Hope buried for Gaza's old settlements

[Englander]

The time of the Israeli settlers in Gaza ended in a great wave of destruction. The army bulldozed every home on every street before it finally withdrew.

And now, a year on, the settlements remain a smashed wasteland - a sea of rubble, as broken as the dreams of the settlers.

Almost nothing has risen from the wreckage.

The Israelis destroyed the settlers' homes because they were determined to prevent them falling into the hands of their enemies - like the militants of the Islamic Jihad organisation.

Everything in the settlements had anyway been built illegally - in breach of international law - during decades of military occupation.

More at;
BBCNews

[pelsar]

1. makes one wonder....

The Israelis destroyed the settlers' homes because they were determined to prevent them falling into the hands of their enemies...how old lies simply keep showing up, like the protocols of zion, christian blood for matzos, and the "israel destroyed the settlements because they are "evil" etc.

guess the fact that the palestenians (wisely in fact) asked that they be destroyed kind of ruins the anti israeli rant....but hey: the jews didnt right the protocols of zion, dont use christian blood either and people believe those as well.

funny thing those facts...so easy to ignore if they get in the way...but it does make one wonder why does someone write and the newspaper then print the lies.....

[Igel]

2. Not all the wreckage was wreckage when the Israelis left.

There was a bit of looting, synagogue destruction, and pillaging of greenhouses.

But the real howler is that all the settlements were illegally built. Most were. At least one was on land that had been bought and paid for. Three times.

That's the problem with words like 'all': one counterexample is all it takes.

The Gazans had an opportunity. Maybe not a huge one, but an opportunity.

[breakaleg]

3. How are they to make a success in Gaza if they can't import

the materials they need to build or re-build anything or export any product they produce?

It's clear that Israel is intent on making them suffer in this large prison they have enclosed them in.

Is it any wonder they launch rockets into Israel?

[The Magistrate]

4. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

What do you think Israeli policy might be or have become if there were no rockets being fired?

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. there are a lot of "what if" question in this conflict Sir.

And I certainly don't think shooting the rockets is an acceptable practice either morally or politically.

But if my memory serves me correctly collective punishment is still a crime under international law. Shooting at ambulance drivers, engaging in indiscriminate attacks on civilians including unprovoked shooting into crowds of unarmed civilians including children is definitely a crime under international law. Using civilians including children as human shields is undeniably a war crime under international law. All of this is confirmed by every credible independent human rights organization on earth including all the leading Israeli human rights organizations. They all seem to report almost exactly the same things.

But still, what if Israel had not massively expanded settlements during the 90's in the first place; bull dozing house and building apartheid roads throughout the occupied Palestinian territories including the Gaza thus strangulating the economy and even normal life?

What if Israel had not imposed closure, creating massive unemployment and then isolating the Gaza off effectively from the rest of the world?

What if Israel had not engaged in the systematic destruction of the Palestinian civil authorities and much of the Palestinian civilian infrastructure?

What if Israel had engaged in serious dialogue with the Fatah-lead Palestinian authorities?

What if for just one minute the American people could put themselves in the position of the vanquished rather than the victor?

[The Magistrate]

7. And A Similar List, Sir, Could Be Compiled For The Other Side

Of both grave crimes, and foolish decisions. The further back one goes, the less point there is to the exercise, though certainly some of the worst, from the Arab Palestinian point of view, are the oldest, particularly in the poor decision category.

But this particular one seems recent enough to me to have some point, as a learning exercise, at least. The Israeli withdrawl from Gaza had the potential to be a good thing.

And the question of what might be the result of a genuine cessation of violence by militant Arab Palestinian bodies against Israel continues to go unanswered here, no matter how often it is asked. It is pretty obvious what the result of violence against Israel by militant Arab Palestinian bodies is --- a good deal of death and maiming of Arab Palestinians, and an ever greater constriction of their lives, and an ever diminishing prospect of their securing their legitimate aspirations for a functional state.

