Why Israel will never Truly let go of Gaza. -Tanya Rienhart

[Tom Joad]

http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0046197.html

Whatever the fate of the captive soldier Gilad Shalit, the Israeli army’s war in Gaza is not about him.

As senior security analyst Alex Fishman reported, the army was preparing for an attack months earlier and was constantly pushing for it, with the goal of destroying the Hamas infrastructure and its Government. The army initiated an escalation on June 8 when it assassinated Abu Samhadana, a senior appointee of the Hamas Government, and intensified its shelling of civilians in the Gaza Strip.

Governmental authorisation for action on a larger scalae was already given by June 12, but it was postponed in the wake of the global reverberation caused by the killing of civilians in the air force bombing the next day. The abduction of the soldier released the safety-catch and the operation began on June 28, with the destruction of the infrastructure in Gaza and the mass detention of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank, which was also planned weeks in advance.

In Israeli discourse, Israel ended the occupation in Gaza when it evacuated its settlers from the Strip and the Palestinians’ behaviour therefore constitutes ingratitude. But there is nothing further from reality than this description. In fact, as was already stipulated in the Disengagement Plan, Gaza remained under complete Israeli military control, operating from outside. Israel prevented any possibility of economic independence for the Strip and from the very beginning, Israel did not implement a single one of the clauses of the agreement on border-crossings of November 2005. Israel simply substituted the expensive occupation of Gaza with a cheap occupation, one which in Israel’s view exempts it from the occupier’s responsibility to maintain the Strip, and from concern for the welfare and the lives of its 1.5 million residents, as determined in the fourth Geneva convention. Israel does not need this piece of land, one of the most densely populated in the world, and lacking any natural resources.
____________________________________

Another bit of fantasy propaganda by the Israeli policy apologists is that Israel was planning to "end the occupation of the West Bank". Ignoring that not only was Israel planning to keep most of its settlements in the West Bank, abandoning only a few... hundreds of thousands of residents would remain in Jewish-only settlements would remain under Olmerts plan, (in fact, in essence, annexed to Israel), and yet at the same time, the fantasy is, Israel can somehow claim that the occupation has ended.

"Ending the occupation is the one thing that Israel is not willing to consider, the option promoted by the army is breaking the Palestinians by devastating brutal force."

Time for Israel to reconsider. Or time for the world to act.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Poll_Blind]

2. The White South African government comes to mind. n/t

PB

[breakaleg]

3. Agreed. And look how that turned out. n/t

[Tom Joad]

4. Apartheid south africa also pretended to get rid of the problem by

setting up the bantustan system. It failed.

Sooner or later some leader in Israel has to come to the same conclusions De Klerk did, that the status quo is unsustainable, and then there will be a livable future for all in Palestine/Israel.

[cali]

5. Who are you quoting?

Use quotation marks, it's a good idea to indicate who you're quoting. As for your rhetorical question, intimating that the Israelis are the worst people on earth, I suggest you take a look around you. Does Rwanda ring a bell, or is 10 years to far in the past? How about Darfur? Are you suggesting that the suffering of the people of Gaza and the West Bank is greater than the genocide in Darfur? We seem to be pretty good at ignoring that crisis too. Are you suggesting that the actions of the Israelis, oppresive as they are, are on a par with the actions of the the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government?

Your question, implying that only the Israelis could behave so heinously is quite- and I mean quite- telling.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Tom Joad]

7. Citizens of Sederot should do what Tanya Reinhart is doing...

work for a new policy that finally ends occupation of Palestinian territory. Tanya Reinhart is also a Jewish Israeli citizen, and i think she is making good use of her skills and time. There are many like her.

Like any reasonable US citizen should work for a change of US policies that create so much hate and violence. Like Cindy Sheehan. Like thousands and thousands who oppose the policies of US aggesssion.

Refuse to support oppression.

[pelsar]

8. funny...that wasnt what i asked.....

i believe it was for something concrete for the citizens of sederot who again received some kassams on the town. I do believe israel actually did leave gaza, a good step in the direction of removing the occupation, only to receive missles as a response.

perhaps you would like to review my initial questions and i'll add third: why in your opinion are the palestenains in gaza trying to kill israelis, after israel left gaza?

and Egypt?....you didnt even answer that one either......

questions to tough for you?

[Tom Joad]

9. ....

