bord du rasoir (bord_du_rasoir) wrote in shoresofavalon,
bord du rasoir

Gaza: Two Proposals

I highly doubt that either of these proposals are anything new, though they are new to me. I'm sure they've been thought up and discussed by many people before. My hope is that in discussing the two proposals I can better understand the conflict between Gaza and Israel—the motives, merits, and predicaments of both sides.

  • Benefits for Gazans: Reduced civilian casualties.
  • Benefits for Israel: Reduced civilian causalities means lessened world opposition to military incursions against Hamas.
  • Costs for Gazans: With civilians safe in shelters during Israeli incursion, Hamas militants are much easier targets. Safe-housing civilians away in shelters essentially renders Hamas defenseless as their weaponry is no match against Israel's.
  • Costs for Israel: Any costs far outweigh the benefits.
In "Israel's Actions Are Lawful and Commendable," Alan M. Dershowitz claims that "Hamas ... refuses to build shelters, precisely because it wants to maximize the number of Palestinian civilians inadvertently killed by Israel’s military actions." However, it remains unclear whether the absence of shelters in Gaza is because of Hamas (in power since Jan. 2006) or because of something else—a lack of resources, logistical issues, etc. If Gazans are interested in their own safety and capable of building their own shelters, logically you'd think they would have done so. So, why haven't they? Have the Israelis, foreign governments, NGOs or the UN ever attempted to build shelters within Gaza? If not, why not?

  • Benefits for Gazans: increased humanitarian supplies --> increased quality of life
  • Benefits for Israel: Decreased weapons caches --> reduced threat to Israelis
  • Costs for Gazans: Decreased weapons caches. But honestly, in what ways have weapons benefited Gazans?
  • Costs for Israel: Any costs far outweigh the benefits.
I posted this second proposal here but was dissatisfied with the responses. Comments were dismissive, sidestepping and/or unconvincing. But this was likely due to how I chose to present the case. So, this is me trying a second time in a different community.

In "Gaza: An Unnecessary War," Carter claims that a key issue for Hamas is the inflow of humanitarian supplies (food, water, medicine, fuel) into Gaza. Israel has traded the inflow of humanitarian supplies for a cessation of rocket fire. But, has Israel ever attempted to exchange humanitarian supplies for the hand-over of weapons? If not, why not? 

Critical to the success of proposal #2: 
(a) cutting off the supply of weapons into Gaza 
(b) curtailing weapons manufacturing within Gaza. 
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic