"We Don't Want No Stinkin' Aid" (Gaza)

[ZeeGerman]

Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, he was never elected.

Yeah, and Brown was appointed prime minister by the Queen, same as Blair, Major, Thatcher and all the others before. Seems, none of them has been democratically elected then

Zee

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

And you still wonder why Israel is hated by Arabs? What business has Israel in the daily lives of another nation? This has been the basic problem for the last 50 years.


Change it to "living in exile" then. The statistics vary about the number of Palestinians with a refugee status. In any case, a considerable group of people.


Freedom fighters? Israeli or American soldiers could be decribed in the same manner, with similar photos and success stories.


The root of "apartheid" is strictly defining humans as members of a racial or regilious group, and then discriminating between these.

Excellent post. I at a loss fail to see how Webfusion can come on here and try to justify fundamental discrimination in his country's behaviour.

 

[marksman]

And you still wonder why Israel is hated by Arabs? What business has Israel in the daily lives of another nation? This has been the basic problem for the last 50 years.

I imagine the problem is that to get from Gaza to the West Bank they have to go through Israel. Now, presumably, Egypt, which borders Gaza, and Jordan, which borders the West Bank and Egypt, could arrange for Palestinians to travel. For whatever reasons (mostly that the Egyptians and Jordanians would rather use the Palestinians as political martyrs than ameliorate their situation), they haven't done so and for whatever reason, the Palestinians haven't really asked them to do so.

I don't think the separation of Gaza and West Bank has been "the basic problem for the last 50 years." (Though it is definitely one problem.) I think there have been many many basic problems. The refusal of Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist, for example. The dispute over whom should control Jerusalem, for example. The issue of settlements for example. The issue of terrorism, for example.

I'm not placing the blame squarely on Israel or Palestine. But it's not unreasonable to require someone passing through your territory to agree to abide by your laws and to refuse passage to those you don't believe will abide by your laws.

 

[Mycroft]

And you still wonder why Israel is hated by Arabs? What business has Israel in the daily lives of another nation? This has been the basic problem for the last 50 years.

Israel has the right, just like any other nation, to defend its own security. If Israel is hated by Arabs for this while the same Arabs give a pass to Arabic nations with similar or even more stringent restrictions, then the only explanation I can think of is bigotry on behalf of the Arabs.

Change it to "living in exile" then. The statistics vary about the number of Palestinians with a refugee status. In any case, a considerable group of people.

Most people are no longer considered "refugees" once they have settled in new lands. Have you ever considered why Palestinians are different this way?

 

[gtc]

Most people are no longer considered "refugees" once they have settled in new lands. Have you ever considered why Palestinians are different this way?

Indeed. How many Americans, Australians or Canadians have the right of return to their European homelands?

 

[a_unique_person]

I imagine the problem is that to get from Gaza to the West Bank they have to go through Israel. Now, presumably, Egypt, which borders Gaza, and Jordan, which borders the West Bank and Egypt, could arrange for Palestinians to travel. For whatever reasons (mostly that the Egyptians and Jordanians would rather use the Palestinians as political martyrs than ameliorate their situation), they haven't done so and for whatever reason, the Palestinians haven't really asked them to do so.

I don't think the separation of Gaza and West Bank has been "the basic problem for the last 50 years." (Though it is definitely one problem.) I think there have been many many basic problems. The refusal of Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist, for example. The dispute over whom should control Jerusalem, for example. The issue of settlements for example. The issue of terrorism, for example.

I'm not placing the blame squarely on Israel or Palestine. But it's not unreasonable to require someone passing through your territory to agree to abide by your laws and to refuse passage to those you don't believe will abide by your laws.

If you look at the map, there is no direct way via egypt, either, there is a chunk of Israel proper in the way, and it's a much long route anyway.