[pelsar]

10. Refuse to support oppression.

i do believe the kassams on sederot are "oppressing the citizens of sederot" not to mention the terrorizim of random missles......if you dont support this kind of terrorism and oppression...i am very confused....because you dont seem to be able to suggest something to the israeli citizens of "what they should do"...other than let themselves be killed...

i've realized that for many here at the DU any kind of israeli defense is declared "illegal".....but were not surprised, thats been the case for a very very long time in our history. (jews in yemen, spain etc)

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I do....which is why I know what the term oppression means...

Calling kassam attacks oppression is ridiculous and inaccurate. There's subjugation and state control (try looking up the definition of *oppression*) involved in the occupation, and there are no elements of subjugation or state control at all involved in kassam attacks...

I've answered yr question many times now pelsar. My suggestion is that the citizens of sederot should be expected to do exactly the same thing as you expect the citizens of Gaza to do when missiles rain on them....

i've realized that for many here at the DU any kind of israeli defense is declared "illegal".

Most DUers appear to have a problem with Israel's form of defense when it's violating international law and actually is illegal. The problem seems to be that some other folk at DU seem to think that Israel is above the law and they justify everything Israel does, no matter how blatantly illegal it is. Israel has the same right as any other country to defend itself and its citizens. It does not have the right to violate international law in doing so...

[pelsar]

13. yes i know the kassam attacks are not "oppression"...

Actually my question was directed at tom who for the most part tends not to get involved in discussions other than issuing extremely simplistic statements. I thought i would try once again to elicit some kind of response that might mean something to some israelis.


how about "oppression light"....i figure if words like apartheid can be modified, or the word ghetto revised etc etc....i should at least get to modify some of the definitions too.

in actuality there has never been a real comprehensive answer to the kassams. If i recall correctly (i didnt save responses) you mentioned evacuation....and since the missiles are now reaching the city of ashkelon i assume your suggestion that ashkelon be evacuated as well. (correct me if i'm wrong).

except that if that is what your suggesting than its a suggestion that really isnt acceptable to israel. Becoming a refugee in our own country doesnt work for us.

for most DUers who always claim that israel is violating intl law in defending itself, those same "DUers" always seem to have a hard time explaining to me what defenses against hizballa/hamas/jihad, etc are actually legal.....big on what is illegal, silent on what is legal....realistically

(even the imprisonment of Samir Kuntar has been declared "illegal")...so i'm having a hard time trying to find one of the DUers who can actually explain to me in real terms what constitutes legal war, when hamas, etc do not wear uniforms, have their bases within civilian areas etc.

I realize that its pretty much impossible to come up with "legal ways of defending israel while jihadnikim dont wear uniforms, shoot from civilian areas and pretty much ignore the western definition of legal war. Still i believe for those that keep on criticizing israel for its illegal aspect then they should at least be able to enter a serious discussion about it and make some serious suggestions.

Breakaleg attempted: his/her claim was that no matter what, if they're are children around then then the IDF cant shoot. When the obvious scenario of jhidnikim shooting a kassam from a playground, or a roof, with kids around them adjusting aim and shooting more was mentioned,...it was dismissed as nonsense...and then disappeared.

i guess breakaleg realized that such a position is hardly realistic, its so much easier just to yell and scream how everything israel does is illegal....and not really enter a serious discussion with an israel about the alternatives, their implications and possible results (good and bad)....

[Tom Joad]

14. End the occupation.

Really, and completely, not in bits and pieces while enlarging it elsewhere. Not pretending while controlling the territory from outside. But insist that this stupid, senseless, illegal military occupation that has gone on for decades finally end. Get the hell out of the West Bank and Gaza... includes giving them real control over borders and coastline and airports and real self-determination.

I think Tanya Reinhart provides a great model of the way for her fellow citizens of Israel to respond to kassams and the brutality of their own government.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. End the kassams attacks!

Really, and completely, not in bits under false cease-fires from one group but not another. Don't pretend that peace is an objective while digging a tunnel to kidnap soldiers. Demand that the endless anti-Semitic propaganda from the media and press STOP! Insist that neighboring countries stop using the Palestinian people as pawns in their hate for Israel! Follow through of the UN resolutions that you so demand that Israel is supposed to follow.

I agree. End the occupation, but not at the peril of EITHER people!

[Tom Joad]

16. Which UN resolutions? Israel has ignored dozens.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. 242

[Englander]

46. Which version of 242?

The intended version, or the 'explained' version?