You may, Sir, forgive me for proceeding to a couple of genuine straw-men here, for they are not intended to represent your views, but since we have in the past had some fruitful exchanges on other matters, and you have my respect as a reasonable soul in consequence, your thoughts on them as general propositions explaining why there is such a seeming reluctance on the part of partisans of Arab Palestine to answer directly the question posed above would be appreciated.

One reason which suggests itself to me as a cause of this reluctance is a sentimental attachment to violence afflicting some disputants in this matter. There is no denying that violence attracts certain temperaments, and that some find an emotional satisfaction in identifying with it. Violence by an "underdog" figure makes a particular appeal to persons feeling themselves outside a social mainstream, who might well comfort themselves on occassion with visions of a violent redress of their own difficulties, attendant on that unhappy state. Thus, it could be that it is in fact the exercise of violence by these militant bodies that constitutes the real attraction to the cause of Arab Palestine for some, however their expressions of support may be dressed up as invocations of justice or morality or crimes of the opponent, and that were the violence to be ceased, the cause would no longer exert any real appeal.

Another reason which suggests itself to me as a cause of this reluctance is that answers could expose elements of a position best kept hidden. If, say, the answer is given that such a cessation of violence against Israel would make no difference at all in Israel's actions, then one must make clear what the motive for further violence by Israel would be in such a situation. As it is hard to see any reasonable motive for the continuation of violence by Israel in such a circumstance, just about any motive ascribed would be open to attack as amounting to little more than a claim that Israel and Israelis are evil things, who simply want to harm Arab Palestinians and need no reasons to do so. That would be hard ground to defend, and shying from battle on it is quite understandable.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. I know from personal experience that Palestinians are a kindly and good

people and I certainly do not rejoice in Palestinian violence any more than I rejoice in Israeli violence. Among other reasons such as the harm done to innocents, I know that no good would come of it. Although I do suspect that the first intifada did produce some positive political advantage, I am personally convinced that the much more violent second intifada has been counter-productive. Obviously the firing of these rockets from the Gaza are also counter-productive.

One doesn't need to support an action to conceive of why it happens though. I would tend to agree that the Palestinians have made some major blunders in dealing with their situation.

But still is the Palestinian demand for genuine self-determination and equality unreasonable? I do not think so. Has Israel been reasonable in responding to this demand? Again, I do not think so.

[The Magistrate]

33. It Is Certainly True, Sir

That understanding why a thing occurs is far from approving of it, though obviously there are instances where the seperate things blend somewhat.

Arab Palestinian aspirations for statehood are certainly legitimate, and in my view the whole situation would be greatly improved if their political leadership went ahead and declared themselves a state, before sun-down today, even. It is hard to see where anyone else has a real say in the matter.

Certainly a number of Isaeli actions, most particularly the settlement program, are grotesquely unfair, and most improper, and have gone a long way towards poisoning the situation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. regarding your question regarding the temperament of partisans

of the cause of Palestine, I really doubt very much that there is any fundamental difference in the socialization of those who are Pro-Palestinian vs. anti-Palestinians, Pro-Israel vs. Anti-Israel. I think it is more a peculiarity to the United States of America that being Pro-Palestinian might come off as a bit eccentric.

I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would enjoy a period of armed conflict whether between states or armed political groups and states. Anyone who is familiar with the nightmarish atmosphere that transpires during such times and does not react in horror is in my opinion either suffering from a major moral deficit or at the very least has some screws lose.

Regarding this statement of yours, "If, say, the answer is given that such a cessation of violence against Israel would make no difference at all in Israel's actions, then one must make clear what the motive for further violence by Israel would be in such a situation. As it is hard to see any reasonable motive for the continuation of violence by Israel in such a circumstance, just about any motive ascribed would be open to attack as amounting to little more than a claim that Israel and Israelis are evil things, who simply want to harm Arab Palestinians and need no reasons to do so."

I can see your point. However, some seem to suggest that a fundamental change in Israeli policy that would recognize Palestinian rights under international law with full equal rights for Palestinians and full recognition of their right to self-determination would make no difference whatsoever in Palestinian acts of violence . I would suggest that to maintain that Palestinians act in violence for no reason whosoever other than the desire to harm Israelis would also amount to a claim that Palestinians are evil things, who simply want to harm Israelis and need no reason to do so.

