As Gaza burns

[pelsar]

its about time this made it into english.....
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853107.html
_________

According to data released by the Ramallah Center for Human Rights, since the start of 2007, 63 Palestinians have been killed and some 400 injured in clashes because of the chaos in the security situation. Most of the casualties were in the Gaza Strip, which is beginning to resemble the Somalian capital of Mogadishu.
........
The journalist adds: "There are two options today that could take us out of this situation: Someone strong in the Gaza Strip who does not care about a confrontation with the clans, or an Israeli occupation. Many people in the Strip hope that Israel will reoccupy it because these phenomena were not prevalent during the Israeli occupation."
......
The head of a unit of launchers gets $5,000 from the organization that sends him on his mission for releasing a salvo of rockets - an enormous sum in Gazan terms. The members of the unit receive several hundred dollars. The economic temptation is immense. It is less important to those launching the rockets whether the target is actually hit. That may be important only to those who wish to see the IDF return as an occupier to Gaza

___________

nothing new here.....nothing that is really surprising.....the various clans/militias developed by the PA/Arafat, the culture of violence-that killing civilians is acceptable, is now being turned on themselves....and the silence from those who "egged them on" who provide the excuses for their "reactions,".....or as i've been told by a few here:

its an internal palestinian problem and none of our business (so much for the declarations of "human rights, what about the children, etc)

the burning question: for the palestinians in the westbank.....which is the better life?...and what should they do now?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[pelsar]

2. different argument.....

so from your point of view, i understand that its the " its no bodys business who and how many they kill in gaza".....and so too for the westbank?

oh and did you miss this:

Many people in the Strip hope that Israel will reoccupy it because these phenomena were not prevalent during the Israeli occupation."

but hey what do they know...they just live there

[azurnoir]

3. So in your opinion Pelsar

Israel should again invade Gaza for the Palestinians own good? A life of constant gang (that is what it is) violence or constant occupation because they are not civilized enough to govern themselves, not much of a choice.

[pelsar]

4. actually thats not my opinon....

but what is yours?

[azurnoir]

5. Not sure any more

The core problem is that the Palestinians live in dire poverty and there is no future but more of the same. If that could be done to any degree it would help, no financial incentive to fight, the problem is that it will take alot of cooperation from all sides none of who want to cooperate.
I think I just made my "well d'uh" statement of the day.

[pelsar]

6. poverty is not the problem...

thats no more than excuse.....poor people, just because their poor dont go around shooting/kidnapping a whole society...furthermore the clans are not all poor.
(how many "poor" neighborhoods in the world go around shooting up their society and how many dont?)

whats "dire poverty".....no one is starving.

excuse no 2?

[azurnoir]

7. No not simply because they're poor

there at this point is no way out for the Palestinians, they have no economy to speak of, they may be "maintained" to minimal standards anyway but still they languish there is no future but more of the same, if you take almost any group of people and put them in that situation they will eventually turn on themselves, what truly surprises me is that I have not heard much about drug problems, that usually comes with.

[pelsar]

8. there will be a multitude of excuses and reasons....

some will be valid, socio economic reasons...some will be cultural......do they have a future?...of course they do, or they could have, they have all the resources they need in place

.....the place has gone steadily down hill in both economic, education, civil rights, personal security etc since intifada I.

(Its not a matter of being for or against the occupation or the PA or hamas etc....those are the simple stats: facts if you will).

There are drug problems as you assume there would be, the press is hardly free there and the journalists obviously have their own lives to protect, hence its not reported. (Israeli reporters give us a bit more info in the hebrew papers)

[azurnoir]

9. Could it be that the Palestinians need to

unload both Fatah and Hamas, start fresh with a new party? Is that even possible? They are supposedly a unified party now but apparently can not do much to quell violence, or do they need more time?

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. there are actually a whole bunch of other political parties

some of them, in my opinion, would be better alternatives to Fatah or Hamas; secular, democratic and uncorrupted.

The problem is that political parties in developing countries (not only Palestine - but acutely so in Palestine) are only viable as major political forces when they are able to provide or assist in providing significant social services to their constituency. Like help with matters, like jobs, health care, schools, weddings,funerals or whatever.

