though to a limited extent people in the West Bank are allowed work permits, they got a whole lot more of them before the Second INfdaita. The West Bank also has more space, and it was subject to alot more violence earlier in this (2000 to present) stage of the conflict... and its not ruled by Hamas... surprise surprise that its now fairly peaceful.

If you look at a map of Gaza in 1967, it’s a couple small cities surrounded by big open areas. The refugee camps were actual refugee camps, and the refugees were not in control, nor much liked at all by the locals. Today the population having quadrupled, the refugee camps are cities, and the cities are beginning to merge together into one totally urbanized strip of land, and that’s just a fucked situation for anyone. Singapore and Hong Kong and Monaco and other modern city states only make it work through sustaining very high volumes of international trade. That of course can’t happen when you engage in constant armed conflict, and Hamas is committed to a constant struggle.

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.

No, I do not mean improving their economic status through day labour work permit. I mean investing heavily in Gaza and West Bank.

Industries the Gaza region if you have to. Israel military force can focus on taking on the Insurgents in a low key policing action while actual assets are being developed in Gaza.

Ensure that Gaza is heavily linked economically, yet is able to sustain their economic development by themselves.

Do you know if the Gazans themselves want this sort of development? While Israel built itself an infrastructure despite constant attacks from its neighbors, neither the West Bank nor the Gaza strip were ever developed - maybe the Palestinians would simply prefer to be victims of those damned dirty Jews than have to build up an infrastructure? Maybe they see no point, since it all gets blown up the next time Israel and Hamas get pissy with each other. Maybe they're seriously hoping to be able to go "home" and kick Jews out of Israel at some point.

In any case, what sort of investment would you suggest in Gaza and the West Bank? They can't farm anymore - the land is all gone. Manufacturing won't happen - Israel wouldn't allow it and no one is going to build a factory in a war zone. Finance - yeah right, besides, it would make Bahrain unhappy.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The urban gang problem is related to shit economic opportunities for large swathes of the population in American urban centres. That's another element of the problem, for sure. One of the reasons Japan and Europe are friends with the US is the rebuilding of their economic base after WW2. If Japan was kept permanently weak and economically impoverished by the US for the last 60 years in order to ensure that they never become a threat again, I don't think they'd be our friends right now.

A lot of the crime we have today would be gone if we just had a functioning, fair economy that focused on welfare and equal distribution of wealth. When you fuck over the people, they'll turn to crime and extreme measures. And then any money you saved to pay higher wages to those you see as more fitting for society, will go to waste in producing an inefficient and bloated prison and justice system. All we're doing is moving the shit around, rather than dealing with it.

[Coyote]

Guys, cool down for a moment shall we, and use less insults, just in case this thread got out of hand.

...Broomstick and etc, you guys taught me to be less emotional and more rational in a debate, I have confidence in you guys that this thread will not end up in the hall of Shame.


So, don't get too personal in this debate,

You're so cute! You have no idea-- for an Israel & Palestine debate on SDN, this is the gold standard of civility so far!

[ray245]

And why would Hamas agree to be bribed? More then one peace package has included very generous expansions of foreign aid. However accepting that means abandoning the struggle, abandoning the right to return and accepting a huge loss of political power and control. All those brothers Martyred for nothing? No, sorry you’d have to be crazy to think Hamas would agree to any of that. And of course such aid could only be effective if there was actual peace, not limp wrested ceasefires, because otherwise it would all just end up destroyed or converted into weapons.

Hamas does not want peace. They want power, and they get it from getting everyone to think that impossible goals are the only acceptable ones. Until that changes nothing else is going to. Poverty just plays into extremists hands, its how Hitler and Mussolini got into power too.

I do not mean bribing them to give up their power. Bribing them to accept foreign aid packages while they remain in power.

Give them another tool where they can prevent the public from turning against them. Give them the finical tools to keep their people occupied.

Hamas isn't going to leave anytime soon, much better to recreate and divert the Hamas from using war and violence to keep their population satisfied to building and creating jobs for their people.

Engage in direct diplomacy with those guys.

Fighting a war and engaging in development do not do hand in hand. I’ve pointed out the stupidly of thinking Israeli army troops can act as ‘police’ already. Such idealistic thinking is just dangerous and is half the reason why this conflict has spiraled down to such a pathetic state.

Who said Israel should be fighting a war with those guys in the first place?

[SirNitram]

Even "liberal" media outlets like Huffington Post are chock full of IDF camp followers and fanwhores like Alan Dershowitz who claims that IDF atrocities are perfectly legal. Not only do they run this kind of excrement on their front page, they vigorously censor any posts that bring up his column in the Jerusalem Post calling for Lidice-style retaliation against Palestinian civilians.

HuffPo sides with antivacciners. Nuff. Said.

They do? Show me?

Antivacciner David Kirby: Settlement over link, ZOMG, PROOF POSITIVE OF AUTISM CAUSED BY VACCINES.

