Gaza: where are the good choices?
Recent developments in Gaza indicate what happens when broken-down, hate-filled, dysfunctional states gain autonomy.
So what are the choices for the West in dealing with such societies? Either (a) install a (hopefully) relatively benevolent dictator of your choice, who is going to hardline it and perpetrate human rights abuses to consolidate power and suppress this sort of movement and probably be overthrown if he doesn’t do it ruthlessly enough; or (b) leave illiberal democracy and/or violence to take its unrestricted unguided course and at least know what you’re dealing with and try to respond defensively to it; or (c) take a firm hand a la occupation and try to guide it, laboriously and painfully, and at great cost, to liberal democracy, and have the Left and much of Europe and the Third World denounce you as imperialist dogs.
That’s it. Those are the choices. There is no “good” ones, there are just less-bad ones, and a great deal of disagreement on which is the least bad.
didnt kissinger once say “its a shame they both cant lose” in reference to something similar?
Saudi King Abdullah got it *almost* right in his “peace” proposal to go back to the status quo ante of June 4, 1967:
The part that he missed is that to do it right, Jordan has to resume its civil and military control over the West Bank (minus Maale Adumim and the Ariel salient – sorry boys, wars gotta mean *something*) and Egypt (or maybe even Jordan) resume control of the Gaza Strip.
This would allow the Palestinians to have something they haven’t experienced since the Arafat arrived in 1994: Rule of Law (especially from Jordan,) access to courts, etc. Essentially it would be a new Palestine Mandate. Maybe after 10 or 20 years, the two areas would be stable enough to allow for a plebescite to decide where to go from there (I would say their best bet would be simply to officially become part of Jordan.)
At the same time, UNRWA must be abolished and the “refugee camps” revert to simply being towns, which is what they are.
So that’s my plan – to give credit where credit is due, let’s call it “Abdullah Plus”
Why must the West “deal with” Gaza? It’s a totally psychopathic aggregation of only 1.4 million humanoids, devoid of any strategic value, and easily isolated.
This is potentially a good development, allowing political separation of Gaza from the West Bank. Gaza is for the crazies aka Islamists; the West Bank has the possibility of a decent future between Jordan and israel.
Leave Gazans to themselves; social necrosis will follow. But isolate-geographically, financially. Egypt is already doing its part, reportedly, with more troops on the Gaza border; that leaves only the sea and the narrow northern border to be closed for encasement.
Tom: that is a variant of option (b).
I go with option B, myself.
At this point, I doubt there’s much of anything the West—or anybody else can do—to save Gaza from itself. People have been trying to bring peace to that area for years, trying to guide, broker peace and supplying foreign aid., coddling and propping up various Palestinian thugs—er, leaders.
Enough is enough.
Neo-
I well realize mine is a variant of your option B, and its positive side.
There’s another choice Neo. You can leave Hamas and Palestine to die on the vine, by cutting off all their land, sea, and air trade and food supplies. Any nation or ship that attempts to run the blockade and the quarantine, should be fired upon, destroyed, intimidated, or otherwise manipulated into cooperation.
After the people get desperate enough, there will be enough internal revolution that even Hamas or a dictator cannot sustain control without outside aid. Outside aid that is now being destroyed and shriveled. After some time, the situation will eventually produce a leader that actually cares for his people, with enough grassroots support to have a chance. Someone like Massoud. Then and only then should the siege be lifted and resources provided.
No nation other than the US could accomplish such, and even the US could not do it without cold blooded ruthlessness. However as we know with Iraq, it is a situation that you can’t reproduce in the entire world at once, precisely because of the lack of ruthlessness and suppression of dissent in such places as Germany, UK, France, and Western Europe. If you wait for those places to change their minds, it really means that you leave them free to subvert the US’s plans, whether containment or not.
True containment works, just as Total War works. But Limited Containment and Limited War is even more tricky, though still could be accomplished, but requires huge amounts of time, resources, and sacrifice. Even more than Total War and Full Siege Containment.
(b) leave illiberal democracy and/or violence to take its unrestricted unguided course and at least know what you’re dealing with and try to respond defensively to it; or
The point is Neo, the violence in Gaza is NOT UNGUIDED. Not. Unguided. And Containment would not leave it unrestricted, because they would be restricted to only the weapons inside their territorial control. The land borders become an issue, however, if they are surrounded by land. But even that can be taken care of in an offensive way, not defensive, via no man’s land machine gun nests and etc. It becomes much easier when you allow nobody in, than it is if you must allow somebody in and have to just check on illegitimates.
