Suppose someone else came to be in control of Gaza, someone who would acquiesce in the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands, and in the continued exclusion of refugees from their original homes in Israel.

Why is it to be supposed that such control would be either effective or long lasting?

What is actually needed, perhaps before pouring billions of dollars into the reconstruction of Gaza, is a history lesson for world public opinion, and for Israel to withdraw to within its legal borders, and to allow refugees who were pushed out or fled the fighting in 1948 to return

The UN is “unhelpful” anywhere in the world. It’s babbling hasn’t prevented the Hamas terrorists re-commencing the firing of rockets into Israel after the short cease fire. The UN is a disgraceful organisation which should be abandoned.

Israel must again retaliate and, this time, finish the job. Any more interference from the UN will only lengthen the conflict and give Hamas more support from the lunatic left in the West

Could Mr Singer clarify a few points for me?

"....Hamas still remains firmly entrenched in occupation and control of Gaza's civilian population."

I thought Hanas was the democratically elected government in Gaza.

"Its estimated terrorist army of 20,000 fighters pledged to bring about the destruction of Israel has..."

Why not start talking to the democratcally elected government rather than perpetuating the myth of a "terrorist army" (freedom fighters?). It seems difficult to destroy the entity "Israel" when the entity has refused to define its borders.

"- no matter what steps are taken by the international community to try to stop the flow of weapons into Gaza."

What steps are being taken by the international community to stop the flow of weapons into Israel?

"...this army that fights in mufti from houses, shelters, hospitals, schools and mosques using the civilian population as human shields."

Is this disingenuous in the light of all the evidence of Un sites, chicken farms, etc. being targetted when occupied only by civilians?

"The price paid by Gazans in deaths, injuries, and property losses for Hamas continuing its rocket barrage of Israeli civilian populations after the end of a six months ceasefire in December has been catastrophic."

...and disproportionate? So Hamas is to blame fo Israel's disproportionate response? Are they firing these rockets beacause their country has been blockaded by Israel and their lives reduced to misery and humiliation?

"It makes no sense to pour billions of dollars into the reconstruction of Gaza and the attempted rehabilitation of its traumatised citizens in situ with the more than likely possibility that the money spent will once again disappear down the tunnels still left untouched by Israel's bombs or into the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt officials as has occurred so often in the past."

What will Israel's contribution be to repairing the damage they caused? Do you have any evidence for the Hamas corruption you imply?

So you prefer Israel to be in control, David, seeing that Fatah is up Israel's behind.

Please remember that as from way back in the late 1960s, the same America in it's illegal arming of Israel, plus deadly atomic rocketry, still calls the tune illegally concerning Israel's present power and .

We only hope Obama has more sense -

in fact it is a decision deciding between Middle East democracy and US power balance abusiveness -

Such truly deciding Obama's future.

We can only pray that Obama understands that it was not US power that backed him, but those after a Global New Desl.

"The UN is “unhelpful” anywhere in the world."

Mr. Right,

I assume you are talking about their diplomatic initiatives? If so, I'd broadly agree with you. However, what about their aid workers? You know, the guys that never get the limelight and who get their hands dirty doing some of the necessary hard and dangerous stuff?

"Israel must again retaliate and, this time, finish the job. Any more interference from the UN will only lengthen the conflict and give Hamas more support from the lunatic left in the West."

That's a double-edged sword. The UN's intervention does give time for Hamas to regroup, but it also helps to stabilise the civilian Gazan population.

I regret that all responses to my article so far have ignored the central point I am making - that the United Nations should step in and call on both Israel and Hamas to offer Gaza's civilian population a window of opportunity to leave Gaza permanently or even on a temporary basis until the hostilities between Hamas and Israel are ended and that pouring billions of dollars into Gaza whilst the hostilities are likely to recur is a complete waste of money.