 

[marksman]

It may not be direct, but it is feasible. Sure, it's a 300 mile drive, and it requires a ferry across the Gulf of Aqaba. It's not a great solution, but one would think it should at least be an option open to the Palestinians, at least until some sort of permanent arrangement with Israel is reached. But Egypt and Jordan are almost as hostile to Palestinians entering their territory as Israel is.

Of course, Jordan has already had to deal with one Palestinian uprising, so they're a bit gun-shy. Egypt is not anxious to invite such dangers into their territory. Much better to lay the blame at Israel's feet, and pretend that the West Bank and Gaza have no other neighbors...

 

[JJM 777]

Most people are no longer considered "refugees" once they have settled in new lands. Have you ever considered why Palestinians are different this way?

All refugees that I know in Scandinavia (and there are a lot of them) are "refugees" until they return to their homeland (which is the default expectation of the country temporarily hosting them for humanitarian reasons), or they get citizenship of another country.

Palestinians are refugees because Israel refuses to allow their return to any Palestinian land any more, and Arabs refuse to accept this, and no other country has given them citizenship (except Jordan for a few hundred thousand of them).

I imagine the problem is that to get from Gaza to the West Bank they have to go through Israel.

That is not really a problem at all. An underground tunnel has been proposed, but so far Israel prefers the current situation of "divide et impera".

I don't think the separation of Gaza and West Bank has been "the basic problem for the last 50 years."

We were not talking about that (mainly). Were were talking about the millions of Palestinian refugees that Israel has refused the right of return to any Palestinian territory for the past 50 years.

The refusal of Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist, for example.

The general pan-Arab refusal to recognize Israel has been changing, this problem will be history within a few years only. The Arab League peace proposal offered full recognition of Israel already 5 years ago.

The dispute over whom should control Jerusalem, for example.

UN decision 1948: international territory.
After that, illegally annexed by Transjordan (the other half annexed by Israel).
After that, illegally annexed by Israel.

The issue of settlements for example.

This belongs to the category of "poking with the lives of another nation".

The issue of terrorism, for example.

Or generally, military force and occupation, humiliating check points at all major Palestinian roads. (You will not want to hear more detailed stories, the rules of this forum would forbid them because they are shocking.)

 

[marksman]

That is not really a problem at all. An underground tunnel has been proposed, but so far Israel prefers the current situation of "divide et impera".

Or Israel is reasonably unconvinced that a tunnel under their land is really something that would provide them security given Palestinian actions. I can't say I blame them.

Do you really think that a tunnel would provide a passage for Paestinians that also affords security for Israel... in the absence of a comprehensive peace plan?

We were not talking about that (mainly).

But that's what you identified as "the basic problem of th last 50 years." THat's the only statement of yours with which I took issue.

Did you assume that my disagreement on that one pointmeans a general attack against you or other statements made by you? I'm really not interested in dissecting every line of each other's posts. You made the absurd statement that the separation of West Bank and Gaza has been the basic problem of Israeli-Palestinian relations for the last 50 years. I told you at least three other probems as major if not more that have been the other major problems of the last 50 years. I also told you I'm not laying the blame entirely on one side or the other.

That you think those other probems have potential solutions is irrelevant to my point. Why are you trying to pick a fight with me?

(You will not want to hear more detailed stories, the rules of this forum would forbid them because they are shocking.)

I've read the stories, JJM. I don't know why you think me ignorant of the situation. I'm not the one who absurdly claimed that the separation of Gaza and the West Bank was the basic problem for the last 50 years

And for the record, claiming that the shocking nature of stories you have to tell are justification for anything is the fallacy of an appeal to emotion. The only people who are going to find that convincing are people predisposed to support you. It's really not rhetorical tactic appropriat to a skeptics' board.

 

[JJM 777]

Do you really think that a tunnel would provide a passage for Paestinians that also affords security for Israel... in the absence of a comprehensive peace plan?

A tunnel is not more dangerous than any road. Tunnels have the advantage that you cannot shoot to the other side from them. In the current situation there would be checkpoints at the entrances of the tunnel. But now Israel is quite happy about Palestinians having no connection whatsoever with their relatives, either quick or slow, either free or carefully inspected.