Of course this requires significant funding and domestic influence. A large part of such funding comes from the Palestinian diaspora or outside governments or political or religious institutions.

Fatah and Hamas have the ability to achieve a fair amount of funding and thus fund domestic social services.

The old secular leftist Palestinian parties which once had a great deal of influence in the Palestinian movement largely loss their ability to provide such assistance with the collapse of the old Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies.

.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. no colonized people in history have ever willingly surrendered 54% of their homeland

as long as they thought they had means to resist. Especially to an enemy who had bigger plans and saw partition as a first step. Even so I would agree that if the Palestinians had clairvoyant abilities they should have agreed to partition which may not have stopped the bigger plans, but would have put them in a stronger position. And the fact is that to this day in spite of offering to surrender their claim on 77% of their homeland, the Palestinians to this day have never been offered a genuinely sovereign, independent and viable state.

this from Israeli historian Avi Shlaim of Oxford University - link:]

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

"While the ethics of transfer had never troubled Ben-Gurion unduly, the growing strength of the Yishuv eventually convinced him of its practical feasibility. On 12 July 1937, for instance, Ben-Gurion confided to his diary:

The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had ... a Galilee free from Arab population .... We must uproot from our hearts the assumption that the thing is not possible. It can be done.

The more Ben-Gurion thought about it, the more convinced he became that "the thing" could not only be done but had to be done. On 5 October 1937, he wrote to his son with startling candour:

We must expel Arabs and take their places ... and, if we have to use force - not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places - then we have force at our disposal.

The letter reveals not only the extent to which partition became associated in Ben Gurion's mind with the expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish state but also the nature and extent of his territorial expansionism. The letter implied that the area allocated for the Jewish state by the Peel Commission will later be expanded to include the Negev and Transjordan. Like Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder and leader of Revisionist Zionism, Ben-Gurion was a territorial maximalist. Unlike Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion believed that the territorial aims of Zionism could best be advanced by means of a gradualist strategy.

When the UN voted in favour of the partition of Palestine on 29 November 1947, the struggle for Palestine entered its decisive phase. Ben-Gurion and his colleagues in the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan despite deep misgivings about the prospect of a substantial Arab minority, a fifth column as they saw it, in their midst. the Palestinians rejected the partition plan with some vehemence as illegal, immoral and impractical. By resorting to force to frustrate the UN plan, they presented Ben-Gurion with an opportunity, which he was not slow to exploit, for extending the borders of the proposed Jewish state and for reducing the number of Arabs inside it. By 7 November 1949, when the guns finally fell silent, 730,000 persons, or 80 per cent of the Arab population of Palestine, had become refugees. "

link to full article:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

________________

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University of Connecticut

link: http://anacreon.clas.uconn.edu/~pressman/history.pdf

Here is a link to the European Union summary document regarding the Taba talks first published in Haaretz on February 14, 2002 -- Text: "Moratinos Document" - The peace that nearly was at Taba:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

.

[msmcghee]

17. Actually, the vast majority of colonized people . .

. . in the history of the world have given up 100% of their homeland and their lives along with it. Try reading a little history. You'll find that the most common practice is simply killing off all the males and any females not of breeding age, not healthy, not attractive, etc.

This is especially true for people who are not nearly as powerful as their occupiers but who are also stupid enough to continue fighting their occupiers long after there is any reason to.

This modern UN idea where states adjust their borders through negotiation and compromise is really just an aberration. It probably won't be used much in the future - with due credit for that going as much to the Palestinians as their hypocrite allies in the UN.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. well I'm glad the rules have changed

my key phrase was; "as long as they thought they had means to resist".

[msmcghee]

19. Well, they are not the first in history who . .

. . have tragically miscalculated on that one. And in most cases - it was not the people themselves who made the deadly error. It was egotistical, power-hungry male leaders - who were certain that their God would protect them and bring victory, no matter the odds.

Also, in this modern world of mass communications, some part of the miscalculation can be blamed on arrogant and often uninformed sympathizers who, for their own ideological and/or political reasons, encourage them from the sidelines where they are in no danger themselves - and who won't have to suffer for choosing never-ending war and destruction over peace and accommodation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. listen I don't even like posting here

In fact I hate it. I wish I could forget about Palestine and the whole damn thing.