Ban Ki-moon seems to be adopting an entirely different stance in relation to the civilian population caught between the Sri Lankan army and the Tamil Tigers as the following article would seem to indicate.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29730&Cr=sri+lanka&Cr1=

Why should the same concern not be shown by the Secretary-General towards the Gazans?

Arguing the rights or wrongs of either Israel or Hamas offers no comfort or relief to the civilians trapped in the middle.

If you wish to engage in point scoring then feel free to do so. I won't be drawn into that never ending and pointless argument.

I will attempt to summarise David Singer's logic in that memorable sentence used by the former Chief Rabbi of Israel which were said at the funeral of the American-Israeli terrorist Dr Baruch Goldstein:

"The blood of a million Arabs is not worth a single Jewish fingernail".

Given that you don't recognise Palestinians as a people, and that you refuse to accept Palestine's right to exist, why shouldn't we regard your opinion as yet another opinion from the far-right fringes of this issue?

"Israel must again retaliate and, this time, finish the job."

How ironic. A supporter of the Jewish state advocating a "Final Solution" some 70 years after the Holocaust.

David, the Hamas Arabs have got problems adjoining Israel, because they have never had one iota of help from America.

However on record is a report that Israeli aid from America, including defence both normal and nuclear, has now reached over one trillion dollars.

And talking about the UN, like the old League of Nations, it has been useless because like the League, it has been backed by just one single great power.

Surely, David, as a political philosopher you must know about the warning from Immanuel Kant many many years ago, that a democratic organisation to preserve Perpetual Peace must only be managed by a Libertinian Federation of Nations.

Regards, BB, Buntine, West Australia.

David Singer should seruously consider a new career...that of a standup comic. He'd have 'em in stitches.He's full of absurdities and nonsense. A window of opportunity indeed (by evacuating the Gazans).A window of opportunity...for the land-grabbing Israelis to add to their ongoing theft of Palestinian lands.

Maybe if some of the reconstruction money were to be given to Hamas to purchase some real arms...fighter bombers, missiles, tanks and rockets. That would see certainly see an end to suicide bombing and the firing of pitifully home made rockets...It would put an end to Israel's role as the bullyboy of the Middle East. It's not capable of man to man fighting...that's why its military machine has killed so many Gazan children. Israel was created by terrorists...and too many of its governments have been corrupt...or been charged with corruption(When's Olmert due to face court?)

The most heartening news is that the open cheque that ex president Bush has given to the Israelis for so long is now cancelled.President Obama is determined that US foreign policy will no longer be dictated by Tel Aviv or its cashed up lobbyists in Washington.The US WILL be talking to Iran...and Israel has clearly already been warned that its days of military ravaging are now over. It's not only been called to heel...it's going to be hauled before the bar of international opinion, as well as the International criminal Court, to answer charges of war crimes.

Far from being a light to the nations,Israel has made itself an obnoxious pariah...it's beginning to flinch under the stern admonition by the Vatican and the UN chief himself. Israel needs to start providing the compensation it'll have to pay for its wilful destruction of UN property in Gaza. It needs to end its brutal occupation and stop embracing Nazi style militarism that would horrify those who had their lives snatched away in the Holocaust.

Brian Haill, Melbourne.

David,

I didn't originally read your article, but now that I have, I have a couple of questions. To your comment:

"Why would the Secretary-General not be urging the conference attendees to consider offering Gazans permanent resettlement - or at least evacuation - until the political situation in Gaza is finally determined?"

Where do you permanently repopulate 1.5 million people in the Middle East? How many other Arab countries could and would take them? How would Gazans be received in those countries?

If the Gazans were to "temporarily relocate", given Israel's penchant for grabbing land, how would the Gazans know they would get it back?

The Israelis and the US intentionally funded and supported the rise of Hamas so they could split Fatah and the PLO, and the Palestinians ultimately rejected Fatah because they failed to win a single concession and saw Hamas as the only remaining alternative.