DA GOOGLE WILL SHOW YOU TROOF! IGNORE SCIENTISTS CUZ THEY IS WITH GOBMINT!

HOORAY MCCAIN ON MY SIDE! SAYS THERE IZ EVIDENCE!

There's more. Kirby's a fucking quack, as the fact the Age Of Autism site thinks he's keen shows(Very first post right now: Typical thimersol looney shit.).

[Coyote]

In any case, what sort of investment would you suggest in Gaza and the West Bank? They can't farm anymore - the land is all gone. Manufacturing won't happen - Israel wouldn't allow it and no one is going to build a factory in a war zone. Finance - yeah right, besides, it would make Bahrain unhappy.

If there was, in fact, peace, these things could be had. Palestine could be a very propserous country with the right leadership; obviously I am talking about a West Bank-Gaza Strip state. Yes, there'd have to be some sort of connector between them, a railroad or something, or a approved air corridor for commuter flights; and yes, it would be awhile before tensions eased...

But Gaza is in the warm waters of the Med, it is close to the Suez Canal, it is supposed to have some generous natural gas deposits, and of course the interior, the West Bank, has land to grow food and would have a lot of tourist sites, especially places where American Christians would go (Bethlehem, for example) and spend wads of cash.

Palestine has a lot of unrealized potenial.

[Big Phil]

And why would Hamas agree to be bribed? More then one peace package has included very generous expansions of foreign aid. However accepting that means abandoning the struggle, abandoning the right to return and accepting a huge loss of political power and control. All those brothers Martyred for nothing? No, sorry you’d have to be crazy to think Hamas would agree to any of that. And of course such aid could only be effective if there was actual peace, not limp wrested ceasefires, because otherwise it would all just end up destroyed or converted into weapons.

Hamas does not want peace. They want power, and they get it from getting everyone to think that impossible goals are the only acceptable ones. Until that changes nothing else is going to. Poverty just plays into extremists hands, its how Hitler and Mussolini got into power too.

I do not mean bribing them to give up their power. Bribing them to accept foreign aid packages while they remain in power.

Give them another tool where they can prevent the public from turning against them. Give them the finical tools to keep their people occupied.

Hamas isn't going to leave anytime soon, much better to recreate and divert the Hamas from using war and violence to keep their population satisfied to building and creating jobs for their people.

Engage in direct diplomacy with those guys.

You're actually suggesting that we keep a terrorist organization in power? Shit, why not support Robert Mugabe then - he's about as sane and doing as much for Zimbabwe as Hamas is for Gaza.

[Illuminatus Primus]

They were elected. What is your solution? Impose some Western/Israeli satrapy and pretend the incentives for Hamas' development and gains will just evaporate?

[ray245]

And why would Hamas agree to be bribed? More then one peace package has included very generous expansions of foreign aid. However accepting that means abandoning the struggle, abandoning the right to return and accepting a huge loss of political power and control. All those brothers Martyred for nothing? No, sorry you’d have to be crazy to think Hamas would agree to any of that. And of course such aid could only be effective if there was actual peace, not limp wrested ceasefires, because otherwise it would all just end up destroyed or converted into weapons.

Hamas does not want peace. They want power, and they get it from getting everyone to think that impossible goals are the only acceptable ones. Until that changes nothing else is going to. Poverty just plays into extremists hands, its how Hitler and Mussolini got into power too.

I do not mean bribing them to give up their power. Bribing them to accept foreign aid packages while they remain in power.

Give them another tool where they can prevent the public from turning against them. Give them the finical tools to keep their people occupied.

Hamas isn't going to leave anytime soon, much better to recreate and divert the Hamas from using war and violence to keep their population satisfied to building and creating jobs for their people.

Engage in direct diplomacy with those guys.

You're actually suggesting that we keep a terrorist organization in power? Shit, why not support Robert Mugabe then - he's about as sane and doing as much for Zimbabwe as Hamas is for Gaza.

US has supported dictators in the past before, what is so shocking about that. Stability in the region is far more important than saying 'oh no, we helped a terrorist organization!' . You want the developmental aid to be effective and do you want support from the people living in Gaza? Recognise the Hamas, work with them.

You either compromise, or let the the situation played itself out for another few hundred years.

You want more friends in the regions? How about trying to make an actual friend that will be grateful to you.

Don't use the Palestinians as a tool, you want peace in the region? Be flexible, and ensure the Gaza strip can actually developed into a sustainable economy.

[Coyote]

US has supported dictators in the past before, what is so shocking about that. Stability in the region is far more important than saying 'oh no, we helped a terrorist organization!' . You want the developmental aid to be effective and do you want support from the people living in Gaza? Recognise the Hamas, work with them.

Yes, we've helped dictators in the past, but they were efficient dictators* that kept things stable for US interests. If Ferdinand Marcos, for example, had been constantly attacking Japan, Taiwan, Korea, New Guinea, etc, he'd not be useful to us and we'd've dumped him and replaced him with another dictator that was more pliable.

