The UN... is there an echo in here?

[eumelia]

The UN suspends their aid to Gaza because they were shot at by the IDF. One of the aid workers is in fact dead. Israel is presenting a complaint to the UN regarding the rocket fire from Lebanon, which I mentioned earlier today.

Dude.

An acquaintance of mine said that the UN aid people were naive for going in there.
I pretty much goggled at that statement.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza is, and I very much understate, dire.
No one would ever, EVER, suggest that the aid workers in Sderot are naive, no they're doing "holy work" and actually helping the traumatized children.

Now without aid going into Gaza, the people there will no doubt be feeling very kindly towards Israel and gladly overthrow Hamas.

A more sinister thought entered my mind about why Israel is willing to play into Hamas' deliberate use of UN facilities (seriously, why is the IDF shooting at UN schools, making them looks way worse than Hamas) and shoot at UN aid envoys.

Could it be... that Israel doesn't actually want any UN presence in Gaza?
Without the aid coming in Gaza would become even more dependant on the tunnel economy - which is used to smuggle far more than just weapons, it includes school supplies, food, water, toilet paper etc. Seeing as there is no other "legitimate" economy in Gaza, it would make sense for Hamas to cultivate not just arms dealing, right?

Of course the tunnels are the "source of evil" and must be stopped.

By the way.
Aren't we supposed to be trying to free Gilad Shalit?

Sorry to be so disjointed this evening, but this has gone on for long enough and too far.

Stop.
Just, stop.
Please?

Comments

[sadie-sabot.livejournal.com]

I think that the IOF does not want any independent witnesses in Gaza.

plus, they fired on UN installations in lebanon, twice, right? I think there might be some shall we say *feelings* aobut the UN that could maybe be more constructively expressed??

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Witnesses, right.
That.
People who are actually seeing and observing what's going on.
*weeps*

Re: UN presence

[shelestel.livejournal.com]

Well, they didn't let any international journalists in...

[mr-horse.livejournal.com]

mother of fuck! are they trying to start WW III here???

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

OK, totally uninformed opinion here, but I keep getting the feeling that the Israeli Government and by extension it's military, is trying to draw out Hamas, and perhaps Lebanon, or even more nations into a more open conflict.

That they are provoking a response (which isn't very hard mostly) so that they can get everything out in the open, and bash the hell out of their neighbours for strategic reasons, or just to teach them a lesson.

And when they get the response they can say 'See, they all wanted to wipe us out, just check out the way they are attacking us'. Which is probably true, (a lot of them do want to wipe out Israel).

Anyway, the situation is far more complex then that, but that's how it reads IMHO.

ETA: am just afraid that that agenda is a very dangerous game, and by calling that bluff, someone like Iran might go 'fuck it' and then a much more truer conflict will emerge, and Israel will probably prevail, but there is the fun of nuclear weapons in the mix. Yeah?

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Foreign journalists are still consistantly being denied access to anywhere near where anything is going on by the IDF. I think its pretty definitely about keeping witnesses out. :(

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Nations with nuclear weapons have no business playing brinksmanship games like this. If Iran does get involved, israel probably has to use tactical nukes. If that happens, iran will feel entirely justified in using chemical and biological weapons against civilian targets. The entire region winds up a bloodbath.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

Yes brinkmanship! That's the word.

It's just such a dangerous thing. And I'm certain people on the other side are dying (literally) for an excuse to able to wallop Israel, and really want Israel to make a move.

It's scary.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

It does seem like too many people on the other side have absolutely nothing left to lose, and the best thing they can imagine in their entire lives, is getting to die and be martyrs trying to kill Israelis.

Which. Yes. Scary when people get pushed into corners like that, with no way to escape. Indeed, Sun Tzu warned against it.

[sabotabby]

Someone today told me that there were 3 hours of aid a day allowed! And denied that the UN got shot at. Un-fucking-believable.

[mao4269.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming that person was referring to Wednesday, when there was a 3-hour ceasefire to allow aid to get into the Strip without workers having to worry (as much) about getting shot at. But yeah, it's pretty unbelievable the extent to which people (on both sides, but being here I'm much more exposed to the pro-IDF one) are twisting things.

[tinyrevolution.livejournal.com]

An acquaintance of mine said that the UN aid people were naive for going in there.

Does your friend realize they just summed up the case for Palestinian resistance?

