Gaza reconstruction, the reality

[Loren Pechtel]

Besides yet unsubstantiated claim about reality, it is a rather nasty assumption of guilt by possibly tenuous association. How would you feel if your house was destroyed because there was a terrorist connection within six degrees of separation?

Usually, there is one degree of separation: "X lives in the same building with a terrorist". But I think a stronger point is that there is really no way for X to know that or do much about it, given limited living space in Gaza. But on the other hand, when Hamas starts a shooting war with Israel, it is likewise difficult for Israel to be able to hit its enemies that are hiding among civilians. That argument cuts both ways.

Best solution would be for Hamas to realize that open warfare isn't the way, and focus on rebuilding and diplomacy.

Except the terrorists don't live there--they hide out there in times of war. Otherwise I agree with your one degree of separation point.

Standard military practice is that anything used for military purpose is a valid target no matter what other use it might have. Thus a building being used as a hideout by a commander is a valid target--the fact that it's also a civilian house doesn't change this, it just makes the situation a war crime by the person doing the hiding out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Usually, there is one degree of separation: "X lives in the same building with a terrorist". But I think a stronger point is that there is really no way for X to know that or do much about it, given limited living space in Gaza. But on the other hand, when Hamas starts a shooting war with Israel, it is likewise difficult for Israel to be able to hit its enemies that are hiding among civilians. That argument cuts both ways.

Best solution would be for Hamas to realize that open warfare isn't the way, and focus on rebuilding and diplomacy.

I think Hamas is waiting to see what rebuilding and diplomacy gets Fatah and the Palestinians in the West Bank. If the answer is "nothing" then there's no reason to go that route.

No--they perfectly well know diplomacy will accomplish basically nothing. They aren't even trying--a diplomatic solution is completely unacceptable to the Islamists. All diplomatic overtures are either shams for western ears (look how many have the right of return hidden deep within them. It's never mentioned, just referred to indirectly) or attempts to get concessions for talks as they realize they aren't going to get any more front-loaded agreements like Oslo anymore.

The terrorists can't accept a peaceful two-state solution, Israel isn't going to agree to a non-peaceful two-state solution. That's an impasse that can't be resolved without changing the whole picture.

 

[Arctish]

Standard military practice is that anything used for military purpose is a valid target no matter what other use it might have. Thus a building being used as a hideout by a commander is a valid target--the fact that it's also a civilian house doesn't change this, it just makes the situation a war crime by the person doing the hiding out.

Thus a bus being used to transport troops to their base is a valid military target, unless the troops are IDF. Thus a road used by troop transport vehicles is a valid military target unless the road is used by Israelis. Thus an airport used to launch military strikes is a valid military target unless it's in Tel Aviv. Thus a roadblock, bunker, gun emplacement, lookout, or outpost is a valid military target, especially if it's in a war zone, unless attacking it means Israelis come under fire, in which case it's not.

Also, blowing up buildings being used as shelters for refugees is perfectly okay unless the refugees are Jews. Thus, artillery fire on UN shelters in Gaza is okay, but firing a rocket that hits a bomb shelter in Ashkelon is a war crime.

 

[Arctish]

I think Hamas is waiting to see what rebuilding and diplomacy gets Fatah and the Palestinians in the West Bank. If the answer is "nothing" then there's no reason to go that route.

No--they perfectly well know diplomacy will accomplish basically nothing. They aren't even trying--a diplomatic solution is completely unacceptable to the Islamists. All diplomatic overtures are either shams for western ears (look how many have the right of return hidden deep within them. It's never mentioned, just referred to indirectly) or attempts to get concessions for talks as they realize they aren't going to get any more front-loaded agreements like Oslo anymore.

The terrorists can't accept a peaceful two-state solution, Israel isn't going to agree to a non-peaceful two-state solution. That's an impasse that can't be resolved without changing the whole picture.

You opinion only, apparently based on unwavering Zionism and intractable racism.

Diplomacy always accomplishes something of value, even if all that happens is a fleeting chance at respite from the conflict while diplomacy is pursued. Even a marginal improvement in living conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank and Israelis within Israel is better than a continuation of the current situation.

Of course, successful diplomacy means Jews and non-Jews share that part of the world, which is anathema to the religious bigots. But we don't want the bigots to win, do we?

 

[laughing dog]

The terrorists can't accept a peaceful two-state solution, Israel isn't going to agree to a non-peaceful two-state solution.

And since every two state solution is pronounced as "non-peaceful", the terrrorists on all sides achieve their goal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Standard military practice is that anything used for military purpose is a valid target no matter what other use it might have. Thus a building being used as a hideout by a commander is a valid target--the fact that it's also a civilian house doesn't change this, it just makes the situation a war crime by the person doing the hiding out.

Thus a bus being used to transport troops to their base is a valid military target, unless the troops are IDF. Thus a road used by troop transport vehicles is a valid military target unless the road is used by Israelis. Thus an airport used to launch military strikes is a valid military target unless it's in Tel Aviv. Thus a roadblock, bunker, gun emplacement, lookout, or outpost is a valid military target, especially if it's in a war zone, unless attacking it means Israelis come under fire, in which case it's not.

Also, blowing up buildings being used as shelters for refugees is perfectly okay unless the refugees are Jews. Thus, artillery fire on UN shelters in Gaza is okay, but firing a rocket that hits a bomb shelter in Ashkelon is a war crime.

A road? When has Hamas attacked a road? Roads are normally not military targets anyway, the amount of force employed vs the gain is just too small in most cases. (Bridges are another matter.)

Airport? When has Hamas attacked an airport?