[Englander]

47. Thought so. n/t

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Tom Joad]

17. Israeli policy is different than yours.

"I agree. End the occupation". Official Israeli policy is opposite this. This is to your credit, of course.

It is doing nothing but expanding illegal settlements in the West Bank. Who would believe they are planning to leave if they are expanding settlements in the west bank... not just not evacuating them, but expanding them.
Isn't that also fueling the hatred, not just tv programs?

You think it is tv programs that make so many Lebanese hate Israelis, not the one million cluster bomblets scattered along the country?

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Depends.

UN 242 doesn't require a complete withdrawal from the West Bank, or even Gaza, which was already DONE! I don't agree with the continued building of settlements. However, that doesn't justify rocket attacks from a group wanting independence. Is that fueling hatred? Possibly, but I do know that with some the very existence of Israel fuels their hate! That is a real and salient FACT! It cannot be ignored!

As for your last sentence, this is not about Lebanon, but to be quite frank, I don't think the cluster bombs, or TV programs add to the hate, that is done through a number of mediums, some having nothing to do with the war!

[Tom Joad]

20. I don't agree with the continued building of settlements either.

Why must U.S. taxpayers continue to fund them?

[Englander]

21. No, that's not correct.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 addresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by
war, & calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict; which territories were occupied by Israeli forces in the Six-Day War?

____________

UN Security Council resolution 242

November 22, 1967

The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East;

Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security;

Emphasising further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter;

Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

* Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
* Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity,

* For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
* For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
* For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarised zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1639522.stm

_________________________




Six-Day War: Before the war
From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was ruled by Jordan. During this period, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military administration. Israeli troops captured Egypt's Sinai peninsula during the 1956 British, French and Israeli military campaign in response to the nationalisation of the Suez Canal. The Israelis subsequently withdrew and were replaced with a UN force. In 1967, Egypt ordered the UN troops out and blocked Israeli shipping routes - adding to already high levels of tension between Israel and its neighbours.



Six-Day War: After the war
In a pre-emptive attack on Egypt that drew Syria and Jordan into a regional war in 1967, Israel made massive territorial gains capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Suez Canal. The principle of land-for-peace that has formed the basis of Arab-Israeli negotiations is based on Israel giving up land won in the 1967 war in return for peace deals recognising Israeli borders and its right to security. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace deal with Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/six_day_war.stm

_________________


Israel - Territory Occupied in the 6-Day War



The areas shown in bright green (Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem) were occupied by Israel during the 6-day war. Israel has since returned all of Sinai to Egypt in return for peace. Most of Gaza is currently under the jurisdiction of the autonomous Palestinian Authority (2002). Parts of the West Bank (see Map of Israel and Palestinian territories following Oslo II) had been ceded to the Palestinian authority, but these areas are currently re-occupied by Israel. Following the 6 day war, Israel began building settlements in these areas.

http://www.mideastweb.org/israelafter1967.htm

[Tom Joad]

22. Aren't there different rules for Western nations?

It seems there should be, we being the civilized sort and all. Can't the West just take what it needs? :sarcasm:

[Englander]

24. Well, that's what it all comes down to -

If the interpretation of Resolution 242 is that it doesn't mean that *all* of the OT should be
considered Occupied, or that it doesn't mean that there should be a withdrawal from the OT, then
the argument being presented in that interpretation is for the acquisition of territory by war.

[Englander]

27. ~~

[Englander]

39. Article on UN Security Council Resolution 242;

The basis for peace: Security Council Resolution 242



Resolution 242 is accepted by Israelis and Palestinians alike as the starting point for negotiations over territorial issues. The Palestinians are adamant that it gives no right to Israel to acquire any of the territories occupied in 1967, and that any adjustments to the pre 1967 ceasefire lines must be made by agreement, reached freely between the parties on a basis of equality and reciprocity. Unfortunately, Israel (at least publicly) seems unwilling to accept this, and seems to engage in a propaganda offensive to convince the world that it was never intended that Israel would have to withdraw from 'all' the occupied territories. Israel implies that it thus has the right to choose parts of the territories which it will retain. It is important to know that this interpretation is unsustainable.

International Law is very clear that a state may not annex territory acquired by war (including in a war of self defence). The Resolution notes this, and 'emphasises the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war'. Moreover, there is only one class of territory which may be annexed unilaterally by a state. This is called terra nullius, and is territory which is uninhabited or only inhabited by peoples which have no social or political organisation. Although the status of the different occupied territories (East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights) varies, none of them can be classed as terra nullius by any stretch of the imagination, and so they are not open to unilateral acquisition by Israel.

