Gaza situation discussion

[ray245]

Bear in mind that the current attacks did tear down a number of public infrastructure.

Unless tearing down their infrastructure and asking them to rebuild it is a valid argument for keeping them occupied and achieve peace.

So? Hamas hasn't so much as governed, beyond training fighters. Those "public infrastructure" have been for the most part used to train more fighters, smuggle weapons, store weapons and what fuck. Then they start rushing into buildings used by aid workers and start firing shells, rockets, mortars and the lot. Let's not even talk about that Hamas television channel that teaches young children to kill jews.

Have you bothered to read the papers at all? Or are you just inserting witty statements?

I'm simply saying that the current attacks make it harder for any incoming government to rebuild Gaza. It does not matter if they are Fatah or Hamas.

Is that a wrong assumption?

Assuming that the Hamas can be removed, what makes you think that another government is going to be capable enough to fix that huge mess? Who is going to ensure order during the change in government? Israel?

[Count Chocula]

Ray, re-read Ossus' post, then go Google Beirut. If Hamas was not in power, and more significantly if the Palestinians as a whole did not want to exterminate every man, woman and child in Israel* and ruthlessly suppressed any further Hamas activity, then Gaza could be every bit as prosperous as Beirut was in the 1970s and Israel would leave them TF alone. As it is, in Israelis' eyes land they won legitimately by conquest in the 1967 Six-Day War and later ceded to their enemies is the staging ground for continued attacks on Israel. After what, 30 years? 40 years? Israelis probably want the shit to just end, and their military and government see a massive armed response as the only way to make that happen.

Really, it could be as conceptually simple a process as this: Palestinians in Gaza flat-out rejecting Hamas' fundamentalism, bum-rushing every fu*king Hamas would-be martyr who tried to shoot off a mortar or rocket and stopping them, telling Hamas to go piss up a rope, and setting up a government, ANY type of government, that does not include the extermination of their neighbor in its charter.

If whoever was in power in Gaza, along with the populace, had no interest in killing Israel and was not lobbing munitions into Israel on a regular basis, the chances are good that Israel would leave them alone.

* Note: I'm not declaring as a fact that the Palestinians in Gaza want to eliminate Israel, but enough of them apparently do as evidenced by Hamas' continued existence and "hegemony" in Gaza.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I'm simply saying that the current attacks make it harder for any incoming government to rebuild Gaza.

Then how would you suggest removing a hostile government whose constitution demands the destruction of Israel? Walk in and say hi?

It does not matter if they are Fatah or Hamas.

Yes it does. Because Hamas exists to create trouble for Israel. Did you not read the Hamas constitution that Shep posted up?

Is that a wrong assumption?

If this was a rational circumstance, it wouldn't. But this isn't a rational situation, so no.

Assuming that the Hamas can be removed, what makes you think that another government is going to be capable enough to fix that huge mess? Who is going to ensure order during the change in government? Israel?

Then somehting will have to be found. Like it or not, a pawn of Iran and a bunch of racist maniacs who seem content to send their own people into a slaughter house and using their own people as shields have to go.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm simply saying that the current attacks make it harder for any incoming government to rebuild Gaza. It does not matter if they are Fatah or Hamas.

Is that a wrong assumption?

IF the attacks can remove Hamas, then I don't think the answer to that question is obvious.

Assuming that the Hamas can be removed, what makes you think that another government is going to be capable enough to fix that huge mess? Who is going to ensure order during the change in government? Israel?

Because most governments that aren't going through violent periods that destroy a substantial fraction of the capital infrastructure every once in a while can provide for economic recovery reasonably quickly. This is especially true in internationally high-profile necks of the woods, since IMF, the UN, and every western country lines up to provide loans and economic support for developing economies in such areas.

Edit: You seem to have this view that GOVERNMENTS are the primary source of economic recovery. There is some interaction, but economies are generally self-healing barring major external shocks (e.g., destructive military conflicts).

[eyl]

Come to think of it, can the Fatah even reassert any form of control over the Gaza strip after the attacks has stopped?

Possibly. Fatah worked up a lot of anger against it (which is a big part of why Hamas got elected) but Hamas has also reportedly lost a lot of good will over the recent period and especially since the Israeli offensive started (not only because they provoked Israel into starting the attack, but also because once it started, the "defenders of the Palestinian people" almost immediately went into hiding and abandoned the population when they weren't using it as cover). The question is whether that anger is enough to make Fatah palatable again.