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

And I suppose the IDF tank shot a round that killed IDF soldiers for some sinister reason too?

Why can't the attack on the UN school simply have been a mistake?

For the sake of the argument, I'll accept that they (the IDF) are purposely put in a position where such accidents are possible.

But to go from the state of [we-attacked-a-school-by-accident-and-we're-covering-ourselves] to [lets-attack-a-school-and-say-it's-an-accident] is an Olympic level leap of lack-of-faith.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

"Friendly fire" is very often a mistake, a terible mistake.

The IDF has a history (in Lebanon 2 at the very least which is far back enough for me) for "accidental" attacking UN aid envoys and outposts.

Is it? Really? A leap of faith considering the IDF's not too humanitarian history? hebrew article (http://groggy.blogli.co.il/archives/25)

Re: UN presence

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Yep.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I doubt anyone is thinking that far ahead.

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

[shrug]

If you believe the IDF is a moral army, you'll find lots of examples of moral behaviour.
If you believe the IDF is an immoral army, you'll find lots of examples of immoral behaviour.

I'll present you a thought experiment:
The IDF has been given a mission by the Government:
Within 48 hours, make the greatest possible effort to apprehend (dead or alive) 5 specific Hamas military leaders.

In what way can the IDF achieve this mission without being accused by of acting in an immoral way?

This experiment is open to everyone, by the way :)

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

If you believe the IDF is a moral army, you'll find lots of examples of moral behaviour.
If you believe the IDF is an immoral army, you'll find lots of examples of immoral behaviour.

Yes. However, one doesn't cancel out the other. And since the immoral behaviour carries with it disastrous consequences it makes sense to focus on those, no? Why praise something that is supposed to be part of the organizations character.

As for your thought experiment: I don't have a clear answer, I don't think there needs to be a clear answer, mainly because the only way for the IDF to do something like that without being marked as immoral would be to make sure no civilians are hurt and in one of the most densely populated areas in the world they would have a hard time finding a civilian free area in Gaza.
Here's another article (http://groggy.blogli.co.il/archives/23) from the same person I linked to above.

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

Why praise something that is supposed to be part of the organizations character.

Don't you praise someone when s/he does something difficult? Even if this is part of his/her character?

So you're saying that no matter what the IDF does in Gaza, it's acting immorally? By definition?

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I didn't say that. I said that due to circumstances the IDF will have a hard time following those orders without being accused of acting immorally.

The only way I can think of the IDF managing to capture (dead or alive) 5 Hamas leaders is to deploy the elite commando units who will infiltrate and kill/kidnap without them any "collateral" damage. Without the IAF or Artillery firing at the same time in order to cover the operation.
What do you think?

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

Your solution takes a LOT of time, effort and resources.

So the army has two choices to give the appearance of morality - (1) limited, expensive missions and (2) do nothing.

So we agree that whenever the IDF does anything on a scale of more than 25 people involved, it will be accused of immoral behaviour - regardless of intent or result?

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

This is my final comment on the issue because it is getting tedious and repetitive (and I have homework to do :P):

So because it will be more difficult to do (but in the long run more effective) it's put on the back burners of ideas while artillery soldiers and foot soldiers march in and are under fire?
If by "do nothing" you mean "withdraw immediately", then yes, that is a choice.

I said from the beginning that a ground incursion is a bad idea, I said from the beginning that an air strike would is a bad idea, because we've played this game before and the results are never in our favour for long enough (or at all) to do much good in the long run.
Eight years Hamas has been firing rockets, the four months of quiet were an ample opportunity to begin actual negotiation about the Siege and Gilad Shalit (of which there has been nary a mention by the way, except in Ynet opinion polls *snort*), but Israel preferred to dilly-dally with Abu-Mazen and not deal with the fact that the Tunnels are the basis of the alternative economy there because Israel cut off the rest of their opportunities there.

Intent is neither here nor there when it comes to public opinion, "good intentions-road to hell" and all that.
If the result is 1 dead "terrorist" and 24 "collateral" then the accusation will be that of immorality.

[mr-horse.livejournal.com]

So... I'm over my shock now and have realized that no, of course they aren't trying to start another world war. What they're doing is just showing us how useless the UN has become at doing anything other than provide humanitarian aid.
All of these resolutions calling for cease-fires and this and that will never amount to anything other than the offending parties giving the UN the finger and throwing feces at them - and the UN making new resolutions ad nauseam.