>snip

Many pro Israel publicists maintain that the wording of the first principle was intentionally devised to enable Israel to have the right to acquire some of the territories. 'Withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict', we are told, only meant withdrawal from 'some' of these territories. We are also told that words such as 'all' or 'the' were deliberately not included before 'territories', and that the interpretation intended by the Security Council was that Israel could fulfil its obligation by only withdrawing from 'some' of them.

This argument is fallacious for all the following reasons:

(i) It is not true that the plain meaning of the English wording 'withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict' does not cover all the territories occupied. If you saw a notice which said 'Dogs may swim in ponds in the park', would you not assume that it applied to all ponds in the park, even though the notice does not say 'all ponds in the park' or 'the ponds in the park'. It is similar with 'territories occupied in the recent conflict'. A reader is entitled to assume that all such territories are intended.

(ii) The Israeli interpretation is inconsistent with the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by war in International Law which is emphasised in the Resolution.

(iii) There is a presumption in International Law that a document should be interpreted in order to make its meaning clear, and so an interpretation which leads to an uncertainty should be avoided if possible. By giving Israel a right to remain in 'some' of the territories, uncertainty arises as to which these territories are. This is a recipe for further conflict and cannot have been the intention of the Security Council.

(iv) There is a presumption that documents should be free of contradiction. The Israeli interpretation leads to a direct contradiction with the emphasis on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, as well as the uncertainty just mentioned.

http://www.caabu.org/press/focus/mchugo.html

[pelsar]

23. stop which occupation?

pullback to the 67 borders? perhaps a negotiated settlement?... what about occupied Haifa, Tel Aviv, sheba farms?


and which group are you refering to that will stop the shooting?...islamic jihad? Hizballa? Hamas? Fatah? al aska brigades? Tanzim? New kidnappers for alla?...I dont belive they all believe in the samething as you do

and since it may take some time to ever get there...i guess in the meantime when the kassams are shot and aimed at israeli citizens you proposal is that its preferable that the israelis be wounded, terrorized and killed as opposed to the IDF attempting to stop them.

If i am wrong feel free to correct me......but i dont think i am......

and what is this "magic 67 religion thing all about anyway?......a strange belief as if all the jihadnikm will suddenly give up their AK47s, give up their identities, they're way of making a living, their social groups and become shop keepers.

and the eternal question that is constantly ignored: what if some of those jihadnikim, just like those in gaza and in lebanon, dont agree?....and they insist on trying to kill israelis.....

the suggestion is?.....(tom? englander? anybody?...........)

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Stop the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza....

what about occupied Haifa, Tel Aviv, sheba farms?


If you'd have read Tom's post, you'd have noticed that Tom said 'Get the hell out of the West Bank and Gaza...'

[pelsar]

30. tom can answer himself.....

but since you seem to want to answer for him (he does tend to avoid entering a discussion that lasts more than 2-3 posts max)

the occupied territories are not just gaza and the westbank....at least not according to islamic jihad and hamas (who says that their versions are wrong?..or is the white leftest of the west those who know best?...sounds pretty colonialistic to me.

so after the evacuation of gaza and the westbank.....and the kassams keep coming (since at least one group: islamic jihad and perhaps hamas) wont agree to the agreement (as in the northern border with lebanon)....what then?

or perhaps if you believe somehow the jihadnikim will somehow all of stop shooting.....what is this guarantee?.....how is it that all of these different groups, taking orders and receiving money from other countries, some of whom believe that Haifa and tel aviv are also occupied, will "stop believing"

and of course if they dont and the kassams keep coming what then?


evacuate jerusalem?

[Violet_Crumble]

32. You needed Tom to tell you to read his original post again?

Oh-kay. He'd already answered yr question with 'If you'd have read Tom's post, you'd have noticed that Tom said 'Get the hell out of the West Bank and Gaza...' Not at all sure why you needed him to return and suggest that you actually read the post you were responding to. He was very clear that the West Bank and Gaza were occupied and that was what he was referring to, and attempts to continue to act as though he wasn't are pretty ridiculous and suggest that there's no genuine desire to participate in a civil discussion, imo...

[pelsar]

34. i believe i asked for clarification...

some additional details....that many israelis are interested in hearing.....though i dont know if he can answer them, he never has (nor has anyone here for that matter that i can recall)...but i can wait and try again..

