URGENT - Israel agrees to Gaza ''humanitarian corridor''

[bemildred]

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel says it has agreed to set up a ''humanitarian corridor'' to ship vital supplies to the people of the Gaza Strip.

The office of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says in a statement that the humanitarian corridor idea came from the U.N. Security Council, and he accepted it.

Under the plan, Israel would suspend attacks in specified areas of Gaza to allow the people to get supplies. The statement early Wednesday said the goal was to ''prevent a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.''

Israel insists it has allowed enough supplies into the territory during 11 days of conflict, but the U.N. says there is already a humanitarian crisis there because of shortages of food, fuel and medicine.

http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=565504518633425427

[Xipe Totec]

1. Will they ram ships moving through the corridor? n/t

[aquart]

2. ISRAEL agrees. No help coming from Egypt, yet?

Odd.

[Vegasaurus]

7. It isn't odd

Egypt doesn't want to touch the Palestinian mess with a ten foot pole.

They have their ten foot concrete wall, and will shoot at any Palestinian trying to get though or over.

Far be it for the Egyptians to try to help.

[StudsT]

8. they are probably honoring Israeli requests

for the time being

StudsT

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

3. So who's in charge of this corridor?

Who will oversee who and what can come in to Gaza and how resources are allocated? Unless it's a third party, I really distrust this measure.

[sandnsea]

4. Send massive UN peacekeepers in

From Japan, Australia, South Africa. Get that situation under control, once and for all. Send the Israeli military home. Enough!

[ellisonz]

9. And have you talked to Japan, Australia, and South Africa?

As a poster noted above, even the Egyptians don't want to touch this one with a ten foot poll because they all know Hamas is a manipulative terrorist organization.

[Vegasaurus]

10. If the Arab countries cared about the Palestinians

they would be doing something now.

But they aren't.

Just as they haven't done anything for them in 60 years, but leave them in refugee camps, not allow them to work, or expel them from their countries.

[StudsT]

11. if America showed leadership on this it could be done

don't forget poland ;)

my point is that anything is possible... hopefully the new admin will bring some adult judgment to this crisis.

The Outline for Peace - Bernard Weiner

It's been clear for decades what the outlines of a just peace might look like and what each side would have to do to get there:

1. Both sides would have to abandon the "I'm the true victim" and "you started it" loops. Each side has some history on its side, each side has behaved abominably, each side has some justice in its arguments. Both sides would have to stipulate, so to speak, to these recognitions and vow not to get bogged down in whose claim is the more righteous but stick to how to make living together in the same region workable and mutually beneficial.
   
   
2. Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 borders, fully end its occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza, abandon its settlements on Palestinian land and make sure no new ones are allowed to intrude into the new viable Palestine state, which Israel would officially recognize. (In terms of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would cease its ruthless policy of "a hundred eyes for an eye" overkill, and constant humiliation of the Palestinians by engaging in way-over-the-top violence that constantly reminds them of their utter powerlessness.
   
   
3. The Palestinians (both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority or, better yet, Hamas inside the Palestinian Authority) would have to officially recognize the de facto State of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. No more rockets, no more suicide bombers inside Israel, no more calling for Israel's destruction, etc.
   
   
4. Realizing that there are crazy fanatics on each side, acting out of religious zealotry or ultranationalist urgings, both sides would have to agree to crack down on those extremists and not let occasional militant violence interfere with the peace process as it unfolds and in living together after the peace treaty has been signed.
   
   
5. Jerusalem, prized for historical and religious reasons by both sides (and by Christians as well), would become an international city, administered by the U.N. and/or a tri-religious civic council agreed to by all.
   
   
6. If Israel will not permit the "right of return" of Palestinians forced off their lands by the original establishment of the Jewish state or by the Separation Wall, they will pay fair compensation for the land. Perhaps Arab nations separately and the Arab League collectively can aid in this regard as well.
   
   
7. Treaties would be worked out regarding the travel rights of Palestinian workers inside Israel, the fair allocation of precious water resources, sharing technological developments, etc.
   

much more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414139

pretty good idea for progress there, imho.