If war crimes are wrong for Israels to carry out, they are also wrong for Palestinians. If war crimes are wrong for Palestinians to carry out they are also wrong for Israelis.

[The Magistrate]

34. In My View, Sir

Such a fundamental change in Israeli policy would likely make a tremendous difference in the popular feeling among Arab Palestinians. There is a possibilty we might envision different meanings by your formula of "recognizing Palestinian rights under international law with full equal rights for Palestinians and full recognition of their right to self-determination," but any such differences would probably be bridgeable. There is not going to be any admission of descendants of refugees into Israel as Israeli citizens, for instance, though there certainly should be money compensation to the heirs of seized properties.

There is, at least as things stand now, though, this unhappy difference in assessing outcomes to these hypothetical proposals. That is that Israel is a fully functioning state, and Arab Palestine is not, and even were it declared as a state, there would remain some question, at least for a while, in even the best of circumstances, of whether the new state was wholly up to the task of sovereignty. In the case of Israel, even if some minority element of the populace wished to continue in hostility to the Arab Palestinians, the machinery of the state, having set its face against such a continuance, would be sufficient to ensure that continued minority hostility found no appreciable expression in acts of violence, and those who embarked on any such attempt would operate in the shadow of the police, and need to fear discovery and punishment. In the case of Arab Palestine, as it stands now, were some minority element to wish to continue in hostility to Israel, it would find few barriers to putting this desire into action, even if the overwhelming majority of the Arab Palestinian people were opposed to their doing so. No state apparatus exists that could give edge to such popular feeling, or make clear to Israel that every possible effort was being made to quash it. It does not take too many people to wreak a fair amount of havoc, after all. And there are ideological lines present that make it a fair suspicion some such rump of "hard men" might remain. People here are used to meaning by "occupied territory", for example, the lands over-run in '67 only, but there are radical ideologues who use it to mean ground conquered in '48, or even the whole of Israel including the land alloted as the Jewish Zone in the '47 Partition. There are, indeed, a hard core of persons who consider it their forthright religious duty to expell Jews from what was before Israel came into existance Moslem land, and the feelings of such persons are not dependent on any current Israeli mis-behavior, nor might their future actions be affected by any Israeli concession the two of us might find more than reasonable. It is certainly true that there are hard core devotees of "Greater Israel" on the other side of the divide who might also wish to press violence on religious grounds, but at the risk of repetition, on that side there exists a fully functional state apparatus to give teeth to a social consensus relegating them to minority status, and capable of severely restricting if not wholly quashing any action they might attempt.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. I think International law and the international consensus should be the

guiding principle. When it comes to territory this principle has been affirmed most recently I believe by the World Court in July 2004 in a 14 to 1 decision with the U.S. representative being the 1. But on the essential matter of territory based on the border prior to June 4, 1967 even the U.S. representative was in complete agreement. This has also been affirmed year after year by the U.N. General Assembly, most recently on December 3, 2005, "On the Israeli occupation, the assembly adopted by vote of 156 in favor to 6 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu) a resolution stressing the need for Israel's withdrawal from the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967." link: http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2005%20News%20Archives/December/3%20n/6%20UN%20General%20Assembly%20Resolutions%20Supporting%20the%20Palestinian%20People%20on%20Ending%20Israeli%20Occupation,%20Jerusalem,%20and%20their%20Inalienable%20Rights.htm

So the 1967 border seems to be the legal, reasonable and acceptable basis. As I have taken pains to mention before this has been the unanimous position of the Arab League and endorsed by the Palestinian Authority and more recently including Hamas. In return all state of belligerence with Israel would end and full diplomatic relations would be established. link: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

When it comes to the right of return. International law is equally unambiguous. However, it's not going to happen. At least it is fair to say that it is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future. According to former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami -Israel's lead negotiator , at the talks in , Taba, Egypt in January 2001, it appeared that a compensation package that would be acceptable to both parties came very close to agreement.