[Violet_Crumble]

35. No you didn't...

Saying: 'the occupied territories are not just gaza and the westbank....at least not according to islamic jihad and hamas' AFTER Tom had specifically said the West Bank and Gaza isn't asking for clarification at all...

No offense, pelsar, but if people don't think yr questions are worth wasting their time on, repeating them at the person again and again isn't a great idea as it becomes hounding. That's why when you recently refused to answer a question I asked, I didn't keep on popping up in every thread after that asking that same question over and over...

[pelsar]

37. which quesion...

ask and i shall answer....i may have missed it

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Then don't say they are...

I don't get how anyone can want what they say on any topic to be taken seriously when they admit they intentionally abuse the definitions of words. I don't agree with the use of the term genocide when it comes to the I/P conflict, but that doesn't mean I should start running round twisting other words like 'oppression' coz that's just plain childish...


If i recall correctly (i didnt save responses) you mentioned evacuation....and since the missiles are now reaching the city of ashkelon i assume your suggestion that ashkelon be evacuated as well. (correct me if i'm wrong).

except that if that is what your suggesting than its a suggestion that really isnt acceptable to israel. Becoming a refugee in our own country doesnt work for us.

No. You don't recall correctly and I've told you quite a few times in the past that you didn't recall correctly when you tried to 'recall' one of my posts on this incorrectly. What you don't recall is that I suggested possible solutions and among them was creating a buffer zone inside Israel AND Gaza and carrying out short-term emergency evacuations. All you recall is the buffer zone in Israel and talk about Israelis becoming refugees in their own country, yet you don't express the same concerns when it comes to Palestinians who would also be evacuated...

Anyway, after reading yr responses to anyone who tried to answer yr question, I've now amended my suggestion to the one I made in this thread :)

[pelsar]

29. the buffer zone...how big?

so lets look at your buffer zone...and try to apply it. Seems to me to be a reasonable thing to do:

How much of gaza are your going to take?..theres not much to take (a couple of kilometers?) for a buffer zone..are you going to clean out Beit Chanon?... doubt that palestenains will agree

The kassams now reach askeklon..they fly over land, so whats a "buffer" zone going to help, or are you suggesting they evacuate Askelon?

Whats an "emergency evacuation?...perhaps you can explain what that actually means in real terms?...whos evacuated under what circumstances and where do they even go?

______

you mentioned other solutions...obviously i dont recall those either...but I doubt they were even discussed, and yes i do have quite a few answers for many possible solutions, on the other hand they are not engraved, so i can discuss them and be convinced i am wrong...however the DU never gets that far...discussing the "solutions of the left at the DU" seems to be blasphemous, just like a religion

[Violet_Crumble]

33. You need to reread my suggestion...

It's in this thread and it was:

My suggestion is that the citizens of sederot should be expected to do exactly the same thing as you expect the citizens of Gaza to do when missiles rain on them....

[pelsar]

36. which is what?

lets see if i understand:

the citizens of sederot can stand by the IDF artillary units and tell them not to fire.they can protest the air strikes on gaza...and according to you (if i understand correctly) and if the govt of israel listens this will then stop the kassams?

so your claiming that if israel stops attacking gaza the kassams will stop (did i get that right?)

if this is true, why were the kassams being fired into israel after israel left gaza, and continued for the week or so before israel reacted....and continued despite israeli warnings of retailiation?...(i dont believe you actually had a suggestion then as to what israel should do....i do recall asking as israeli jets were flying over gaza with their sonic booms)

and

the citizens of gaza can protest and interfere with the kassams being fired...and this will then stop israeli fire....hmm now that might actually work, it might be worth their while to try it.

if i didnt understand what you wrote, then please rephrase it as it does sound like a bit of a riddle.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I'm not interested if you understand or not...

It was very clear and very simple for those who don't consider Palestinian lives less valuable than Israeli ones...

[pelsar]

40. your simply not being very clear....

you seem to be writing in riddles and keep claiming that i dont understand (guess i dont) or i dont recall correctly (could be) etc.

so why dont you write it very clearly and simply ( and i'll even copy it so i'll have a reference)

what are the options for israel in reference to gaza that will stop the kassams or will at least reduce the damage and vica versa?

usually we list options as well as list them in a order of what may or may not work, possible reactions from "the other side" and then further options. Granted it means one has to actually apply ones philosophy and make choices based on values, but thats how it works in the real world

and it tends to put on into a corner....

but when looking for solutions its sure beats vague statements that cant be applied or if questioned as to their repucussions are ignored...... which seems to be the standard around here.

