New Year, new plan, and a new shootout in Gaza
On holidays and house-hunting
Well, it was a good little hiatus. From December 24th, 2008, to January 4th, 2009, I didn’t blog at all, apart from a handful of posts to Twitter (visible in the sidebar; more on this in a moment) and the Pics of the Day that have become the consistent feature of the site here.
We had a good Christmas holiday, for those that are curious, spending numerous days and evenings with both Grace’s family and my family, in Edmonton, Leduc, Stony Plain, and Vermilion (not necessarily in that order, mind you). I think it’s safe to say that by now, almost all of both of our sides of the family have met baby Ella, with a few notable exceptions.
Actually, Ella was far and away the star of the show, and for a baby who only just turned 10 weeks old, she did very well indeed for the amount of traveling and visiting of relatives that we imposed on her. Of course, she rewarded us in kind on several occasions; each evening that saw her passed around between aunties, uncles, grandparents, and friends in like manner to a football was accompanied, in turn, by a night at home that endured until 3:00, 4:00, or even 5:00 in the morning. It would be fair to say that a lack of good sleep characterized much of my week-and-a-half absence…and yet, it would be equally fair to say that it was all good fun. Christmas dinners, post-Christmas dinners, and birthday parties (for, respectively, my little brother and my aunt and uncle) came at us in a steady stream, broken up only by those “days off” that we used to hunt for a new place to live.
As noted previously, our current residence, an apartment near Edmonton’s downtown core, is “adults only.” Cats, curiously, are allowed, and I am finding that the more I contemplate this strange matter of policy, the more I am unsettled by what it communicates about the priorities of the company which sets out the lease terms. Such idiocy, I am told, is illegal in other parts of Canada, yet in Alberta, at least, it thrives.
Actually, it’s quite an aggravation. I had to pass up calling the managers of many promising-looking properties — properties which would have been ideal for the raising of children, owing both to the large amount of space within them and to the general good stature of the neighbourhood in which they were situated (as measured by such metrics as proximity to/quantity of schools and parks in the area and the crime rates in the community). With the advent of this shacked-up, birth controlled culture in which we have now come to live, it seems that the antipathy toward the presence of children has extended beyond merely those who dutifully don a condom prior to Sex; landlords now seek to be rid of the buzz and hum of children at play in that which their parents call home.
Still, there is good news on that front too; after following several dead leads, we zeroed in on a nice half-duplex on the south side of the city, with an essentially “all new” interior and wood finish on almost everything. The landlady called me today to inform us that, if we are still interested, the property can be ours. My response was, to put it mildly, an enthusiastic affirmation of our interest, and I expect that we’ll be putting a deposit down on the place in short order here.
Changing the blogging format
As hinted at in my Twitter stream, I’m changing my blogging format going forward into 2009. This mostly has to do with the fact that I’m trying to optimize the use of my time, the better to pursue extant projects not related to the blog while leaving space open for one or two other ideas to be realized. This will probably mean that not every day will see a major blog post, such as this.
(Indeed, I take as my style cue the blog of Peter Hitchens. Not that I have any pretensions as to be able to match the writing quality and style of the sane Hitchens brother, of course…I merely note that I like his way of doing things, and intend to adapt it to my own purposes.)
However, on any given day, I will try and send at least a couple notes to my Twitter account, which will both appear in the sidebar and, automatically as of about 6:30 PM every day, be assembled into a single “digest” post here on the site. Much of my blogging before this point has been of the “articles of interest” variety; that is a function I think I can safely outsource to the SMS-driven Twitter service.
And, if nothing else, it will be a valuable exercise in brevity for me. This, I submit to the good reader, is a lesson I very dearly need to learn.
On Gaza
Speaking of Peter Hitchens, I think he’s wrong when he asserts that Israel is wrong to be attacking Gaza at present. I instead agree with David Warren (no surprise), who notes in his most recent article:
An organization that persistently declares Israel has no right to exist, and persistently acts upon this premise, cannot be negotiated with. The Israelis have the material means to destroy Hamas, and therefore the moral imperative to do so.