On the other hand, if Fatah goes in and starts settling scores, it won't help matter smuch either (not just from when Hamas took power in the Strip, but I've heard they've used the current violence as cover to settle some old scores after disarming Gaza's Fatah members - I've seen estimates of casualties running between a few dead all the way up to around 100).

and the Westbankers cheering for Hamas; rather than Fatah who kept them unbombed (another symptom of the Palestinian talent for picking the wrong side?);

Interestingly, the response in the West Bank has been considerably more muted than anyone expected.

even heard about mortar attacks on the border crossing and four minutes of googling turned up nothing Shep.

Shep gave you one example; try googling "mortar" along with "erez", "Karni", "sufa" or "kerem shalom" and you'll get articles for attacks on each of those crossings.

[ray245]

Edit: You seem to have this view that GOVERNMENTS are the primary source of economic recovery. There is some interaction, but economies are generally self-healing barring major external shocks (e.g., destructive military conflicts).

Wait, I thought that some form of governance is still around, even in destructive conflict such as WW2? After the collapse of the Japanese and German government, the Allies basically took over in regards to control and running the day to day business of a nation.

We have yet to see any nation in the world having a economic recovery without a stable government or governmental body, such as an occupational force.

Saying economies are self-healing is free-market economies(a free market economy can only exist to some extend with a proper governing body). A stable government, either foreign or native government needs to be around to start off the economic recovery.

[Master of Ossus]

Wait, I thought that some form of governance is still around, even in destructive conflict such as WW2? After the collapse of the Japanese and German government, the Allies basically took over in regards to control and running the day to day business of a nation.

Uh... okay. Governments exist in virtually every state, and in every state that isn't currently going through significant armed conflicts.

We have yet to see any nation in the world having a economic recovery without a stable government or governmental body, such as an occupational force.

That's because governments exist virtually everywhere.

Saying economies are self-healing is free-market economies(a free market economy can only exist to some extend with a proper governing body). A stable government, either foreign or native government needs to be around to start off the economic recovery.

I have no idea how you're defining "stable government" for this purpose, and moreover have no idea how you credit governments for things like the recovery of the major Western-occupied countries after WWII. It doesn't take a brilliant government to say, "Okay, okay, we'll let you have private property." I suppose it's somewhat necessary to have a sufficiently stable government to ENFORCE private property laws, but can you explain how the current Israeli operations are making it harder for a future government to achieve such high-level ends?

[Ender]

Ray, you keep talking economics, so lets look at it from that perspective. Do you have any idea how much money Israel and Palestine could both make from tourism alone if they would just stop blowing everything up? The area is home to literally hundreds of historical landmarks and art that would bring people in to see them, plus all the religious pilgrimages, plus the fact that as far as climates go, it isn't too shabby there. Stop blowing shit up, build some fucking hotels, buy some tour buses and you pretty much have a license to mint money there. Dubai is a nice place to go, and it doesn't have anywhere near the cultural significance that those lands do.

[ray245]

I have no idea how you're defining "stable government" for this purpose, and moreover have no idea how you credit governments for things like the recovery of the major Western-occupied countries after WWII. It doesn't take a brilliant government to say, "Okay, okay, we'll let you have private property." I suppose it's somewhat necessary to have a sufficiently stable government to ENFORCE private property laws, but can you explain how the current Israeli operations are making it harder for a future government to achieve such high-level ends?

Bear in mind that I am not talking about only a native government can recover a nation economy. In certain times, an occupational government can improve the economy as well.

Such as the bombing of police institution for instance. On one hand it is reasonable to argue that the Hamas are simply using it as a training ground to train more bombers and insurgents for example, on the other hand, one can argue that without anyone policing over the nation, laws can't even be observed.

Also, the very fact that someone needs to be around to ensure that construction of public infrastructure for instance, that is fundamental to economic growth can't be provided without an stable government.

Roads, electrical grid, power plants, Hospitals can't be build by without a government. If we are talking about the being able to UN do all those, bear in mind that we need a government around to approve off such an effort, maintain the stability of that region, to ensure that construction work is even plausible in the first place.

If anything, Somalia should be a decent example whereby nothing concrete can be achieved. Can you imagine that Somalia is able to achieve peace without a strong party 'defusing' resistance?

Maybe it is just me, but your argument that the economy will recover by itself with limited government control seems a little bit like Libertarianism to me. The conflict of interest is bound to happen in any society, the problem is, we have an actual government able to contain that conflict to some extend. That conflict is limited to court case, campaigning instead of resorting to violence.

Without government providing stability in the first place, where is the economic investment coming from? You can't expect the UN to build up a nation economy without someone running that nation. Also, a nation can't really on the UN aid forever.