I keep going because my conscience will not allow me to stop. I know things I wish I didn't know. And I've seen things I wish I never saw.

.

[bemildred]

21. Boy, that was amazing. I saved a copy of it. nt

[azurnoir]

22. An interesting comment from you

considering almost the entire Muslim world was colonized until shortly after WW2.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. and like other colonized people they resisted their colonization

and eventually achieved some form of independence. Also in most of the other cases the colonization did not involve implanting an entirely new population.

For instance the Ottoman Empire had no more than a small number of Turkish diplomats and officials scattered throughout most of their Empire. In the case of French-Algeria, almost one million French people lived in French-Algeria, most leaving once independence was achieved.

Obviously in the case of Israel and Palestine; both peoples are stuck with each other and any future has to include mutual accommodation based on respect and equality.

[azurnoir]

30. I would agree

in the case of Israel-Palestine however reconciliation is and has been almost impossible, when Palestine was partitioned there were upwards of 1,000,000 refugees waiting to enter and the new born Israelis were worried that they did not have the land and resources to accommodate them.

[msmcghee]

26. Well, for the last several centuries, they were . .

. . actually colonized by Turkey - who was defeated in WWI. The victors of that war were left with administering the Arab regions that had previously been under Turkish rule. They did so in every case with the stated aim of helping them establish states of their own. I notice that all of them except Palestine for reasons that are obvious, have their own state.

Of course, since that it was England, France and the US who did the administering - those on the far left get a kick out of referring to that as "colonialism".

Maybe that's why some on the left seem so obsessed with the meaning of certain words. I guess when the core justification for one's position depends on greatly twisting the meaning of particular words - one can get touchy.

You know, like helping people set up their own state - is "colonialism".

Murdering innocent civilians - is "resistance".

Stoning homosexuals and female adulterers is - "ethnic customs" that we have no right to criticize.

Words like that.

[breakaleg]

27. Who were you referring to when you said "helping people build their own state"?

[azurnoir]

28. Oh so you mean like Iraq?

except that the state we set is the one executing adulterous women and homosexuals. It would also seem that innocent civilians and resistance are quite interchangeable according to the needs of a political point of view.

[breakaleg]

29. I would add that it's not considered help when you invade them against their will. nt

[msmcghee]

33. I can't decipher your first sentence.

As far as "resistance" and murdering innocent civilians - murdering (the word you left out) implies purposeful killing.

It is certainly convenient for some to pretend that the Palestinians who die as a result of Israel's defense of its civilians are being killed purposefully - as many posts here would attest.

The reality of course is not even close to that. Palestinian civilians do not die as the result of murder. They die because the terrorists hide among them and also because they attempt to shield the terrorists in some cases - thereby becoming voluntary combatants and un-innocent.

And of course, there's the inconvenience of Israel's vastly superior firepower. Anyone who cares to think about it can see that there would be no living Palestinians right now if Israel's simply wanted to kill them.

"Resistance" and "murder" may be conveniently interchanged for political purposes in forums far from the ME. I assure you that the people doing the dieing and the killing have no allusions as to the reasons or the intentions of those doing it.

You might Google "Hamas charter" for a refresher.

[breakaleg]

34. So, because Israel has a powerful military and 'can' kill all Palestinians and instead

only kills a large number, that's proof that Israel is not responsible for their deaths or didn't want to kill them? That's some twisted logic.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. Remember these children

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:

Israelis: 118

Palestinians: 932

TOTALS FOR 2006:

Israelis: 2

Palestinians: 139

____________________


Last updated April 24, 2007

TOTALS FOR 2007:

Israelis: 0

Palestinians: 13


link:


http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/

.

[breakaleg]

44. I hate to be sarcastic, but numbers like that don't seem to account for much here. nt

[UndertheOcean]

51. Thank you for reminding us of the IDF's barbarity

n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

66. How is this a reminder of that?

[Behind the Aegis]

63. Is it only important to remember the children killed by Israelis?

And, some of those children were involved in actions against the IDF or Israelis, yet their names appear with the innocents, very deceitful, IMO.

