Fire rages at U.N. relief agency in Gaza

[cali]

Highlights
Fighting near U.N. relief agency's HQ in Gaza City sets compound ablaze

GAZA CITY (CNN) -- Fighting between Israeli troops and Palestinian gunmen in Gaza City set part of a U.N. relief agency's central storehouse for humanitarian aid ablaze, its director said Thursday.


The fire left a massive pillar of billowing black smoke hanging over Gaza City, and there was no way to control the fire, said John Ging, the head of operations in Gaza for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency.

"It's a very big fire, and we're not able to get it under control at the moment," he said. With gun battles going on around the facility, "the emergency services are not able to get to us."

Aid workers were already warning that the new fighting between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas threatened to bring about a humanitarian disaster. The UNRWA headquarters is the relief agency's central depot for aid to the Palestinian territory, Ging said. Watch as U.N. worker describes fire »

"Food, fuel, medicine -- it's all here," Ging said. In addition, about 700 Palestinians were taking shelter in the compound, he said.

The compound was hit by shrapnel and tank fire during clashes Thursday morning, Ging said. Three workers were hurt, and the compound's warehouse and workshop were burning out of control within an hour and a half, he said.

<snip>

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/15/gaza.aid.plea/?iref=mpstoryview

[Barack_America]

1. How do you justify this?

Seriously. Though I guess we'll shortly be reminded that Hamas has infiltrated UNRWA. :eyes:

I used to think the worst job in the world must be WH spokesman for Bush, but now I really feel for Olmert's professional apologists.

[tekisui]

2. What would it take for pro-Israel fanatics to utter a word of criticism?

We all know them. Those pro-Israel fanatics (mistakenly called “Zionists”) who will defend anything Israel does, not based on rational debate or argument, but out of some religious fealty to their Holy State. Israel shells a school killing 40? Well, there were militants inside, they say. Israel uses banned white phosphorous? Well, it’s only lighting the way of the soldiers, they say. Israel bombs civilians and murders hundreds of children? Well, Hamas bought it on their own people. Israel bombs the UN aid agency? Well… we’ll wait for this rationalization.

These people aren’t only spokesman for the Israeli government. They are everywhere, all over the media and governments of the West. There seems no cognitive dissonance as they unleash their invective against Hamas, the democratically-elected government of Gaza, while saying nothing about the Inferno being bought on the Gazan people by Israel. But I’ve been wondering recently, as I’ve read these peoples writing and watched the pro-Israel demonstrations: What would have to happen before these people actually criticized their Holy State?

It seems that nothing so far has worked: the use of illegal weaponary, the targeting of civilians, the banning of journalists, the sealing of the borders, the sub-Saharan African levels of malnutrition, the mowing down of civilians. All of these are swatted away by co-opting the big, ever-present boogie man: Hamas.

So, really, what would have to happen? I honestly believe that if Israel started carpet bombing the 1.5 million population of Gaza, the fanatical apologists, including many columnists on mainstream newspapers, would rationalize it by saying something like, “Well, Hamas is the democratically elected government, and it’s a terrorist organization, so that makes the population of Gaza terrorists, by their own voting record.” That sentence doesn’t sound as mad as it should when put next to the Israel apologists. Max Blumenthal, a Jewish-American journalist, went to the pro-Israel demonstration in New York and interviewed people who said things that would make Adolph Hitler blush. “We should wipe out the Palestinians,” one told him, while another said, ““They are not distinguishing between civilians and military, so why should we?”

more: http://www.thecommentfactory.com/what-would-it-take-for-pro-israel-fanatics-to-utter-a-word-of-criticism-1421

[Barack_America]

3. That was an excellent rant.

And i couldn't agree more.

With regards to the excuse that inevitably follow the carpet bombing of Gaza, I think you're right. Did you read what Friedman wrote the other day?

Someone posted this excellent Salon critique yesterday:

In any event, Friedman's column today is uncharacteristically and refreshingly honest. He explains that the 2006 Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon was, contrary to conventional wisdom, a great success. To make this case, Friedman acknowledges that the deaths of innocent Lebanese civilians was not an unfortunate and undesirable by-product of that war, but rather, was a vital aspect of the Israeli strategy -- the centerpiece, actually, of teaching Lebanese civilians a lesson they would not soon forget:

Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.

Israel’s military was not focused on the morning after the war in Lebanon — when Hezbollah declared victory and the Israeli press declared defeat. It was focused on the morning after the morning after, when all the real business happens in the Middle East. That’s when Lebanese civilians, in anguish, said to Hezbollah: “What were you thinking? Look what destruction you have visited on your own community! For what? For whom?”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/14/friedman/

[Vegasaurus]

4. War is ugly

No one is saying it is a good thing.

But Friedman had a point.

When you are dealing with terrorists who hide among women and children, the only way they may stop their terrorism is by seeing the results.

And it has worked, because Hezbollah does not really want to bring Lebanon into another war.

[Barack_America]

5. That should be done through diplomacy, not force.

It is never right to use military force and death to "teach civilians a lesson".

Such violence against civilians may be effective, but it is immoral.

[EFerrari]

7. Friedman is a barbarian who has outed himself as such flagrantly in public.

[EFerrari]

6. So after all that effort to get that aid in there, they burn down the wherehouse.

This is so horrible.

[LeftishBrit]

8. This is horrible

And no, it cannot be justified.