So a fully independent, sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state based on the 1967 border with minor adjustments for practicality such as the exchange of some Occupied Palestinian Land in exchange for a corridor to connect the West Bank to the Gaza seems to be a rational basis for settlement.

Then of course there are those outside the traditional Zionist consensus in Israel who propose the single bi-national state solution. This would be acceptable to almost every single Palestinian. But it challenges the assumptions of a distinctly Jewish/Zionist state and is therefore not acceptable to the leading Israeli political parties. But frankly I believe it would be the solution most likely to produce a lasting and just peace.

[pelsar]

26. of this i am sure of.....

There is no denying that violence attracts certain temperaments, and that some find an emotional satisfaction in identifying with it. Violence by an "underdog" figure makes a particular appeal to persons feeling themselves outside a social mainstream, who might well comfort themselves on occassion with visions of a violent redress of their own difficulties, attendant on that unhappy state. Thus, it could be that it is in fact the exercise of violence by these militant bodies that constitutes the real attraction to the cause of Arab Palestine for some, however their expressions of support may be dressed up as invocations of justice or morality or crimes of the opponent, and that were the violence to be ceased, the cause would no longer exert any real appeal

i dont believe that many of the "pro palestenians" are pro palestenains as much as anti "oppressor/occupation/stronger power/etc...just a version of the "anti estblashmentarism.... meaning once the major portion of the conflict has ended their interest in the palestenian citiizen will drop off to zero. If the palestenian state is a version of the taliban, iranian or saudi arabia govts, with all their internal violence and 7 th century mentality, it will no longer interest them. The problem with that attitude for those of us who will actually be living next to such an entity is that such a state, is not stable and as is typical of such, requires the outside enemy......

it brings to mind iran, zimbabwa (rhodesia), afganistan: all required changes in govt, the trick question is, what they got, was it better?

case in point, whenever i bring up the subject (or try to) in this forum, it brings the discussion to an end....(there are a couple of subjects that also bring discussions to an end.....it as if there is a religion involved where certain "truths" cannot be discussed)

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. since there is already a power struggle between Fatah and Hamas

I doubt that it would go away after independence. Actually I was just discussing this matter with a Palestinian/Jordanian the other day. I asked him how he thought the arrangement would play out in an independent Palestinian state. His biggest concern was that outside countries would take sides and this could cause a much more serious conflict.

I think there is a vast cultural difference between the Palestinians and Afghanis or Saudis for that matter. So I doubt that a similar version of political Islam would dominate.

Civil conflicts breaking out after independence is a pretty common occurrence. It even happened in Ireland.

There is undeniably a difficulty. Fatah is perceived as the old order and is correctly perceived as corrupt by many if not most Palestinians. Hamas is probably less corrupt and is more engaged with the less fortunate of their society. But.....well we know about Hamas. It is theocratic and it currently holds unacceptable positions and supports unacceptable actions. Might they modify this? I think so. After all, Palestinians are a religious people. But I don't think that very many would actually want to live under a strict Islamist republic.

But I do agree that it is a legitimate concern that concerns Palestinians as much as anyone. But I tend to agree with my friend that if outside powers were to engage in interference in the internal affairs of a future Palestinian state, it would probably make matters worse.

[pelsar]

28. the power struggle is just beginning....

but i too agree with you and your friend with the interference of outside powers....however i'm afraid that they are already involved (syria?) From what i understand (and please feel free to correct me and ask your friend) the palestenians would not look upon a theocratic regime too kindly.

I'm reminded of of iran. The first thing khommeni did was hang the "seculuar leftists". Iran too was (is) an educated people, but overthrowing a regime it seems is not so easy. And once in power, especially in a dictatorship, one doesnt give it up easily.

More so, the outbreak of a civil war within the palestenains will probably draw israel in....all the "losing side has to do" is lob some kassams into jerusalem and "presto" instant reaction/invasion and the palestenians are "united again....(ask your friend about this as well, i'm curious how they see it)

......what a mess (and thats my intellectual anaylsis)

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. I do not believe most supporters of Hamas actually have any desire

for a theocracy.

I suspect from what I hear Hamas grew in support for a number of reason.