Depending on you sequence the actions, Neo, you eventually end up with all 3 actions more or less. But not purely either one. You’ll have the central control that comes from 1, but with a person that is good for the nation. You’ll have two, but without the unrestricted stuff and the foreign supplies from Syria and Iran, cutting down the time required from half a century to one or two decades. Or even shorter. 3 will be a sort of low cost and light version, because all the sacrifices will already have been made inside the besieged territory by one faction or another. Surely they will get tired of killing each other and the chaos, if there are no outside factions feeding the killing for their own purposes. The costs for the US would decrease because it would no longer have to do all the intervention by itself, it could work reliably with local actors.
The world denouncing the US as imperialists would have come one way or another, but it would have worn itself out far before the actual US intervention when the siege comes down. The world would have gotten tired of getting on the US’s back if they saw that nothing they said or did would cause the US to lift the siege. And since the US is not paying most of any price for containing the siege, except monetary and equipment (which are already spent on half of the world), the pressure to lift the siege would be less than what Saddam had in his OIl for Food subversion scheme.
Some people like to proclaim that “no democracy has ever made war on another democracy.” This statement, however, has been false since 1861 in America. The sad fact is that the reason why leftists support Lincoln’s decision to make war on the Confederacy over slavery, but reject any possibility of war with other democracies for whom slave trading was the least of their crimes, is because slavery is only a useful issue to them as far as it advances their true goal: the destruction of the United States of America.
Everything else, even the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a global communist government, is secondary to this goal. Many have even forgotten their original reasons for working toward that goal, and neither know nor care what would follow should it ever be realized; all they have left is the propaganda, handed down sixth- and even seventh-hand from Marxists who first invented it.
As I watched pictures of the masked thugs with their kalishnikovs today, I remembered how after the election people asked whether the West would recognize the Hamas government. Those masks seem to indicate that the brave warriors are scared to death to be recognized. They deserve the ridicule of the entire world.
Really, expat?
The guys who:
1. Won a popular election
2. A civil war
Look like legitimate rulers no matter what you think of their politics.
Option (d) support them (for a trial period, at least).
I guess that means if the Nazis ever take hold in another country by 1. a popular election and/or 2. a civil war, then Alphie would just shut up and support it.
Lee;
Only if they are “his” Nazis.
Overgourd,
What do you mean? I thought “all” nazis were Alphie’s. All terrorists are. All Commies, too.
The real option is what I call Ripley’s Option: nuke from orbit, it’s the safe thing to do.
AKA the Hoof-and-Mouth solution.
But that’s genocide, you say: well, isn’t that exactly what the lovely folks at Hamas are planning themselves? After all, they’ve got 1.4 mn to practice on now before trying to deal with the 6mn Israelis.
B. And with an ironclad blockade of the place, too.
he sad fact is that the reason why leftists support Lincoln’s decision to make war on the Confederacy over slavery,/b>
They didn’t support his decision when it actually occured you know. At least not the Democrats, which the Left now controls. The Left likes to take credit for things after they happen. Like the Cold War.
As for nukes from orbit. You can actually use EMP bursts to destroy most of the unhardened electronics in Hamas territories. Creating an air, land, sea, and electronic blockade. I left that out, though anyone in the 21st century would eventually realize that a blockade doesn’t work if the media gets to propagandize about it. But you can’t do propaganda films from Hamas land if Hamas land is deluded of working electronics now can you.
Also implanting nuclear waste and various other anti-personnel goodies along the border would make land bound security and siege much more effective and manpower requirements less intensive.
The human race can do a lot of good things if they just have the foresight to make the right plans and the willpower to carry them through. Humanity has been stuck in a lot of ruts and tyrannies over the milleniums because of a lack of vision and wisdom, but also because of a lack of power.
I think you’ll lke this out of topic picture about Ballet, Neo. And the side story that goes with it.
http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/i-knew-her-when/
Pingback:War Against Iran | Ocean Guy
badeagle.comIf allowed, Israel can take care of herself, God willing. The problem is that Israel, like the rest of the West, seems bent on cultural suicide and is unwilling to face the enemy head on. Just witness last years war. In Europe multiculturalism and PC is destroying the West ability to defend itself against a growing Muslim internal population. In the US, we have a growing Mexican separatist movement in the Southwest with complicity of the Mexican government and some of our own officials seem hell bent on increasing the ranks of the Reconquistadors. Did anyone happen to notice that the Mayor of LA, a former MEChA member, was in a meeting in Mexico when the police controversially ran the protestors out of the park recently in LA?