In the end, the only reason we dumped most of our pet dictators was because the situation we needed them for ended, or their own people got fed up and ousted them and there was no way we could 'fix' the situation, so we looked for another dictator.

In the case of Marcos, it was a bit of both-- our strategic position in the Phillippenes was no longer needed, and he pissed his people off. Double liabiltity? Bye-bye!

*"efficient" does not imply that they were good to their people or there was no waste-- only that they kept a lid on things so we could do what we wanted to do in their region.


As for Hamas... I doubt they'll be "useful" or "controllable". They are what is known as "ideological operatators"-- people that are motivated by ther warm, fuzzy feeling they get by being The Big Men. Money likely won't fill the gap they would have without a Sacred Cause to fight for, the thrill of battle, rah-rah.

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...

[Big Phil]

They were elected. What is your solution? Impose some Western/Israeli satrapy and pretend the incentives for Hamas' development and gains will just evaporate?

ray seems to be suggesting we support Hamas to keep them in charge in Gaza in exchange for an elimination of the violence - "bribing them to accept foreign aid packages while they remain in power." - that doesn't sound much like support for democratic institutions. Of course, Hamas won't stay in charge without violence against Israel, because they don't know how to run a government, so that means that the bribes need to allow Hamas to forcefully stay in charge. Great solution, huh? Discard their fledgeling democracy in favor of a terrorist dictatorship and bribery to keep them from attacking Israel.

This idea is so stupid it's making my head hurt.

[ray245]

As for Hamas... I doubt they'll be "useful" or "controllable". They are what is known as "ideological operatators"-- people that are motivated by ther warm, fuzzy feeling they get by being The Big Men. Money likely won't fill the gap they would have without a Sacred Cause to fight for, the thrill of battle, rah-rah.

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...

However, one cannot ignore the actions of the allies after WW2, whereby economic re-development manage to keep the nations stable to a certain extend.

Which means even when unholy suffering has been inflicted, the right course of action, such as providing people with a job and a functional economy is required.

I don't believe we need a repeat of death and destruction on the scale of WW2 to achieve such a goal.

More importantly, Israel and US must not appear to be controlling the Hamas through threats for them to be credible.

By the way, I highly doubt that Hamas will be that illogical if they are willingly to accept a ceasefire a while ago, and negotiate with Israel before the current round of fighting.

ray seems to be suggesting we support Hamas to keep them in charge in Gaza in exchange for an elimination of the violence - "bribing them to accept foreign aid packages while they remain in power." - that doesn't sound much like support for democratic institutions. Of course, Hamas won't stay in charge without violence against Israel, because they don't know how to run a government, so that means that the bribes need to allow Hamas to forcefully stay in charge. Great solution, huh? Discard their fledgeling democracy in favor of a terrorist dictatorship and bribery to keep them from attacking Israel.

This idea is so stupid it's making my head hurt.

Sustain peace until the Palestinians can accept real peace with Israel, and can receive tangible benefits. When that happens, the situation in Gaza can really improve for once.

Although I am willingly to see what kind of alternative solution SancheztheWhaler can bring to the table.

[Big Phil]

How do you suggest we "sustain peace" and what will make the Palestinians "accept real peace with Israel?" Remember, however, with your solution, we don't have Palestinians making decisions; we have Hamas making decisions. Either they stay in charge by attacking Israel, or they stay in charge by dominating their population (supported by the US now).

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.

[Kanastrous]

However, one cannot ignore the actions of the allies after WW2, whereby economic re-development manage to keep the nations stable to a certain extend.

One had also better not ignore the fact that postwar Europe and Asia <> the Territories. Not even anywhere close.

Which means even when unholy suffering has been inflicted, the right course of action, such as providing people with a job and a functional economy is required.

You don't pay much attention to HAMAS history, policies, goals, and operations, do you? What you're suggesting is about as smart and practical as giving a sponge bath to an infuriated wolverine.

I don't believe we need a repeat of death and destruction on the scale of WW2 to achieve such a goal.

You very well might. Nothing constructive could be done with Germany or Japan, or the rest of the devastated regions, until both Germany and Japan had been pounded into absolute supine defeat.

More importantly, Israel and US must not appear to be controlling the Hamas through threats for them to be credible.

Does it appear to you that Israel and the US are 'controlling HAMAS' via any technique, at all?

By the way, I highly doubt that Hamas will be that illogical if they are willingly to accept a ceasefire a while ago, and negotiate with Israel before the current round of fighting.

Hey, they believe that anyone who dies on the wrong end of an Israeli weapon goes straight to Heaven where a cadre of virgins awaits. They're obviously paragons of logic and reasoned thought.

Sustain peace until the Palestinians can accept real peace with Israel, and can receive tangible benefits.

How?

When that happens, the situation in Gaza can really improve for once.

As has been noted, the greatest improvements in Gaza were seen when Palestinians decided to put aside fighting as a solution.

[Broomstick]

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.