Take tourism for example, who is willingly to build hotels when you have people running around freely with guns? Yup, try building a Hotel in Somalia and see what happens next. Not only does the two side have to stop fighting each other, and peace agreement made, economic discussion has to take place as well.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Maybe it is just me, but your argument that the economy will recover by itself with limited government control seems a little bit like Libertarianism to me. The conflict of interest is bound to happen in any society, the problem is, we have an actual government able to contain that conflict to some extend. That conflict is limited to court case, campaigning instead of resorting to violence.

Because you have forgotten what "economy" means. You do realise that even growing crops is a form of economic activity? Or even scavenging? Or do you suggest people go starve?

And your bloody naivety is getting on quite a few people's nerves, if you haven't noticed.

Roads, electrical grid, power plants, Hospitals can't be build by without a government. If we are talking about the being able to UN do all those, bear in mind that we need a government around to approve off such an effort, maintain the stability of that region, to ensure that construction work is even plausible in the first place.

Then fucking rebuild whatever was bombed. Or do you suggest that Hamas should be allowed to use human shields is even a better solution? Would you like to process that bit of information in your head before you go spouting idealism?

[ray245]

Because you have forgotten what "economy" means. You do realise that even growing crops is a form of economic activity? Or even scavenging? Or do you suggest people go starve?

And your bloody naivety is getting on quite a few people's nerves, if you haven't noticed.

Sigh, I really want to improve and rely less on pure idealism if I can, but it requires a huge deal of effort. Although without anyone pointing it out for me, I would not even realise my weakness.

Will the majority of the people in Gaza be content enough with Farming for instance? Will the people be content enough to see that conflict isn't in their best economic interest?

When faced with a neighbor that is pretty well off, will the people be settled with living in a nation where they have to live in a society where scavenging in the norm.

Then fucking rebuild whatever was bombed. Or do you suggest that Hamas should be allowed to use human shields is even a better solution? Would you like to process that bit of information in your head before you go spouting idealism?

The problem is, after you take down the Hamas, who is going to rebuild it? The Israeli? The UN? The Fatah? Can the UN and Fatah even reassert control over the region?

[Ender]

The problem is, after you take down the Hamas, who is going to rebuild it? The Israeli? The UN? The Fatah? Can the UN and Fatah even reassert control over the region?

Ray, who the fuck do you think has been rebuilding it for the past 50+ years? Israel, the UN, and the IMF. Fuck, most of the buildings Hamas is firing from so they get blown up are UN buildings.

[ray245]

The problem is, after you take down the Hamas, who is going to rebuild it? The Israeli? The UN? The Fatah? Can the UN and Fatah even reassert control over the region?

Ray, who the fuck do you think has been rebuilding it for the past 50+ years? Israel, the UN, and the IMF. Fuck, most of the buildings Hamas is firing from so they get blown up are UN buildings.

Reasonable argument I guess.

Anyway guys, I'm getting too tired of debating anything at the momment, so I think I would leave this debate and stay on as an observer.

Well, happy debating everyone.

[Master of Ossus]

Bear in mind that I am not talking about only a native government can recover a nation economy. In certain times, an occupational government can improve the economy as well.

And that affects what I've been telling you... how?

Such as the bombing of police institution for instance. On one hand it is reasonable to argue that the Hamas are simply using it as a training ground to train more bombers and insurgents for example, on the other hand, one can argue that without anyone policing over the nation, laws can't even be observed.

Okay, and when the new government comes in to rebuild it then what happens?

Incidentally, it's pretty charitable to call these structures "police stations," since the police in Gaza essentially consist of Hamas militants and loyalists, and they operate out of houses and Hamas buildings. When Fatah was in charge, it operated a few police stations, but those became strongholds during the Civil War and have been largely abandoned.

Also, the very fact that someone needs to be around to ensure that construction of public infrastructure for instance, that is fundamental to economic growth can't be provided without an stable government.

Roads, electrical grid, power plants, Hospitals can't be build by without a government.

All of those things have been and frequently are constructed by private entities (indeed, even in the United States today--which surely has a stable government--there are private roads, electrical grids, power plants, and hospitals). If you mean to say that they can't be built with no government even to provide things like security then it gets a little trickier, but provided that you're willing to concede that security can ALSO be provided by private entities (which it can be), then you have no case.

If we are talking about the being able to UN do all those, bear in mind that we need a government around to approve off such an effort, maintain the stability of that region, to ensure that construction work is even plausible in the first place.

How the fuck is the current military action hindering the UN's ability to go in after the conflict and restore order? If anything, driving Hamas out of the region would ALLOW for better governance by an organization like the UN, or Fatah, or an Israeli puppet, or whatever other conceivable governance could go in.