Which include

1. They had developed a very affective social support system such as schools, health care and other forms of welfare

2. Frustration with the real and perceived corruption of the Fatah lead Palestinian Authority

3. The escalation of settlement expansion and closure

4. The perception that Israel wasn't going to really negotiate with a Fatha-lead Palestinian Authority anyway and that America/Israel was trying to force their choice of Palestinian leadership down their throats

5. The death of Arafat. For all his many failings, no other Palestinian leader had more affectively balanced the various competing factions under one umbrella. Now this glue was gone.

I really do think Hamas are more flexible and pragmatic then they are given credit for. And sooner or later Israel will need to deal with them. They have indicated they could modify positions. And the formal call for "destruction of the Israeli state" sounds awfully bad, granted. To some groups they mean it as bad as it sounds. But to many and I'm quite certain most, the phrase does not mean what many presume it to mean. It means the end of an explicitly Zionist state which relegates the Palestinians and other non-Jewish residents to a lesser status. But by announcing that the Saudi Peace Plan presented by the Arab League was acceptable to them ,this seems to indicate that they could agree to a two-state solutions and accept recognition of Israel. But I suspect that modifying formal positions runs into its own political inertia. Other political grouping - even Israeli political parties - have modified positions over the years. But there is is usually a gap between when expo facto modification occurs and it is made official.

There is always a risk when a new state is created or independence comes about. This has always been the case throughout history and always will be the case everywhere. If no risk are ever taken, no progress will ever be made. And when all is done and said, self-determination is the human right of the Palestinian people.

[pelsar]

30. Hamas and Gaza...

like many i got the impression that Hamas was voted in as protest vote against fatah....thats all very reasonable. But khomeni was brought in as a "protest" to the shah. Whether Hamas is more flexible is yet to be seen, as they really havent been able to take full control. I would hope that they are more practical and flexible than the khomeni. In fact of the cities that they run, i've heard very little. It would be interesting to hear whats going on as that would be some hints of the future. Furthermore a character of theorcratic societies (be they a subculture or not) are moral squads running around neighborhoods keeping everybody in check. It would be interesting to know if that is happening. Again the info of the palestenian society within, is very thin, but i think very crucial.

And though i accept that its part of the arab/islamic culture to have anti jew/israeli films/TV shows (protocols of zion, zarahs blue eyes, etc) calling for the destruction of the zionist regime etc, it really doesnt play to well in israel...some tend to take its seriously, and others (like me) have a hard time with the concept being part of the govt contolled media in the surrounding countries.

Gaza is really the key as far as most israelis go. It would be foolish for israel pull back to 67 only to discover that whomever managed to take control of the palestenians (and obviously no one has any idea who that would be at this point) decided to shoot rockets over the border. The idea of a "test case" if you will makes sense to us, and in fact i would suggest to the more pragmatic palestenian (i'm just guessing here) has some merit as well. For them to "get the kinks' out of self rule and understand the responsabilities that go with self rule. Show their citizens that they can provide security, an alternative to invasion, violence etc. The chaos in gaza wouldnt do much for the palestenians if it was transplanted into the westbank (though here i acknowledge the two seperate cultures and suggest again, that i am half guessing).

You acknowlege the risk of independence....that in itself is usually limited to the country itself. This is not the case here, and in there lies the problem. For us israelis if the palestenians decided to have a civil war and kept it within their own borders, it would be considerd "their business"...as would the world. The problem being the "leaks' and if it is a failure, and palestine becomes a failed state, it will have a direct affect on israel, and putting the "geni back in the bottle" will be very difficult (removing the arms of the various militias and getting a strong central govt.).

but i would seriously be interested in what your friend has to say, obviously my views are "tainted" with limited information.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. but what are the alternatives?

First I cannot see Gaza which I believe is about 38 miles long and 3 miles wide being a very successful experiment in anything. They certainly do not have the mechanism to develop an independent economy. Although Gaza does indeed have a border with Egypt, this border is extremely restricted. And I am quite certain that although Egypt would probably keep the border fairly restricted on their own for their own reasons - like fear of massive illegal immigration, I think you will find that the Israeli government would also strongly insist that Egypt keep the border extra-strict with extremely limited access for Gazan Palestinians to cross. So for they vast overwhelming majority of Gazan Palestinians and for most of their economic life, they are living in a state of siege even if a significant element of the siege is the responsibility of Egypt. I don't see any real possibility of developing an economy or much of a meaningful political structure under these circumstances.