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. the website list all children on either side--killed by either side and how they died

whether Israeli or Palestinian. Very, very few would be the combatants you are describing. The largest number, by far the vast majority, just happened to be in the wrong place.

http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html

Here are the two Israeli deaths during the year of 2006

28 March 2006

Khalid Salaam Ziadin, 16, of western Negev desert, killed by an unexploded IDF shell in a field near Nahal Oz used as a staging ground for Israeli artillery brigades to shell targets in the northern Gaza Strip.

30 March 2006

Shaked Lasker, 16, of Kedumim settlement, killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber near the settlement entrance.
_____________

here are all the deaths (all Palestinian) during the month of August 2006:

1
August 2006

Aref Ahmad Eid abu-Qaida, 14, of Beit Hanoun, Gaza, killed by IDF shelling while in his grandfather’s house.

Somaya Samir Ata Oukal, 13, of Jabalya, Gaza, died of wounds sustained July 26 from IDF shelling which also killed her mother and two sisters.

3
August 2006

Anis Salem Jadua abu-Awad, 11, of Rafah, Gaza, killed in an IDF airstrike.

4
August 2006

Shahed Saleh Omar al-Sheikh Eid, 3 days, of Rafah, Gaza, killed by IDF shelling.

5
August 2006

Ammar Raja al-Natour, 17, of Rafah, Gaza, killed, with his sister, by an IDF missile fired from a drone while fleeing shelling.

Kifah Raja al-Natour, 15, of Rafah, Gaza, killed, with her brother, by an IDF missile fired from a drone while fleeing shelling.

Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rumailat, 13, of Rafah, Gaza, killed by an IDF missile fired from a drone to his back and shoulder.

9
August 2006

Raja Salam abu-Shaban, 3, of Gaza City, killed by an IDF missile.

Ahmad Hussein Muhammad al-Mishal, 16, of Shati refugee camp, Gaza, killed by IDF helicopter fire while working in an orchard.

14
August 2006

Ahmad Yousef Abed Ashour, 13, of Beit Hanoun, Gaza, killed by an IDF missile while in a crowd that gathered near the site of an abandoned Palestinian homemade rocket launcher.

23
August 2006

Mustafa Hassan Ahmad Monsur, 17, of Rafah, Gaza, killed by IDF gunfire during clashes at the Gaza perimeter fence.

26
August 2006

Muntasser Suleiman Muhammad Akka, 15, of Askar refugee camp, killed by IDF gunfire to his back while throwing stones at IDF bulldozers destroying a building in Nablus.

29
August 2006

Muhammad Abdullah Suleiman al-Ziq, 14, of Gaza City, killed by an IDF missile fired from a drone.

30
August 2006

Nidal Abdul Aziz al-Dahdouh, 14, of Gaza City, killed by IDF sniper fire.

Hussam Ahmad Muhammad al-Sarsawi, 12, of Gaza City, died of wounds sustained Aug. 27 from IDF tank fire.




link: http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html

.
.

[Behind the Aegis]

65. Very, very few?

But don't those Palestinian children killed in Palestinian violence count? Why aren't they included in these numbers? And, yes there are some included in this number that were involved in hostilities. The killing of innocents is abhorrent, be they man, woman, or child, but just because someone is a child doesn't mean that they didn't participate in the violence. B'Tselem lists 19 individuals under the age of 17 killed in the same time period, of those six (6) were involved in the conflict. Two-thirds were innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is a tragedy, but what happens when these lists get posted is that often it is not just innocents who are listed. The other issue is that it is raw numbers. I don't think anyone questions that more Palestinians have been killed since the First Intifada, and the numbers show this. However, the picture really starts to change when the numbers of those actually fighting and those who were innocent start to get set apart and one starts to look at the percentages.

[Douglas Carpenter]

78. it would be very, very nice if the mainstream American media would humanize

Palestinian child victims as much as they do adult Israeli army victims of violence.

That would be very, very nice.

[UndertheOcean]

52. Thank you !

n/t

[pelsar]

68. a nice read....