:hi:

StudsT

[Duckhunter935]

15. 1947 UN brokered two state solution

Israel accepted and the Arabs declined

[ellisonz]

18. Plus Oslo, Camp David II, and Taba...

[StudsT]

23. what does that mean? we should not continue to work for a just settlement?

The Outline for Peace - Bernard Weiner

It's been clear for decades what the outlines of a just peace might look like and what each side would have to do to get there:

1. Both sides would have to abandon the "I'm the true victim" and "you started it" loops. Each side has some history on its side, each side has behaved abominably, each side has some justice in its arguments. Both sides would have to stipulate, so to speak, to these recognitions and vow not to get bogged down in whose claim is the more righteous but stick to how to make living together in the same region workable and mutually beneficial.
   
   
2. Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 borders, fully end its occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza, abandon its settlements on Palestinian land and make sure no new ones are allowed to intrude into the new viable Palestine state, which Israel would officially recognize. (In terms of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would cease its ruthless policy of "a hundred eyes for an eye" overkill, and constant humiliation of the Palestinians by engaging in way-over-the-top violence that constantly reminds them of their utter powerlessness.
   
   
3. The Palestinians (both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority or, better yet, Hamas inside the Palestinian Authority) would have to officially recognize the de facto State of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. No more rockets, no more suicide bombers inside Israel, no more calling for Israel's destruction, etc.
   
   
4. Realizing that there are crazy fanatics on each side, acting out of religious zealotry or ultranationalist urgings, both sides would have to agree to crack down on those extremists and not let occasional militant violence interfere with the peace process as it unfolds and in living together after the peace treaty has been signed.
   
   
5. Jerusalem, prized for historical and religious reasons by both sides (and by Christians as well), would become an international city, administered by the U.N. and/or a tri-religious civic council agreed to by all.
   
   
6. If Israel will not permit the "right of return" of Palestinians forced off their lands by the original establishment of the Jewish state or by the Separation Wall, they will pay fair compensation for the land. Perhaps Arab nations separately and the Arab League collectively can aid in this regard as well.
   
   
7. Treaties would be worked out regarding the travel rights of Palestinian workers inside Israel, the fair allocation of precious water resources, sharing technological developments, etc.
   

much more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414139

pretty good idea for progress there, imho.

:hi:

StudsT

[ellisonz]

24. That means Hamas (and Fatah) to an extent aren't really interested in peace...

[StudsT]

27. doesn't matter

and the same could be said of current Israeli leadership as well.

StudsT

[ellisonz]

28. Israel isn't sworn to the destruction of a Palestinian state...

[StudsT]

29. be hard pressed to tell that by its actions

not to mentions some of it's leaders words but like i said it doesn't matter what the extremist say and do i is time to move past them.

The Outline for Peace - Bernard Weiner

It's been clear for decades what the outlines of a just peace might look like and what each side would have to do to get there:

1. Both sides would have to abandon the "I'm the true victim" and "you started it" loops. Each side has some history on its side, each side has behaved abominably, each side has some justice in its arguments. Both sides would have to stipulate, so to speak, to these recognitions and vow not to get bogged down in whose claim is the more righteous but stick to how to make living together in the same region workable and mutually beneficial.
   
   
2. Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 borders, fully end its occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza, abandon its settlements on Palestinian land and make sure no new ones are allowed to intrude into the new viable Palestine state, which Israel would officially recognize. (In terms of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would cease its ruthless policy of "a hundred eyes for an eye" overkill, and constant humiliation of the Palestinians by engaging in way-over-the-top violence that constantly reminds them of their utter powerlessness.
   
   
3. The Palestinians (both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority or, better yet, Hamas inside the Palestinian Authority) would have to officially recognize the de facto State of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. No more rockets, no more suicide bombers inside Israel, no more calling for Israel's destruction, etc.
   
   
4. Realizing that there are crazy fanatics on each side, acting out of religious zealotry or ultranationalist urgings, both sides would have to agree to crack down on those extremists and not let occasional militant violence interfere with the peace process as it unfolds and in living together after the peace treaty has been signed.
   