To be honest Palestinian from both the West Bank and the Gaza feel almost as bitter toward the Arab countries as they do toward Israel. They feel they have been forgotten. They are the people that Israel does not want. The Arab countries do not want. And it seems like nobody wants them. Opportunities to immigrate to Jordan or anywhere else are almost non-existent now. Previously there were opportunities for Palestinians in the occupied territories to work in the Gulf. After the gulf war of 1991 this became very limited. Compounded to that, Saddam as much as an evil monster as he was and I suppose still is -- pre-1990/1991 actually provided (free health care, free education with stipends, even unemployment benefits) for Palestinians who worked and lived in Iraq better than any other Arab leader, by far. They were almost a privileged class in Iraq. This was totally different than in other Arab countries. Saddam may have been a monster to the Kurds and the Shiites and anyone else who got in his way. But the Palestinians did not know that. These factors are a major if not the major reason why most Palestinians supported him at that time. After the Gulf war of 91 all of that was lost along with most of their opportunities for employment in the Gulf states. And then on top of all of that the Oslo accords provided a pretext for Arab governments to replace Palestinian workers with local staff as the younger generation in the Gulf states was completing their education and wanting jobs.

Also of course, the nature of controls and movement restrictions obviously prevents the entire Occupied Palestinian Territories from developing anything resembling independent economic development.

But lets look down the road a couple of decades. Imagine a situation in which Palestinians living in the occupied territories and I suppose you might add the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship (I realize their status is totally different) far out number Jewish Israelis. Is that a sustainable situation? I do not think so. Can a distinctly Zionist state survive that arrangement forever? I do not think so.

If a genuine independent and viable Palestinian state is not made possible, soon. A single state solution or else total chaos may become inevitable within a few decades if not sooner.

[pelsar]

32. down the line 10years?....

here i agree that if nothing changes the palestenian situation will just keep getting worse and worse..and drag down much of the region. Funny thing about the Egyptian/palestenian border. I think egypt is far more interested in keeping that border limited than israel. Otherwise they would have suggested opening it up long ago. I dont think the smuggling bothers them, i believe they dont want the palestenains 'running around the sinai" which would happen if the importing/exporting started becoming a major part of Rafah.

As odd as it sounds, i think the palestenians best bet is with us israelis and not their arab brothers. Their arab brothers long ago have shown what they think of them, with all the limitations they've put on them. Israel had a working relationship with the palestenians in the past, and can have in the future, i dont doubt that. The present arangement wont work forever for two reasons: its immoral and most of use israelis want to "get rid of the westbank": either were a democracy or were not. Keeping the westbank negates that aspect, the demographic/cultural aspect, both are related. and it corrupts our youth. (the young liberal 18yr old learns some very bad habits in the westbank)

(One reason there are few reserve soldiers in the westbank, is because the moral dilemmas have an affect on them, whereas 18-20yr olds are less inclined to question orders and have such problems-they dont see their own "5yr old daughter" when an palestenian women brings hers and waits for hours in the sun.)

The gaza withdrawl had a large impact on israel. On one hand it showed the religious right who was in control-the govt. all their threats came to nothing. They couldnt get more than a 100,000 to protest. On the otherhand, those from gaza, from the most part are still without homes or jobs, so it remains an open sore. The fact that nothing "good" has come out of the withdrawl is a problem. The last thing we need is for Netanyaho to be proven right (katushas on askelon). It may sound like i'm "begging here" but i am. We're begging that the palestenains make something out of gaza. It doesnt have to be a "full fledged state"..it just has to be a working society. Something we can point at and say: see, without us, the palestenians do great! or at least concentrate on building something. (Some of the greenhouse owners originally volunteered to work as consultants, good will was there....)

israel can get rid of the more fanatical settlers, there will be a high cost, but we need to know that what replaces them will be stable and not shoot at us...The theory of "land for peace" was shot to hell with the kassams in the south and the katushas in the north....and there we stand.

it seems the palestenian cant do anything, even a civil war to decide whos boss, cause were on their necks, and we dont want to let go, because their civil war will engulf us.....and thats only from one angle.

btw interesting info about the palestenians in iraq. I suspect that if i was a palestenian i would be more pissed at my arab "cousins" than israel. One proposes to be family and treats them like dirt, israel is at least a bit more honest in the relationship.