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University of Connecticut

link: http://anacreon.clas.uconn.edu/~pressman/history.pdf

its written clear and what appears to be a very good summation of the events within their "time zones"

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. actually my mistake -- that was "a brief history" by Dr. Pressman - the same author

by mistake I posted above "A brief History of the Israel/Palestine Conflict" by Dr. Jeremy Pressman - the same author

here is the link for "Vision of Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba" by Professor Jeremy Pressman:

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/pressman.pdf

[Douglas Carpenter]

75. error-self - delete

[Douglas Carpenter]

76. my mistake on the link for "Vision of Collision" by Jeremy Pressman

by mistake I posted above "A brief History of the Israel/Palestine Conflict" by Dr. Jeremy Pressman - the same author

here is the link for "Vision of Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba" by Professor Jeremy Pressman:

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/pressman.pdf

[The Magistrate]

82. In Regard To Your No. 16, Mr. Carpenter: A Point On 'Transfer' Circa 1937

The proposal for 'transfer' refered to in the note you cite by Mr. Ben-Gurion was an element of the Peel Commission's partition plan, and not an independent proposal of the Zionist leader's. 'Transfer' of populations was not, at that time, viewed as a wrong, but to the contrary, as a useful tool of statecraft for securing long term peace between hostile peoples living cheek to jowl. The modern precendent was the Treaty of Lusanne, endorsed by the League of Nations, seperating Greeks and Turks at the conclusion of the bitter war between them known variously as the Greco-Turkish War and Turkish War of Independence, concluded in 1923, that effectively brought to an end war between thse countries, though certainly not hostility between them, which continues to the present day. The anachronism of reading modern attitudes back into earlier times is not a good way to press argument, though unfortunately it occurs often in this debate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. the point is nonetheless relevant Sir to establishing that Palestinian fears of

dispossession from their homeland were perfectly rational fears. The fact that the Peel commission recommended transfer could hardly have relieved those concerns. The fact that it had recently occured elsewhere in the world and was considered a legitimate tool by the great powers would have hardly relieved those concerns. And any understanding of factors that lead Palestinians to reject partitian must understand their very rational and legitimate concerns. And and any understanding of the massive dispossessions which occurred in 1948 has to understand this.

And the concept of transfer had already been articulated by significant Zionist leadership on other occasion and even earlier:

Please allow me to quote former Israeli Foreign Minister and Israeli historian Shlomo Ben-Ami from "Scars of War Wounds of Peace, the Israeli-Arab Tragedy", page 25-26

http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195181581/sr=1-1/qid=1166681762/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

"The idea of transfer of Arabs had a long pedigree in Zionist thought. Moral scruples hardly intervened in what was normally seen as a realistic and logical solution, a matter of expediency. Israel Zangvill, the founding father of the concept, advocated transfer as early as 1916. For as he said, ' if we wish to give a country to a people without a country, it is utter foolishness to allow it to be the country of two people...."

"The idea of transfer was not the intimate dream of only the activists and militants of the Zionist movement. A mass exodus of Arabs from Palestine was no great tragedy, according to Menachem Usishkink, a leader of the General Zionist. To him the message of the Arab Revolt was that coexistence was out of the question and it was now either the Arabs or the Jews, but not both. Even Aharon Zislong, a member of the extreme Left of the Zionist Labour movements, who during the 1948 war would go on record as being scandalized by the atrocities committed against the Arab population, saw no 'moral flaw' in transfer of the Arabs...But again, Ben Gurion's voice had always a special meaning and relevance. At a Zionist meeting in June 1938 he was as explicit as he could be. 'I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral.' But he also knew that transfer would be possible only in the midst of war, not in 'normal times.' What might be impossible in such times, he said 'is possible in revolutionary times.' The problem was, then, not moral, perhaps not even political,it was a function of timing, this meant war"

From page 44:

"The debate about whether or not the mass exodus of Palestinians was the result of a Zionist design or the inevitable concomitant of war could not ignore the ideological constructs that motivated the Zionist enterprise. The philosophy of transfer was not a marginal, esoteric article....These ideological constructs provided a legitimate environment for commanders in the field to encourage the eviction of the local population even when no precise order to that effect was issued by the political leaders. As early as February 1948, that is before the mass exodus had started but after he witnessed how Arabs had fled West Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion could not hide his excitement."

from page 42:

"The reality on the ground was at times far simpler and more cruel than what Ben-Gurion was ready to acknowledge. It was that of an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation, at at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred."