If anything, Somalia should be a decent example whereby nothing concrete can be achieved. Can you imagine that Somalia is able to achieve peace without a strong party 'defusing' resistance?

I don't understand your sentences.

Maybe it is just me, but your argument that the economy will recover by itself with limited government control seems a little bit like Libertarianism to me. The conflict of interest is bound to happen in any society, the problem is, we have an actual government able to contain that conflict to some extend. That conflict is limited to court case, campaigning instead of resorting to violence.

Interesting. If you twist, distort, and ignore the crux of my argument, it looks to you like Libertarianism (in a way that you can't explain to any reasonable observer); therefore my argument fails. What's next? I am rubber; you are glue?

Without government providing stability in the first place, where is the economic investment coming from?

From private parties, you nitwit. That's why the savings rate of a society is the crucial determinant of economic development in Solow growth.

You can't expect the UN to build up a nation economy without someone running that nation. Also, a nation can't really on the UN aid forever.

Take tourism for example, who is willingly to build hotels when you have people running around freely with guns? Yup, try building a Hotel in Somalia and see what happens next. Not only does the two side have to stop fighting each other, and peace agreement made, economic discussion has to take place as well.

That's the whole fucking point of my argument! The problem with Gaza's economic development is that investors do not have reasonable expectations of realizing returns on their investments because the conflict with Israel (and amongst internal Palestinian factions) is so prohibitively destructive.

[Master of Ossus]

Sigh, I really want to improve and rely less on pure idealism if I can, but it requires a huge deal of effort. Although without anyone pointing it out for me, I would not even realise my weakness.

Will the majority of the people in Gaza be content enough with Farming for instance? Will the people be content enough to see that conflict isn't in their best economic interest?

When faced with a neighbor that is pretty well off, will the people be settled with living in a nation where they have to live in a society where scavenging in the norm.

What the flying fuck are you talking about? Economic development does not mean, "Okay, now everyone's a farmer." Division of labor (and comparative advantage) is probably the most fundamental component of economics. It's not a matter of Palestinians being "content" as compared to Israel. With any sort of a lasting and credible peace process, Palestine will be able to realize real and continuous improvements in the economy.

The problem is, after you take down the Hamas, who is going to rebuild it? The Israeli? The UN? The Fatah? Can the UN and Fatah even reassert control over the region?

How about "Palestinians?"

[Mr Bean]

Just stopped by to concede to Sheppard. I spent last afternoon digging. Gaza's in a bad situation, the amount needed is just enough to meet the needs and not more. The slacking does seem to be more HAMAS's fault(And it does seem they are trying very hard to shell the checkpoints) than Israel's. However if another three UN warehouses turn into craters I'm going to have questions. Also number of hospitals bombed is up to three.

[Elfdart]

Let's hear it for the Greeks!

SFGate

Greece: Protests planned over US arms to Israel

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

(01-13) 13:18 PST ATHENS, Greece (AP) --

Left-wing opposition parties said Tuesday they will go ahead with a protest at a Greek port despite the U.S. decision not to use the facility for an arms shipment to Israel.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said plans for shipping U.S. arms to Israel had been changed to avoid Greece.

"I think the Greek government had some issue with the off-loading of some of that shipment in their country, and so we are finding alternative means of getting that entire shipment to its proper destination in Israel," Morrell said.

He declined to say what kind of arms were included in the shipment.

Greek opposition parties maintained the government objected to the shipment only after the issue was revealed in the local media, because it feared public opinion in Greece, which is broadly opposed to ongoing Israeli military action in Gaza.

Protests at the western Greek port of Astakos are planned for Wednesday and Thursday.

Followed by:

LINK

WASHINGTON (AFP)--The U.S. military has to had to cancel a planned shipment of munitions from a Greek port to a U.S. warehouse in Israel due to objections from Athens, a Pentagon spokesman said on Tuesday.

"I think the Greek government had some issue with the offloading of some of that shipment in their country and so we are finding alternative means of getting that entire shipment to its proper destination in Israel," spokesman Geoff Morrell told a news conference. "I don't think we've come to a final resolution on how or when that will take place."

The shipment had been agreed last summer before the current Israeli offensive in Gaza, he said.

He said the U.S. had operated the munitions stockpile for nearly 20 years and that Israel "can ask for permission to access" the munitions.

He said he didn't know the nature of Greece's objection and whether it was related to security or political concerns.

[CJvR]

...sure didn't pull any punches in Rafah!

Pics from Rafah

[Mr Bean]

Due to cease fire thread now locking thread and moving it to Famous thread forum.