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. regarding your statement

"As odd as it sounds, i think the Palestinians best bet is with us israelis" -- if that came with full and equal citizenship rights, you might be quite surprised at the assortment of allies you might have from the Palestinian side if there was such a credible offer.

It would certainly beat autonomy with heavily restricted movement and without economic viability behind walls and fences.

[breakaleg]

6. I don't know.

Right now, it's the rockets that seems to be the major issue Israel claims for it's aggression in Gaza. But before this, there were other excuses.

The rockets are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The main problem is the occupation overall.

It's easy to see how both sides are angry at the moment, but how can they expect change when their actions are really reactions to the latest stone thrown from the other side? Where is the plan? There is no plan. And that's the bigger problem.

And to expect Palestinians to arbitrarily stop the rockets as a condition for talks, is unreasonable, given that Israel has killed more civilians, inflicted much greater harm on Palestinians than they have to Israel.

Israel is trying to beat them into submission. And that hasn't been working and is not going to ever work.

[The Magistrate]

8. Why Is It Unreasonable, Sir, To Expect The Rockets To Stop?

What is reasonable about their employment?

What gain do they bring the people of Arab Palestine?

[bemildred]

9. The rockets are stupid and ineffective Sir.

Impotent rage against the machine. The energy would clearly be better directed elsewhere.

[breakaleg]

10. No, it isn't.

But I'm saying that until Israel stops it's aggression and it's system occupation, apartheid and collective punishment - take your pick - they aren't in a position to criticize.

I would argue that they brought this result by the very systems I mentioned above. But it's a case of the chicken and the egg - which came first? There will never be any agreement on that. So BOTH sides have to come to a truce. It's not reasonable to expect the Palestinians to stop there aggression when Israel, whose aggressions is 10 times as harsh, stops theirs.

[pelsar]

11. yet israel DID make the move....

for reasons that are completely incomprehensible to me some basic facts are forgetten:...israel leaving gaza, the Palestinians having a full border with Egypt seem to be irrelevant, as if nothing happened?

now why is that?...can anybody answer me?

I believe its called "stopping the aggression, collective punishment, and "apartheid" all at once

and to refresh the time line: israel leaves gaza, Israel immediately gets 30+ kassams and everyday an additional dose..and for the first few weeks (if my memory serves me correctly) does not retailiate.....lets the Palestinians "shoot at will' (guess some people think thats the best situation given the alternatives)

then israel tries:
sonic booms
missile strikes
artillery in open spaces
targeted artillery
finally raids....

Perhaps someone here can enlighten me as to what exactly did israel do "wrong'...or what should israel have done 'better"? What more could israel have tried in gaza?

and the palestenain reaction? additional attempts to kill israelis.

this sentence has no meaning:
Right now, it's the rockets that seems to be the major issue Israel claims for it's aggression in Gaza. But before this, there were other excuses. as its simply wrong....why did you write it?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

14. They left, but stil control daily life in Gaza by

controlling the water, air space and the border crossing. Not to mention keeping them isolated from their other citizens in the West Bank. And when Palestinians held elections, Israel started picking their leaders one by one!

They get an F for effort.

[pelsar]

17. fun facts...for those who have trouble

Water? nope since gaza has their own aquifers/wells

border?...nope they have a border with Egypt

Westbank?....long way around, egypt/jordan/westbank...(some many not enter)

airspace?...yep, its used for recon. and the obvious possibility of a suicide plane (but thats only obvious to israelis)

so you got 2.5 out of 4 correct

taking the hamas......9 months of continuous kassams and the hamas leaders supporting the shooting.

which reminds me, i see you forgot to list your suggestions for israel to stop the kassams.....or is your preference that israel do nothing?