_______________

[The Magistrate]

85. Each Side, Sir, Had Reason To Fear the Other

The Peel Commission was empaneled to comment on, and propose solution to, the great outbreaks of Arab Nationalist violence against Englishmen and Jews in the middle 1930s. This is often given a closing date of 1937, but in fact continued well into 1939, albeit with the participation by then of some ruthless Zionist gun-men as well. Zionist sources tend to view the Peel report as virtually a whitewash of the Arab Nationalists and a repudiation of the directives of the Mandate. The comments by Mr. Ben-Gurion and others that are the bulk of what you cite were made against this backdrop of cantonal violence, in which no reasonable person could any longer have held much hope for peaceful co-existence.

It is also clear from the comments of Mr. Ben-Gurion you cite, as it is from calm analysis of the situation after the Second World War, that the best available means for the Arab Palestinians to have balked the larger plans of the Zionist leadeship was peaceable acceptance of the '47 Partition. Mr. Ben-Gurion would not have commenced a war of expansion at that time; he was far too shrewd a judge of what was politically possible, and he would have directed the armed forces at his disposal to suppress the Sternists if they tried to provoke war. What he did hope for, he knew could only be accomplished if the other side were clearly and cleanly perceived to have started the episode of conflict. His enemies were kind enough to oblige him, and competent leadership would never have done so.

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. in purely calculating terms I concede your point Sir

I suspect the Palestinians overestimated the support they would receive from the rest of the Arab world. And from accounts of Palestinians who remember well the day the news of the U.N. partition was announced, it seems that they just could not believe it was really happening.

Would another indigenous people have reacted differently?

Well back in 1922 Ze'ev Jabotinsky (the philosophic founder of the Israeli right) wrote "Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlers. This is how the Arabs will behave and go on behaving as long as they possess a gleam of hope that they can prevent Palestine from becoming the Land of Israel." from page 13 of "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World" by Israeli historian Avi Shlaim of Oxford University -- Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Wall-Israel-Arab-World/dp/0393321126/ref=sr_1_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177913375&sr=1-1

And again I will rely on a quote from David Ben-Gurion as quoted in "The Jewish Paradox" by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World Jewish Congress:

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but 2000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?"
______

Obviously the vast majority of Palestinians do now and have for at least the past couple of decades accepted the reality. But I don't see where Palestinian reaction was fundamentally different than how almost any other people would have reacted under similar circumstances.

.

[The Magistrate]

87. Calculation, Sir, Is My Limit

Sound calculation is the duty of leaders directing a people or a government, and the responsibility of individuals directing their own affairs. Uncomfortable as it may be to see it stated flatly, the course of this conflict has rested on the simple fact that the Zionist leadership calculated well, and the Arab Nationalist leadership calculated very, very poorly, when it calculated at all. There really is, in life, no help for this, and no recourse from it. The most unfortunate aspect of the matter is that this surrender of the essential task of sound calculation continues to mark the leadership, and a great many of the people, of Arab Palestine. The continued exaltation of emotional satisfactions of 'resistance' and defiance in the service of pride dooms that people. There is only one reason to make peace with any enemy, and that is that it is in one's own best interest to do so. There are certainly situations where no peace is possible, where the enemy is a monstrous and murderous predator, but this is not one of those cases. Here, there is no good whatever to be got by means of the gun and the bomb, and additional harm suffered every moment they are grasped and not cast down.

[pelsar]

88. what i wonder about...

but what cant be answered...if the iraqi irregulars never came..if the egyptians, syrians etc didnt attack.....meaning it was just the arab palestinians that had to make their own decision to violently resist or not the upcoming jewish state...

if after the first few battles, when it would have been clear that they dont have a chance...if they would have continued...

i realize its an impossible question....

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. When would one guess the following paragraph about the Gaza was written?

"Economic conditions have deteriorated so dramatically that there is no formal economy any more. Hunger is now a growing problem. The family unit has been weakened; the classroom has been barred. Children of all ages are traumatized; parents no longer exist as such. Gaza is a very different place today than it was just two years ago when I first started working there. It is a society on the verge of imploding."