Despite all the rhetoric, Hamas remains a popular and fairly elected democratic government and I suspect that recent events will only benefit them.

Wasn't the "spread of democracy in the Middle East" one of the (bogus) reasons given for overthrowing Iraq?

It seems that such high moral stances are conditional on self-interest after all.

As for the UN, if they ceased to exist, what would take their place? The Law of the Jungle?

It makes more sense to make the UN work better by limiting the power of veto, restructuring the Security Council and finding ways of enforcing compliance with Resolutions.

I don't like theocracies and I don't like atomic bombs.

But I am wondering whether Iran having nuclear capacity to the same extent as Israel has, would produce the balance of power in the region apparently necessary for mutual respect.

Singer is a Zionist stooge!

RobP:

Not every Gazan will want to leave. A large number would probably want to stay for a variety of reasons and aid should not be denied to those making that choice.

I don't think the host countries should be limited to the 21 Arab countries or even the other 36 Moslem countries. I do not see why countries such as Australia,France or USA should not be forthcoming to help in any such program. Gazans would be received in the same manner as refugees or migrants are currently received by host countries at present.

Refugees fleeing areas of conflict have often been faced with the same dilemma about their ability to return after hostilities have ended. I don’t know of any guarantees of return that have ever been given in similar circumstances. If the UN is unable to come up with any form of guarantee then this might be a factor in many Gazans not wanting to leave. However I have no doubt that many would consider the safety and welfare of their families more important than the absence of any such guarantees.

Is doing nothing to end the confinement of the Gazans a better option than giving them an opportunity to get out to a safe haven under a less than perfect plan that cannot guarantee their return? That is the question the UN needs to urgently address.

David

The Gaza strip would be a strategic gain for Israel and it is difficult to believe that the continued destruction of this region is any more than a land grab, than Israel defending itself. Particularly when the military power used by Israel is overwhelmingly to anything launched by Hamas.

With this in mind I ask:

If all civilians leave the Gaza strip (supposing they want to leave their homes and there are countries who will take them), what do you consider that Israel would do then?

The UN does not have a good track record in the middle east, some might ask if they are part of the problem or part of the solution?

When the British Mandate of Palestine ended on May 15, 1948, The UN was left to manage Jerusalem as a protectorate for all denominations. A day after the Brits left, King Abdullah I of Jordan, with an army comprising Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Palestine, approximately 500,000 troops attacked and captured Jerusalem and what is now Palestinian territory, kicking out the UN. There was no state of Israel at that time although there was by the Armistice of 1949.

That attack by the Arab Liberation Army resulted in 10,000 Jews and 800,000 Palestinians Being displaced as refugees. No wonder the Palestinians refer to this as "al Nakba" the great catastrophy.

Article VIII of the 1949 UN Armistice agreement, signed by Jordan provided for Iraeli access to Jerusalem, the Jordanians renaged on that agreement for 19 years until the six day war.

In 1967, the UN controlled a buffer zone in Egypt to "protect" the Israeli southern border. The Egyptians marched through the UN in 1967 with 10,000 tanks and 100,000 troops.

With that track record I'm not sure I would trust the UN with my national security. Would you?

Good on you Sydney, as an aged ex-farmer and sportsman believing in a fair deal, I have attempted to use my late acquired political science degree to still use middle-road reasoning.

Further, as a rough bush possible Christian, I feel it is the Sermon on the Mount that does help us to use the middle way.

But what has become all-important regarding Middle East problems, is for us white Westeners and mostly so-called Christians, but to make an official global offer to Share the Blame in particular for Middle East problems since the end of WW1.

Go for it, those who believe a martially atomic Iran would not be a Middle East menace, because it would keep Israel not only from challenging Iran but also other countries like Syria.

What makes it so interesting that it was way back when Henry Kissinger was Minister of State under Richard Nixon when he warned that a martially atomic Israel would cause nothing but trouble in the ME by upsetting the balance of power.