   
5. Jerusalem, prized for historical and religious reasons by both sides (and by Christians as well), would become an international city, administered by the U.N. and/or a tri-religious civic council agreed to by all.
   
   
6. If Israel will not permit the "right of return" of Palestinians forced off their lands by the original establishment of the Jewish state or by the Separation Wall, they will pay fair compensation for the land. Perhaps Arab nations separately and the Arab League collectively can aid in this regard as well.
   
   
7. Treaties would be worked out regarding the travel rights of Palestinian workers inside Israel, the fair allocation of precious water resources, sharing technological developments, etc.
   

much more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414139

pretty good idea for progress there, imho.

:hi:

StudsT

[ellisonz]

33. That plan is vague and politically unworkable for precisely that reason...

Not to mention totally tilted against Israel!

I'm guessing this is the Bernard Weiner who's the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Weiner

A social psychologist!

[StudsT]

40. to the extremist i am sure any plan is not acceptable

but to most reasonable folks it sure sounds much better than what we got now.

StudsT

[ellisonz]

45. A-M-A-T-E-U-R

[azurnoir]

30. What Palestinian State?

There isn't one unless you mean the one Israel is currently shelling from the sea bombing from the air and invading on the ground, is that what you mean?

[ellisonz]

32. The one the Palestianian leadership has repeatedly refused to create...

[azurnoir]

34. The one the Palestianian leadership has

repeatedly refused to create... you mean according to the Israeli governments demands? Or are you going to pull out the "Right of Return" chestnut?

[sandnsea]

12. Of course Egypt doesn't want to

Which is why the UN needs to go to countries that are completely uninvolved with the conflict.

[ellisonz]

17. Nobody is going to protect Hamas...

[sandnsea]

20. Who said anything about that?

Go take the weapons away from Hamas. I don't give a crap about who has what complaint about what. It is time for the international community to end this mess.

[ellisonz]

21. Yeah, Hamas totally wants to disarm...

:banghead:

[sandnsea]

22. I. Don't. Care.

Put enough people in there where they don't have a choice. This isn't a country the size of Iraq that we're talking about. It's a small area. Broker an agreement to let the UN come in with humanitarian assistance. Make the benefits so damn good, the Palestinian people can't help but agree to it. Then get in there and start disarming.

[ellisonz]

25. Obviously...

...because none of that is likely to ever happen.

[sandnsea]

26. It's exactly what has to happen

if this situation is ever going to be resolved. It will never be resolved by the Israelies and Palestinians by themselves - not ever.

[Joe the Revelator]

35. Isn't that what Israel is doing?

"Putting enough people in there where they don't have a choice"?

Hamas is a group of Terrorists masquerading as a government. They will never voluntarily hand over their weapons. Israel can no longer abide its land and its people being shelled. Something had to give, and Israel is doing exactly what you want the UN to do.

[sandnsea]

37. No. Israel is bombing them

Please explain where I said bomb them.

Door to door. Confiscate weapons. Send the Israeli military home. Israel is not doing anything remotely in the same way the UN would do it.

[Shaktimaan]

38. This is a great idea in theory.

But in terms of it being a real, practical solution it is a non-starter. This exact plan has been attempted before, most recently in 2006 as a solution to the Israel-Lebanon War. The French proposed bulking up the UN presence by an exponential factor and brokered a ceasefire that stipulated Hezbollah's total disarmament. Almost immediately after its ratification everyone who was supposed to commit soldiers began trying to renege. Eventually all of the promised UN troops were brought in however Hezbollah refused to disarm. In fact they began rearming. The very UN troops who had been brought in specifically to ensure Hezbollah's disarmament did not attempt enforcement of this critical aspect of the ceasefire.

Think about it. Why would France or Japan or anyone else want to send its soldiers to fight and die trying to do a job that even Israel, (who has far more motivation), has been unable to accomplish. The problem of disarming Hamas and how to do it without causing widespread civilian casualties is the crux of the current issue. Not to mention preventing them from building new rockets themselves; an activity they are constantly doing in small metal shops all over.