This was written in July of 1993 by Dr. Sara Roy of Harvard University who has lived, worked and researched in the Gaza much of the past 21 years. This article was originally published in The Women's Review of Books under the title, "Writing out of Crisis" then reprinted in Dr. Roy's book; Failing Peace: Gaza and and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict - Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Failing-Peace-Gaza-Palestinian-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0745322344/sr=11-1/qid=1164990855/ref=sr_11_1/102-8701952-4352901
_______________

The Gaza Problems are long term:

The Gaza Economy"
Palestine Center Information Brief No. 143 (02 October 2006)

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=169

"Dr. Sara Roy is a Professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. Dr. Roy has worked in the Gaza Strip and West Bank since 1985 conducting research primarily on the economic, social, and political development of the Gaza Strip and on U.S. foreign aid to the region. Dr. Roy has written extensively on the Palestinian economy, particularly in Gaza, and has documented its development over the last three decades."

"Overview: In one of many reports and accounts of economic life in the Gaza Strip that I have recently read, I was struck by a description of an old man standing on the beach in Gaza throwing his oranges into the sea. The description leapt out at me because it was this very same scene I myself witnessed some 21 years ago during my very first visit to the territory. It was the summer of 1985 and I was taken on a tour of Gaza by a friend named Alya. As we drove along Gaza's coastal road I saw an elderly Palestinian man standing at the shoreline with some boxes of oranges next to him. I was puzzled by this and asked Alya to stop the car. One by one, the elderly Palestinian took an orange and threw it into the water. His was not an action of playfulness but of pain and regret. His movements were slow and labored as if the weight of each orange was more than he could bear. I asked my friend why he was doing this and she explained that he was prevented from exporting his oranges to Israel and rather than watch them rot in his orchards, the old man chose to cast them into the sea. I have never forgotten this scene and the impact it had on me.

Politics and Economics

Over two decades later, after peace agreements, economic protocols, road maps and disengagements, Gazans are still casting their oranges into the sea. Yet Gaza is no longer where I found it so long ago but someplace far worse and more dangerous. One year after Israel’s 2005 “disengagement” from the Strip, which was hailed by President Bush as a great opportunity for “the Palestinian people to build a modern economy that will lift millions out of poverty create the institutions and habits of liberty,”i a “Dubai on the Mediterranean”ii according to Thomas Friedman, Gaza is undergoing acute and debilitating economic declines marked by unprecedented levels of poverty, unemployment, loss of trade, and social deterioration especially with regard to the delivery of health and educational services.

The optimism that surrounded the disengagement was also reflected in the Palestinian Authority’s plan for reviving Gaza’s economy known as the Gaza Strip Economic Development Strategy, published soon after the disengagement was completed.iii This document, less a development plan than an articulation of objectives, had, among its primary goals “chieving stability, contiguity and control over land to support the Palestinian economy,” and “dopting effective economic policies to enable the rehabilitation of the Palestinian economy to achieve comprehensive development.”iv

Needless to say the Authority has not been able to realize its objectives given the exigencies imposed. However, it is important to point out that even in the absence of many constraints, rational planning of the sort described in the Authority’s plan is simply futile in an environment that is itself so irrational, typified by increasingly acute unpredictability, vulnerability and dependency, themselves resulting from a continued and unchanged occupation. This is not a new problem but an old one that requires a new approach that argues that as long as the political environment remains unchanged (or worsened), economic development is precluded and economic planning should focus on areas less vulnerable to external pressure (e.g. labor force training, institutional development). Otherwise, planning becomes nothing more than a theoretical and increasingly abstract exercise that promises few if any meaningful results. In this context, international aid can play a critical role in helping people survive but with little if any structural impact on the economy. "

link to full article:

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=169

.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. Nine Israeli human rights organizations

issued an unprecedented joint call to the international community to ensure human rights in the Gaza Strip. The statement comes in light of the dire humanitarian situation there:

link:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp

Some 80% of the population is extremely poor, living on less than $2 a day. A majority of the population is dependant on food aid from international donors.

In the past four months, the Israeli military has killed over 300 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Over half of those killed were unarmed civilians who did not participate in the fighting. Among the dead, 61 were children.

About 70% of Gaza 's potential workforce is out of work or without pay.

