A Land Far Away

I'm sure most of you have seen the news reports on the outburst of violence in Gaza recently. A snippet from one of those reports:

Even holed up inside their homes, Gazans weren't able to escape the fighting. Moean Hammad, 34, said life had become a nightmare at his high-rise building near the Preventive Security headquarters, where Fatah forces on the rooftop were battling Hamas fighters.

"We spent our night in the hallway outside the apartment because the building came under crossfire," Hammad said. "We haven't had electricity for two days, and all we can hear is shooting and powerful, earthshaking explosions.

"The world is watching us dying and doing nothing to help. God help us, we feel like we are in a real-life horror movie," he said.

Does the world have a moral obligation to intervene? The consequences of intervention are pretty obvious - loss of life, expenditure of millions/billions, inciting radicals and anti-west propaganda, entrenchment in a potentially long-term unwinable conflict... Not surprisingly, the very same reasons to withdraw from places like Iraq.

"We are telling our people that the past era has ended and will not return," Islam Shahawan, a spokesman for Hamas' militia, told Hamas radio. "The era of justice and Islamic rule have arrived."

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, heralded what he called "Gaza's second liberation," after Israel's 2005 evacuation of the coastal strip.

Whatever optimism there was about the future of the Middle East is quickly evaporating. There seems to be an endless supply of arms, an endless supply of Islamic zealots, and endless repetition of history. Is another world conflict brewing on the horizon?

You know frankly, it's coldhearted and I know it, but I'm of the opinion that if after all the lives, time, money that has been wasted over there by various countries trying to establish peace, that if they still want to kill each other so badly, we should just let them.

If we have a moral obligation to save lives and alleviate suffering, common sense would dictate we start in the places with the most loss of life and suffering.

In other words, not in Palestine.

I'm a big fan of not using oil and just leaving them to their own devices. They'll figure it out or kill each other, either way it's not our problem.

Hamas won the election - a free democratic process - for which the palestinians were punished by sanctions, and a US led arming of Fatah against Hamas. Would Fatah and Hamas have cooperated if it were not for foreign intervention? Do foreign nations have a vested interest in the conflict? Evidently. How exactly can there be a 'moral obligation' to intervene then? The US already has, and is already a large factor in the cause of the conflict. It is ludicrous to be even be able to contemplate such a thing as a 'moral obligation' to intervene ... what form does a moral intervention take place? Is a 'moral obligation' to intervene a call to kill more people to insure that the palestinians are governed how the US wants?

The issue is made very simple for the US - given the current sentiments towards the States in this part of the world, you couldn't intervene even if you wanted to.

As for whether someone else should intervene, I don't know. I'm sure parts of the Israeli government are sitting back rubbing their hands at this situation.

No moral obligation, though they have managed to just about wipe out every gain that the PLO and related parties managed to wring out of Israel over the decades. I doubt it will lead to a larger scale regional conflict, Hamas just doesn't have the ability or resources...nor despite their rhetoric do they have the ability or resources to significantly damage Israel.

Until ordinary Gazans start confronting the role of Hamas in their society, our options are extremely limited. We could wage total war, but anything less intensive becomes proportionally less effective. Its very expensive in their lives and our own to indulge a 'moral obligation' of a particular sort. I think the Gazans need to really be mostly left alone, and either they sort it out or they don't. If a Hamas Gaza wages war on its neighbors, then we are justified in total war. If a Hamas Gaza eventually crumbles into ruin, we can be there to help pick up the pieces. If a Hamas Gaza pushes, we can push back. Many reasons at this point to be patient. Even under an interventionist philosophy, it is still not the opportune moment.

Bohemond wrote:Hamas won the election - a free democratic process - for which the palestinians were punished by sanctions, and a US led arming of Fatah against Hamas. Would Fatah and Hamas have cooperated if it were not for foreign intervention? Do foreign nations have a vested interest in the conflict? Evidently. How exactly can there be a 'moral obligation' to intervene then? The US already has, and is already a large factor in the cause of the conflict. It is ludicrous to be even be able to contemplate such a thing as a 'moral obligation' to intervene ... what form does a moral intervention take place? Is a 'moral obligation' to intervene a call to kill more people to insure that the palestinians are governed how the US wants?

Most Westerners are totally oblivious to US involvment in the current crisis. The State Department has pushed very hard to make this civil war happen, and as usual have screwed it up since it looks pretty clear that Hamas is going to win, and instead of a government partly ruled by Hamas there will be a government totally ruled by Hamas.

Another brilliant stroke of US foreign policy.

Well, Europeans did a fair share of meddling too. We built them an international airport for instance, to feed Israels bulldozers .

Though it doesn't have too much relevance to the current crisis.

But yeah, it's way more comfortable to believe we have nothing to do with it all... I mean, it's not like we created the state of Israel there forcefully or anything in the first place, restarting the fscked up violence that's been present in the region for... well, forever.

Too much sun and too few headcoverings, I say .

On the plus side it is something of a coastal region, global warming should flood the entire area eventually. Then there won't bve any land to fight over anymore.

Two of my favorite quotes/quips on the middle-east come from a movie of all places, Kingdom of Heaven.


Saladin, who is besieging Jerusalem, confronts Balian of Ibelin, who is defending it, and Saladin asks Balian to surrender.

Saladin: Will you yield the city?
Balian of Ibelin: Before I lose it, I will burn it to the ground. Your holy places - ours. Every last thing in Jerusalem that drives men mad.
Saladin: I wonder if it would not be better if you did.

After terms are worked out, Balian surveys the battlefield, the ruined walls, and all the dead and asks a question of Saladin, who has lost many men in the fight.

Balian of Ibelin: What is Jerusalem worth?
Saladin: Nothing.
[walks away]
Saladin: Everything!

For me, these encapsulate the problem and lead us to the solution, which I shall paraphrase with another movie quote, though not from Kingdom of Heaven ...

Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

hrmm.... People from Gaza should just move.

Some of you are clearly confusing moral intervention with strategic intervention.

Does anyone remember the movie The Peacemaker starring George Clooney and Nicole Kidman?

Ah yes, the Isaac Asimov solution, irradiate it so people have to leave it. It's probably as good a solution as any, except it means the survivors would all move in with us.