But that's what you identified as "the basic problem of th last 50 years."

You have misunderstood something. In the quoted message we were talking about Palestinians living in exile, not about Palestinians living in West Bank or Gaza.

I was quoting and commenting webfusion's words: "thousands (not a 'few') annually are given permission, on a case-by-case basis", which refers to Palestinian refugees living in foreign countries, and trying to travel into the country to visit their relatives, but Israel gives a visa to a few of them only.

Why are you trying to pick a fight with me?

I am not. I am just trying to correct a misunderstanding that you made about the meaning of my comments about "50 years". I did not mention or mean what you insist that I meant with it.

claiming that the shocking nature of stories you have to tell are justification for anything is the fallacy of an appeal to emotion.

It is most straightforward psychology that insulting action by one party leads to revenge from the other party. Justification is a different issue, the revenge may often (or even typically) be harsher than was the initial offense by the other party.

This is also a typical pattern that a nation wishing the opportunity to use military force against another nation first uses non-violent insults to spark a violent response from the other nation, which then gives "green light" for the use of military force that would otherwise have been strongly condemned by the public opinion and legal authorities. Historians are still arguing who really started some well-known wars of the 20th century, because of this setting that one party clearly wanted to attack, and teased the other party into the trap of opening fire first.

 

[marksman]

In the quoted message we were talking about Palestinians living in exile, not about Palestinians living in West Bank or Gaza.

You are correct. That was my misreading. I apologize.

 

[webfusion]

Why "50 years" ???

That timeline seems odd.

 

[webfusion]

But now Israel is quite happy about Palestinians having no connection whatsoever with their relatives, either quick or slow, either free or carefully inspected.

This is a lie.

Israel has, numerous times, tried to implement the "Safe Passage" route from Gaza to Hebron (as indicated in Article XI of the OSLO Accords). As far as I know, Israel has no underlying objection to the operation of the route, if security can be maintained. Right now, with rockets landing on Israeli territory from the direction of Gaza, there is no impetus for opening the route.

 

[JJM 777]

"There is no impetus for..." -- exactly this has been the problem in the region for the past 50 years. Peace can only be built by raising the standard of living of Palestinians. Economy first, the rest will follow.

Right now it seems to me that Israel and USA prefer having two separate Palestinian groups in the peace process -- the western-backed Fatah that would control West Bank (possibly with some Jordanian influence), and the Hamastan state of Gaza.

What happens to the tunnel project if these areas and political groups become autonomous and independent of each other, remains to be seen.

No, I am not criticizing this domestic split of Palestinians. Gaza would be Egyptian territory, but they refuse to take it. West Bank would be Jordanian territory, but also they refuse to take it.

 

[webfusion]

Again, you refer to "50 years" -- what happened 50 years ago that causes you to indicate a problem has been brewing for 50 years?

What happens to the tunnel project if these areas and political groups become autonomous and independent of each other, remains to be seen.

Yet, you provide nothing to substantiate your opinion that "Israel is quite happy" to keep the two areas apart.
According to what I read, the project is still being considered and financing is being proposed from various sources, while the actual implementation is delayed because Israel contends with brutality, violence and terrorism daily originating from the Gaza Strip ---- and she's not happy about that.

Economy first, the rest will follow.

Perhaps not.

 

[fuelair]

President Carter also thinks so.

President Carter - who I voted for - is unfortunately losing his grip. I am sorry that is happening but it often does as people age.

 

[JJM 777]

what happened 50 years ago that causes you to indicate a problem has been brewing for 50 years?

Arabs and Jews started a war of independence against each other. (Um, that was more exactly 60 years ago.)

Perhaps not.

It's bread and circus that people need to remain calm. Ask the ancient Romans.