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. the long way around from Gaza to the West Bank is pretty damn long

for a distance that normally speaking should take I believe about one and a half or two hours. I believe "the long way around" would require one to cross a major portion of both Egypt and Jordan.

Then there is the issue of travel documents for a stateless people.

Now I do have to grant that you do have a valid point about the Egyptian border. Why doesn't Egypt ease travel restrictions for Gazan-Palestinians? I absolutely agree that they should. But the relationship between Arab governments and the Palestinians living in the Occupied Palestinian territories is a whole issue of its own. If you are suggesting that not all of the Palestinians problems are caused by Israel, I would have to agree.

Still for the vast majority of the Palestinian residents of Gaza they are effectively cut off from the rest of the world with the movement of goods and services heavily restricted.



from :


The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories


"For the past four and a half years, Israel has severely restricted freedom of movement to and from the Gaza Strip. These restrictions further strangled the Gaza Strip, so much so that the area resembles one gigantic prison. Israel’s policies have reduced many human rights – among them the right to freedom of movement, family life, health, education, and work – to “humanitarian gestures” that Israel sparingly provides."
link: http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp
____________

8 Aug. 2006: Almost half the fatalities in the Gaza Strip in July were civilians not taking part in the hostilities - link:

http://www.btselem.org/english/firearms/20060808_Civilians_killed_in_Gaza.asp

In July, the Israeli military killed 163 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, 78 of whom (48 percent) were not taking part in the hostilities when they were killed. Thirty-six of the fatalities were minors, and 20 were women. In the West Bank , 15 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in July. The number of Palestinian fatalities in July was the highest in any month since April 2002.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. it should also be mentioned that one goes thru several Israeli checkpoints

between Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I just sent an E-mail off to a friend of mine who had just recently traveled from Jordan to the West Bank to confirm that this was correct. He wrote back, "I can affirm that there are several Israeli checkpoints you go through before getting to the West Bank from Amman. The only indication you have that you may be in Palestinian territory is the morning radio that your (tamed and humbled) Arab cab driver switches on as he drives you from the last checkpoint towards Jerusalem."....then he wrote..."It was easy for us because we were all Westerners coming in a bus. It is described as hell for Palestinians, especially now - I know Christian Palestinians who describe the experience - humiliating, immensely time-consuming, and families are often split in the process before they eventually reunite. And at each of those points, they never really know if they will see each other again - there are no givens or guarantees, no matter how many times they cross the Allenby Bridge.

I do remember the particular warmth with which Palestinians welcomed me wherever I went."

[pelsar]

25. i dont doubt its length....

nor the existance of the checkpoints, nor the time consumption, the "unknown" if you'll be able to continue etc...i was just mentioning the fact that it exists....no more than that.

[The Magistrate]

16. The Point Is Not Criticism, Sir

The point is what step might actually achieve a desired result, and further, what good is done by vocal support of counter-productive actions.

[breakaleg]

18. Negotiation.

Israel needs to withdraw from ALL of the West Bank and Gaza in a negotiated peace settlement. That means ALL settlements demolished.

There can be no other answer. Israel has no business with that land and the world knows it.

[pelsar]

12. export?.....

why cant they go through Egypt?......or perhaps they should be launching rockets at egypt (according to your logic...)

[cracksquirrel]

15. That will be the day

If they were launching rockets at Egypt (and the Egyptian government did not have an interest in pretending to be the ally of the Palestinians), the moment the first rocket hit Egyptian land, thousands of Egyptian troops, tanks, and aircraft would level Gaza from end to end, leaving very little if anything on two legs left alive.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. How do you know that?

Not that I am an apologist for the Egyptian government. I'm not.

[cracksquirrel]

23. I don't know for certain

But just based on the fact that the governing structures of Egypt are totalitarian, militaristic, and nationalistic; such a breach of peace and Egypt's territorial integrity would not be met with a strongly worded letter and a wag of the finger.