One of the things I find most interesting about the Treaty of Hidalgo that ended the Mexican- American War of 1848 is that the natives are mentioned in the third person. Seems much of that land we stole from Mexico was actually still owned by a number of tribes who did not consider themselves Mexican, either. Not saying we were innocent at all, we treated a lot of people bad, just that the Mexican claim was based mostly off of an old Spanish land grab.
I am quickly becoming a paleo-con. I could care little about Gaza. (I do feel sorry for the children, though.) I think we have a bigger problem at home than most neo-cons seem to realize. Especially those not in the southwest.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004848.htm
http://www.badeagle.com/html/brown_father.html
http://historicaldocuments.com/TreatyofGuadalupeHidalgo.htm
You know, maybe like the Sunni, Shia and Kurds that a 3 state in “Palestine” should be considered. Israel, Gazastine and Trans-Jordanastine.
This might squelch the debate for a continuous corridor and a split of Jerusalem. Further it would divide the “opposition” and their primary “hate” would focus on eachother. Also, maybe the world whould have what they want. Israel not being the “oppressors” of the Palestinians and then the world can see that the “oppressors” were maybe the best thing that ever happened to them.
I say all this with a bit of toungue in cheek, but I can’t help wondering how the world is going to rationalize this little example of the Palestinian Homeland. ………. steve
Let the Palestinians in Gaza suffer until they crave the peace and prosperity Israel offered.
Then and only then simulataneously smash Hamas in “Palestine”, Hezbolla in Lebanon, and Syria as well.
This is all results of Iran’s play and the way to deal with Iran is to smash their fingers in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Interestng it wouldn’t let me post the youtube links.
Video_Links
When I have seen on TV recent Gaza debauch, I can’t but remember pictures and news from Groznuy some years ago. Chechnya was just like this. At first, Russia attempted option (c), but failed because of demoralized army and lack of popular support at home – almost all Russian liberal intelligentsia was anti-war. Then, after troops withdrawal and peace agreements, de facto option (b) was tried. It failed too, because no single point of agreements was fulfilled by Chechen rebels (honestly, no one expected them to comply, and Khasavyurt treaty was only face-saving device). Elected president Aslan Maschadov had no more power in Chechnya than Abbas in Gaza, and real power was in hands of terrorist warlords like Basaev. The rebel republic evolved into anarchy of rival gangs: in absence of law and order every “democracy” pretty quickly degenerates into just that. Containment also failed, the cancer began spread and metastasizing. And at last, after Second Chechen war, the option (a) was adopted. It works, at least much better than the earlier options.
The lesson is that: if you have guts, choose option (c), but understand that it means classical colonialism in old British style, and it can be successful only combined with classical Victorian moral, White Men’s Burden, jingoism and total refutation of neo-liberal ideology in all its aspects, including multiculturalism, PC, human rights idolatry and pacifism. All these idеe fixe should be completely discarded. Brace for decades of colonial wars, punitive expeditions, and resurrection of imperialism with all its cultural consequences.
If you have no guts for this, agree to the option (a), as Russia had to. Neo-liberalism still must be thrown to dogs, but not to such extent, and anti-American elements in media and academia still must be labeled traitors as they are, ostracized and silenced, just as commies in USA at the dawn of Cold War.
As Ymar said, (b) is wrongly phrased — and I find you wrong so seldom, I feel it important to point out. Because the “unguided violence” meme is how those who supported anti-war protests in Vietnam excuse themselves.
“(b) leave illiberal democracy and/or violence to take its unrestricted anti-American, anti-human rights course and at least know what you’re dealing with and try to respond defensively to it.”
To cease fighting is to accept losing, is to accept the victory of the anti-human rights enemy. Whether Soviet support commie N. Viet liars (Paris???) & murderers, or French educated Chinese supported commie Cambodian killers, or Iranian supported (and rich Saudis?) terrorists and suicide murderers.
I fear Tel Aviv will go mushroom (1 in 10 chance in 5 years after Iran gets a nuke). Here are some more alternatives:
d) evacuate Israel. Let them all (6m?) become Guest Workers in America (and learn English).
e) evacuate the women and children (800k?) of Gaza (and sick & old) — to Europe, Israel, and the US, temporarily. Until a peace agreement is signed.
Czechoslovakia got peace with Germany after sending some 2-3 mil. Sudetenland Germans back to Bavaria (though they had wanted to stay in Germany or Austria after WW I; the Great War was not for democracy).
Pingback:The Thomas Chronicles » Folks, it’s time to hit the panic button…
Well, it looks like the Palestineans chose (b) for us. Hamas pretty much controls Gaza, with Fatah trying to hold the West Bank.
Oh well, you get what you vote for, right, Alphie?