In my earnest opinion, Israel would have had the chance to get all of Palestine under its permanent legal control and territory, had it been feeding the West Bank and Gaza with equal amount of bread and circus as they have done with the Jewish parts of the country.

The economical policies having been what they were (a South-African word comes on my mind that you would not enjoy), there never was a slimmest chance that such policies would keep the general Palestinian population permanently happy under Israeli control.

 

[webfusion]

Arabs and Jews started a war of independence against each other. (Um, that was more exactly 60 years ago.)

I am glad you clarified this ----- there are two schools of thought about the "source of the problem"

A) The existence of Israel is basically unacceptable, and the very fact of Israel becoming an independent State is referred to as a catastrophe by Arabs everywhere. This school of thought wishes to reverse the timeline back to 1947 and attempts to institute UN 181 as an operative plan again today. That narrative assumes a timeline which ignores the previous historical events dating from the 1890's (the outset of Zionism to rebuild a desolate and ruined land).

B) Rather than focus on the catastrophic creation of Israel, dating from the 1890's, the second school of thought takes aim at the Six Day War of 1967, and constructs a narrative whereby the "source of the problem" is the Occupation. If you notice, the proponents of a solution based on the "June 1967 Borders" declare that Israel will be allowed to "live in peace" if only she withdraws back to these "borders" (Saudi Plan) --------


That is why I wanted to figure out what you meant by saying 50-years.
Had you made an error and really wished to indicate 40-years (to 1967) and were just thinking about a withdrawal to the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines as a recipe for Lasting Peace; or were you among those who place the entire existence of Israel in the category of "catastrophe" ?

In my earnest opinion, Israel would have had the chance to get all of Palestine under its permanent legal control and territory, had it been feeding the West Bank and Gaza with equal amount of bread and circus as they have done with the Jewish parts of the country.

That is not the aim of Israel. The palestinian population has repeatedly been offered Autonomy/Independence in the West Bank and Gaza ----- and that offer remains in effect today. The "strings attached" to the offer are quite simple. I will not bore you with a rehash of the International Community requirements for Palestine Independence. (SEE: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/21808.htm)

 

[webfusion]

The News You've all Been Waiting to See

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/879143.html

A follow-up to the OP ----

The Kerem Shalom crossing was scheduled to reopen Wednesday to thousands of Palestinians seeking to return home to the Gaza Strip, but technical problems on the Egyptian side of the border kept the terminal closed.


and


Kerem Shalom was opened again Thursday - but only sporadically, due to the firing of Qassam rockets near the crossing.


and


Meanwhile, the United Nation's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in its report Thursday that humanitarian imports into the Gaza Strip between June 25 and July 1 met 70 percent of Gazans' minimum food needs - a significant increase from the previous week.


In the face of the objective of the Gaza-based terrorists to keep OUT and STOP this vital aid, it seems that Israel is doing a very good job of providing passage for the convoys, while under fire.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Israel has the right, just like any other nation, to defend its own security. If Israel is hated by Arabs for this while the same Arabs give a pass to Arabic nations with similar or even more stringent restrictions, then the only explanation I can think of is bigotry on behalf of the Arabs.



Most people are no longer considered "refugees" once they have settled in new lands. Have you ever considered why Palestinians are different this way?

It is surely not surprising that the only explanation you can think of for your unsupported straw man is bigotry, given your history on this site.

You might choose to forget such things as refusing to abide by UN resolutions, building illegal settlements on occupied land, invading other countries and bombing back twenty years, scattering cluster bombs in civilian areas and dispropoprtinate killing of civilians might give you a clue why people around the world are a tad unhappy with some policies of the Israeli and Hamas governments.

AS far as I can see being against illegality and war crimes doesn't constitiute bigotry. Never has and never will.

If people who settle in other lands are no longer refugees why does Israel adopt the sectarian policy of allowing only one religion the 'right of return'?

By the way Mycroft are you in a position yet to justify your claim made over a year ago now or are you going to keep on doing a Sylvia Browne? Just asking - again.