There's no doubt that Hamas would refuse to disarm. So how could UN troops force them to do so? They wouldn't be able to. And with the strip full of ineffective UN troops the IDF would not be able to really re-engage Hamas without killing them as well. (In Lebanon, Hezbollah would often hide near UN installations as protection from Israeli airstrikes.)

Basically, it doesn't matter whether we send in the UN or the IDF, the problem remains exactly the same... How do you disarm Hamas and prevent them from attacking Israel if they don't want you to?

[sandnsea]

39. You send the UN troops in

on a humanitarian mission. That is their primary purpose. They arrive in a way that has never been seen. The way we should have arrived in New Orleans. Homes, hospitals, power and water plants. We start building, really really building. No Israel. We do that for several months, make the situation significantly better. THEN we start disarming, slowly, without antagonism or humiliation. We keep trying to bull our way around and that will never work and is why it didn't work with Hezbollah.

[GSPowner]

43. Sounds good...but the practical execution sounds VERY optimistic

and sounds great...but so many things have to happen first...plus you are assuming Hamas wants this.

I see a flaw with your logic that these guys will simply give up their weapons after a few building are built...the regional hatred goes back for centuries that a few building are not going to satisfy.

It looks like you are saying "we" as in the USA. Don't you think we have enough financial problems here and history and the current situation seems to prove we would be wasting our time and money at this point, until they stop shooting at each other?

Lots of things that must happen before the UN will send in the type of people you are suggesting. Centex can't simply show up one day with a building crew and say we are going to make a school or build a house. Then who is going to want to go over there in a "tender-box" of sorts with out being well compensated? I thought by giving away Gaza what you are asking was supposed to happen in the first place.

Hamas has to stop sending rockets into Israel.
Israel has to facilitate this by allowing the UN to bring that kind of equipment and materials in.
Who is going to pay?

"THEN we start disarming"??? without antagonsim or humiliation?" Your kidding right? You assume they are rational people? I think it is pretty safe to say Hamas is not rational and will not line up one day to hand over their weapons...again simply because someone builds them stuff they raeally don't seem to care about in the first place.

it would be nice to get them in a room to talk until they decide on something but I don't think you can change the core issue, that being Hamas wants to destroy Israel adn no matter what israel does they will not stop. If Israel gives them 1/2 of Israel and Jeruselum Hamas will still want more? Remember giving up Gaza was supposed to be the start to peace but since then the rockets launched into Israel has increased.

Dont you think?

[sandnsea]

44. Japan, Australia, South Africa

Read all the posts please. Thank you.

[Joe the Revelator]

47. Its like you have no idea of how the real world works and what Hamas really is.

Its quite amazing.

[Joe the Revelator]

46. You think that going door to door, Hamas will just hand over all of their weapons?

I mean, that could be the most absurd thing I've ever read.

[daleo]

5. "prevent a humanitarian crisis"

Schools full of refugees bombed, civilians slaughtered by tank shells and aircraft - I think the horse is out of the barn as far as a humanitarian disaster is concerned.

It's like something out of The Onion.

[StudsT]

6. good move - hopefully they will allow the press in as well

and even better to declare an immediate cease fire.

StudsT

[tekisui]

41. Don't hold your breath on the press.

Or the cease-fire. I share your hope, but don't see that happening. Israel is planning a major escalation while they talk truce terms with Egypt. They could take it either way.

[Arrowhead2k1]

13. How nice of them Israelis. I guess all those civilian casualties should be forgiven now...

[Mike 03]

14. That would be good. I hope they are serious. Israel has a right to be pissed, but

some of the things I am seeing are pretty upsetting.

Root out and kill Hamas but try to spare the civilians. And provide aid to those who are homeless now.

[azurnoir]

16. From the BBC

Israel's military will open up "areas for limited periods of time, during which the population will be able to receive the aid", it said.

The office said the goal was to "prevent a humanitarian crisis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814772.stm

[bemildred]

19. Sounds like bullshit to me, but wait and see.

I mean Hamas could take advantage of this and shoot mortars at the IDF. Then where would we be? The IDF would have to kill them all. Some people might get food or medical care out of it, and that's a good thing, but what about the risks?
:sarcasm:

[shira]

31. i agree - wait and see

wait and see if Hamas takes advantage of this, goes there, takes the supplies for themselves, hides out there - and eventually fires rockets amongst the UN aid workers.