…
The Western doctrine of just war, echoed in the articles of international law, moreover demands that the Israelis finish what they’ve started. It doesn’t say “never fight,” as the ignorant suppose. On the contrary, it says if you must fight, be sure to win; that victory should be achieved as promptly and humanely as possible, while observing the various formal conventions. To those who refuse to observe the conventions, it offers no quarter. Those who, for instance, fire rockets at civilian targets while themselves masquerading as non-combatants are entitled to no consideration, as prisoners of war or otherwise. Those who use civilian “shields” are responsible for their fate.
These principles are humanitarian. You don’t “attrit” a cancer, then await its regrowth: you root out every speck of it. In the long run, the Germans were better off for the destruction of Nazism; and the Palestinians would be, for the destruction of Hamas. If they don’t know this now, they will know it later. For those who cannot live peacefully with their neighbours must be stripped of the power to disturb them. The compulsion to live peacefully can then lead towards the habit of living peacefully.
One cannot be too clear in saying it: there is no negotiating with Hamas — it is an organization that is simply and nauseatingly evil from its lowest rank and file to its highest echelon. It’s only purpose is the slaughter of the Jews of Israel; this is not something one can hold reasonable dialogue with, nor is it something one can offer even a ceasefire to. A ceasefire, in Hamas’ understanding, is simply a momentary lapse in the fighting, an opportunity to re-arm and re-supply.
Israel can not offer its enemies any more ceasefires; to do so is to invite more rocket attacks, more suicide bombings, and more slaughter to be visited upon its people. Pace what David Warren says, then, a ceasefire is actually an immoral course of action for Israel at this point, and will remain immoral while Hamas is extant.
Which brings me to something Peter Hitchens says, in his most recent blog post, that I think is correct. If Israel does not display the resolve to finish what she has started, her actions against Hamas now will only serve to ensure that in the long run, more (and more severe) terrorist attacks will be perpetrated against her. The only permanent solution is to utterly stamp out Hamas, and any client or rival organizations thereof that likewise operate and hold power in Gaza and which make the destruction of the state of Israel a matter of policy.
This can only happen if Israel re-occupies Gaza “from end to end,” a goal that Hitchens dismisses as impossible.
To which I ask: is it? Israel held total dominion over Gaza from 1967 to 1994 (after snatching it from the Egyptians during the Six Day War), and to this day controls its air space and waters. Gaza has no formal military to speak of that I am aware of, certainly nothing which can compete with the IDF. It would be a difficult proposition, to be sure, to re-assert total control over the area…but certainly, it was doable once, and is doable again.
And in the long run, this is perhaps what will have to take place. The rule is ancient and sound: if your quarry goes to ground, give it no ground to go to. So too Hamas: leaving any part of Gaza uncontrolled and un-policed by the IDF gives Hamas ground to go to, to re-arm and to fester.
Strengthened resolve on the part of Israeli leaders is good to see, but is not enough.If only by re-taking all of Gaza and policing it strictly can Israel truly end the rocket attacks and other acts of terror perpetrated against her, then this is what she must do. Even more, she should go one further, bringing back the settlers and their enterprises to build up again the prosperity that the mismanagement of the Palestinian Authority has all but destroyed. Israel should likewise take over management of Palestinian schools, in which Palestinian children are currently taught to hate and kill Jews.
This is a hard truth to contemplate, but what is the alternative? Either all the cancer is excised, or another (and perhaps more painful and bloody) surgery will be required a year or two down the road. Either Hamas is stamped out, along with the other little cancers that have sprung up around it…or there will be even more dead Jews, and even more dead Palestinians, a year or two down the road.
Less bodies now, or more bodies in the future. Is this a hard choice?
Steynian 305 « Free Canuckistan! (January 7, 2009, 10:52 am).
[...] HYNEK– New Year, new plan, and a new shootout in Gaza; One further comment about the Gaza [...]