As for the rest of your list--you're including border crossings in the list which I don't think is valid. Otherwise they're valid targets--and very rarely attacked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No--they perfectly well know diplomacy will accomplish basically nothing. They aren't even trying--a diplomatic solution is completely unacceptable to the Islamists. All diplomatic overtures are either shams for western ears (look how many have the right of return hidden deep within them. It's never mentioned, just referred to indirectly) or attempts to get concessions for talks as they realize they aren't going to get any more front-loaded agreements like Oslo anymore.

The terrorists can't accept a peaceful two-state solution, Israel isn't going to agree to a non-peaceful two-state solution. That's an impasse that can't be resolved without changing the whole picture.

You opinion only, apparently based on unwavering Zionism and intractable racism.

Diplomacy always accomplishes something of value, even if all that happens is a fleeting chance at respite from the conflict while diplomacy is pursued. Even a marginal improvement in living conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank and Israelis within Israel is better than a continuation of the current situation.

Of course, successful diplomacy means Jews and non-Jews share that part of the world, which is anathema to the religious bigots. But we don't want the bigots to win, do we?

Diplomacy only accomplishes something if an agreement is reached and followed.

Israel would accept a peaceful two-state solution. It's the Palestinians that have made it very clear that they won't accept a peaceful agreement, period.

 

[arkirk]

You opinion only, apparently based on unwavering Zionism and intractable racism.

Diplomacy always accomplishes something of value, even if all that happens is a fleeting chance at respite from the conflict while diplomacy is pursued. Even a marginal improvement in living conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank and Israelis within Israel is better than a continuation of the current situation.

Of course, successful diplomacy means Jews and non-Jews share that part of the world, which is anathema to the religious bigots. But we don't want the bigots to win, do we?

Diplomacy only accomplishes something if an agreement is reached and followed.

Israel would accept a peaceful two-state solution. It's the Palestinians that have made it very clear that they won't accept a peaceful agreement, period.

There you go again, Loren, speaking for others, not quoting them, but saying what you think in in their heads and hearts based on your racist notions of how you think Arabs brains work. You don't have any right to speak for these people...especially when you speculate on ideas they are not expressing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Diplomacy only accomplishes something if an agreement is reached and followed.

Israel would accept a peaceful two-state solution. It's the Palestinians that have made it very clear that they won't accept a peaceful agreement, period.

There you go again, Loren, speaking for others, not quoting them, but saying what you think in in their heads and hearts based on your racist notions of how you think Arabs brains work. You don't have any right to speak for these people...especially when you speculate on ideas they are not expressing.

Their governments have made it clear. The people don't have a say.

 

[Arctish]

Abbas has made it clear he is pursuing a diplomatic solution (and so far doing a pretty good job of it, too). He has widespread support. I don't expect those facts to affect your non-stop Arab bashing, but they still need to be said so nobody mistakes your baseless assertions for reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Abbas has made it clear he is pursuing a diplomatic solution (and so far doing a pretty good job of it, too). He has widespread support. I don't expect those facts to affect your non-stop Arab bashing, but they still need to be said so nobody mistakes your baseless assertions for reality.

Abbas has said that the only reason he's not shooting is that he doesn't have the money for weapons.

That being said, I think there is a slim hope for an agreement with Abbas--but only if it doesn't try to address Gaza.

 

[Jayjay]

Abbas has made it clear he is pursuing a diplomatic solution (and so far doing a pretty good job of it, too).

I disagree that he's doing a "pretty good job". He's failed to unify the palestinian government, or hold elections in almost a decade. During that time the Israeli settlements have only grown and, if possible, become more entrenched. During his reign there have been almost yearly flare-ups of open warfare between Israel and Gaza, which he's unable to neither prevent nor properly distance from.

At best, you could say that he's done what little can be done with diplomatic means, and at least the folks in West Bank aren't doing quite as badly as Gazans, but the overall results are hardly a success.

EDITED TO ADD: One thing that Abbas has achieved though is getting Palestine to be member of more international organizations (most recently the ICC), and gaining more legitimacy abroad.

 

[untermensche]

Abbas has made it clear he is pursuing a diplomatic solution (and so far doing a pretty good job of it, too). He has widespread support. I don't expect those facts to affect your non-stop Arab bashing, but they still need to be said so nobody mistakes your baseless assertions for reality.

Who elected Abbas?

He is simply a US and Israeli tool to help divide the Palestinians so Israel can claim it has nobody to negotiate with.

The Palestinians elected people in Hamas and rejected the PLO. And they haven't been allowed to have an election since.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Abbas has made it clear he is pursuing a diplomatic solution (and so far doing a pretty good job of it, too). He has widespread support. I don't expect those facts to affect your non-stop Arab bashing, but they still need to be said so nobody mistakes your baseless assertions for reality.

Who elected Abbas?

He is simply a US and Israeli tool to help divide the Palestinians so Israel can claim it has nobody to negotiate with.

The Palestinians elected people in Hamas and rejected the PLO. And they haven't been allowed to have an election since.

Oh, come on now. This is in Baghdad Bob level of credibility.

 

[Jayjay]

Abbas has made it clear he is pursuing a diplomatic solution (and so far doing a pretty good job of it, too). He has widespread support. I don't expect those facts to affect your non-stop Arab bashing, but they still need to be said so nobody mistakes your baseless assertions for reality.

Who elected Abbas?

He is simply a US and Israeli tool to help divide the Palestinians so Israel can claim it has nobody to negotiate with.

The Palestinians elected people in Hamas and rejected the PLO. And they haven't been allowed to have an election since.

Abbas was elected by the same people that elected Hamas. Besides, in 2005 Abbas received 62% of the presidential vote. In the legislative elections Hamas only received about 44% of the vote. But now it seems rather irrelevant because both Abbas's and Hamas's terms have expired and they are more or less equally illegitimate.

Also note, Hamas and PLO are the ones who have not allowed Palestinians to have new elections. One man, one vote, one time.