[Scurrilous]

36. Israel's New War Ethic

<snip>

"Watching Israeli public television (Channel 1) these days can be an unsettling experience, and lately I've abstained from the practice. But after being stuck for seventy-two hours with our two young children inside a Beer-Sheva apartment, the spouse and I decided to visit my mother, who lives up north, so that our children could play outside far away from the rockets. My mother, like most Israelis, is a devout news consumer, and last night I decided to keep her company in front of the TV.

For the most part, the broadcast was more of the same. There were the usual images and voices of suffering Israeli Jews along with the promulgation of a hyper-nationalist ethos. One story, for example, followed a Jewish mother who had lost her son in Gaza about two years ago. The audience was told that the son has been a soldier in the Golani infantry brigade and together with his company had penetrated the Gaza Strip in an attempt to save the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

"Because members of his company did not want to hurt civilians, they refrained from opening fire in every direction, which allowed Palestinian militiamen to shoot my boy," the mother stated. When the interviewer asked her about the current assault on Gaza, she answered that, "We should pound and cut them from the air and from the sea," but added that, "We should not kill civilians, only Hamas." The report ended with the interviewer asking the mother what she does when she misses her son, and, as the camera zoomed in on her face, she answered: "I go into his room and hug his bed, because I can no longer hug him."

Thus, despite the ever-increasing loss of life in the Gaza Strip, Israel remains the perpetual victim. Indeed, the last frame with the mother looking straight into the camera leaves the average compassionate viewer--myself included--a bit choked up. Over the past few years, I have, however, become a critical consumer of Israeli news, and therefore can see through the perpetuation of the image that Israel and its Jewish majority are the victims and how, regardless of what happens, we are presented as the moral players in this conflict. Therefore, this kind of reportage, where the huge death toll in Gaza is elided and Jewish suffering is underscored, no longer shocks me.

What did manage to unnerve me in the broadcast was one short sentence made by a reporter who covered the entry of a humanitarian aid convoy into the Gaza Strip on Friday.

My mother and I--like other Israeli viewers--learned that 170 trucks supplied with basic foodstuff donated by the Turkish government entered Gaza through the Carmi crossing. That the report had nothing to say about the context of this food shipment did not surprise me. Nor was I surprised that no mention was made of the fact that 80 percent of Gaza's inhabitants are unable to support themselves and are therefore dependent on humanitarian assistance--and this figure is increasing daily. Indeed, nothing was said about the severe food crisis in Gaza, which manifests itself in shortages of flour, rice, sugar, dairy products, milk and canned foods, or about the total lack of fuel for heating houses and buildings during these cold winter months, the absence of cooking gas, and the shortage of running water. The viewer has no way of knowing that the Palestinian health system is barely functioning or that some 250,000 people in central and northern Gaza are now living without any electricity at all due to the damage caused by the air strikes.

While the fact that this information was missing from the report did not surprise me, I found myself completely taken aback by the way in which the reporter justified the convoy's entrance into Gaza. Explaining to those viewers who might be wondering why Israel allows humanitarian assistance to the other side during times of war, he declared that if a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe were to explode among the Palestinian civilian population, the international community would pressure Israel to stop the assault.

There is something extremely cynical about how Israel explains its use of humanitarian assistance, and yet such unadulterated explanations actually help uncover an important facet of postmodern warfare. Not unlike raising animals for slaughter on a farm, the Israeli government maintains that it is providing Palestinians with assistance so that it can have a free hand in attacking them. And just as Israel provides basic foodstuff to Palestinians while it continues shooting them, it informs Palestinians--by phone, no less--that they must evacuate their homes before F-16 fighter jets begin bombing them."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/gordon?rel=hp_picks

[tekisui]

42. But, Israel keeps insisting there is no humanitarian crisis.

You can't trust a word coming from the Israeli government. This just reinforces that. With no reporters allowed in, they have a near monopoly on the information. They like it that way, but their word means nothing.