[bemildred]

41. She is perfectly clear. nt

[pelsar]

43. maybe its a culture thing...

or and english thing....or a comprehension thing....cause i sure dont understand.

usually when i look at a problem i list the options and then wonder what the consequences and repercussions are of each option...thats all i'm asking, a list of options. I realize we're going back a year or so when israel left gaza...but the options/actions and consequences of the actions have gotten us to where we are today.

so even looking back..what were the options and possible consequences for israel once it left gaza? and what are they today as you guys see them?

and yes i realize you might have answered them in the past, but i really dont recall anything "concrete" that lasted more than a single post that was actually a discussion of what an action of one might cause the other to do....and since there is no single definitive action/reaction there are always several possibilities (unless one has a religion thing going where there is always only one single right answer for everything....)

anyway, i half want to apologise for me not recognizing your answers, and i'm pretty sure i wont get any kind of definitive list, the kind that i understand, probably because it does commit oneself to some decisions that dont always fit the ideal.....and thats not always nice "comfy" kind of place to be.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Nope...

I hate having to repeat myself but I'll repeat what I said in bold this time and hope it gets noticed:

"I'm not interested if you understand or not..."

[Englander]

11. Aye, the Gaza Ghetto = OPT.

[Englander]

28. OPT: Palestinian agricultural losses top US $1 billion

GAZA CITY, 28 September (IRIN) - An ongoing economic boycott and intermittent border closures have created humanitarian problems for Gaza's residents, including a deteriorating agricultural sector, the United Nations and the Palestinian Authority (PA) said.

The PA's Minister of Agriculture, Mohammed al-Agha, told IRIN that "Israel's security measures had cost Palestinian farmers thousands of acres of farmland and nearly US $1.2 billion since the start of the second intifada in September 2000." Israel says it was necessary to clear land to prevent cross-border terrorist attacks.

>snip

A western-imposed economic embargo on the Hamas-led Palestinian government for the past six months had hindered the flow of imports to, and exports from, Gaza because all entry points controlled by Israeli authorities have been tightened or closed. Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by Israel and the West because it has refused to renounce violence and recognise Israel.

Israel has intensified its grip on Gaza since 25 June when one of its soldiers was captured by Palestinian militants. Critical entry points, such as the commercial Karni crossing and the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, have remained largely closed. Israel said this was for security reasons.

Palestinian farmer and flower greenhouses owner, Mohammed al-Astal, 45, from the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis said he has sustained great losses since the Israelis placed a complete blockade on Gaza's crossings as his produce is being held on the Palestinian side of the checkpoints.

"The closure coincided with the export season of strawberries, flowers, tomatoes, cucumbers, and peppers. So I had to sell them in the local markets before the produce rots," he said. "Even when the crossings are open, the Israelis enforce complex search procedures that lead to the expiry of import and export goods, especially dairy products, fruits, and vegetables."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/e1e4ac051b874d1ec1c09f239c874298.htm

[nicoll]

31. Israel should remove all illegal settlements from West Bank

Yes Israel has pulled out it settlements from the Gaza Strip, but this is an empty gesture until the Palestinians get their full Independence both in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Israel when it goes down to the wire has no choice in this it will have to remove all of the settlements in the West Bank as well. Until this happens and the Palestinian are given full Independence and their own Palestinian state along side Israel I will never have much respect for her and only see her as a tyrant oppressing the weak.

[Tom Joad]

42. Yes, i don't know why it is so difficult for Israel to understand this.

If Israel wants peace, that is what they will do.

Israel government has made very clear that they have no intention of ever leaving most of the settlements (except for a handful) in the West Bank. No matter what the Palestinians did. They could have elected the Mother Teresa party, and the settlements would remain. So it shouldn't be a surprise if Palestinians continue armed resistance. I think the Israeli leaders expect this as well, and welcome it. They hardly seem to give a shit if their people are subject to violence, it helps their cause of taking land and homes and farms away from the Palestinians just a bit more palatable to World opinion.

[pelsar]

44. and us israelis dont understand why being targeted by missles ...

is no big deal....missles from lebanon, missles from gaza....guess those dont count......so it shouldnt be a surprise if we shoot back either or dont give the palestenains the chance to send their missles into hafia, jersualem, tel aviv from hebron, jenin, etc.