On 28 June, Israel bombed Gaza ' s only independent power station, which produced 43% of the electricity needed by the residents in Gaza . Since then, most of the population has electricity between 6 and 8 hours each day, with disastrous consequences on water supply, sewage treatment, food storage, hospital functioning and public health.

The Gaza Strip is almost entirely sealed off from the outside world, with virtually no way for Palestinians to get in or out. Exports have been reduced to a trickle; imports are limited to essential humanitarian supplies.
Israel cannot shirk its responsibility for this growing crisis. Even after its Disengagement in 2005, Israel continues to hold decisive control over central elements of Palestinian life in the Gaza Strip:

Israel continues to maintain complete control over the air space and territorial waters.

Israel continues to control the joint Gaza Strip-West Bank population registry , preventing relocation between the West Bank and Gaza , and family unification.

Israel controls all movement in and out of Gaza , with exclusive control over all crossing points between Gaza and Israel , and the ability to shut down the Rafah crossing to Egypt .

Israeli ground troops conduct frequent military operations inside Gaza .
Israel continues to exercise almost complete control over imports and exports from the Gaza Strip.

Israel controls most elements of the taxation system of the Gaza Strip, and since February has withheld tax monies legally owed to the PA, and amounting to half of the to tal PA budget.
The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip creates a strong case for the claim that Israel 's occupation of the Gaza Strip continues, along with an obligation to ensure the welfare of the civilian population. Regardless of the legal definition of the Gaza Strip, Israel bears legal obligations regarding those spheres that it continues to control. Israel has the right to defend itself. However, all military measures taken by Israel must respect the provisions of international humanitarian law.

The following Israeli human rights organizations call on the international community to ensure that Israel respects the basic human rights of residents of the Gaza Strip, and that all parties respect international humanitarian law:

B'Tselem: the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories * Association for Civil Rights in the Israel *Amnesty International–Israel Section * Bimkom: Planners for Planning Rights * HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual * Gisha: Center for the Legal Protection of Freedom of Movement * Physicians for Human Rights-Israel * Public Committee Against Torture in Israel * Rabbis for Human Rights "

link:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp


.

[bemildred]

12. Mogadishu, Grozny, Port-au-Prince, Kabul, Baghdad, Medellin,Soweto.

The Balkans seem to be recovering somewhat.

Sounds like lots of places, with some local flavor of course. You let the West Bank go this way and you will be almost surrounded by it.

[bemildred]

15. Wasn't this the whole point of boycotting Hamas?

Cutting off the funding and refusing to deal with them?
To make sure they could not govern?
So what is this but the absence of any effective government?
Isn't this the success of that policy?

[azurnoir]

23. That is what I wanted to say

but I was trying to refrain from statements that were accusatory of any party(s), perhaps too much so.

[bemildred]

25. It's not accusatory.

It was stated pretty baldly at the time the policy was put in place that the object was to prevent Hamas from being able to govern, and to show the Palestinians the error that it was to vote for them. In fact I refrained from using certain quotes and things to avoid being inflammatory.

[azurnoir]

31. True but was this result

the wholesale lawlessness an anticipated outcome?

[bemildred]

32. What else would you get?

I mean I see your point, that this might not be forseen, but as I pointed out in my first post, it's not unusual at all, there are plenty of similar examples. There was a deliberate policy put in place, of boycott and sequestration of funds, with the expressed intent of preventing the newly elected Palestinian government from being able to govern effectively. This story seems to show that that policy has been very effective, and this sort of gang/tribal/whatever activity is what you get when broader government fails. People left to their own devices will form groups and consult their own interests. What would you do? If you pursue a policy of "divide and rule", you wind up with divisions if you are successful. If you argue that it was not forseen, then it seems to me that you are arguing that the the Israeli policy makers are stupid or ignorant. That is certainly possible, given some of the other things that have happened recently.

It is worth remembering that the warlords and gangs that run Somalia now are quite happy without any government, and are resisting bitterly the imposition from outside of a government and the resulting restrictions on their freedom of action. It isn't going to be cheap or easy to reverse this. Well armed urban irregular forces like this can make guerilla war out in the countryside look like patty-cake.

[msmcghee]

35. I especially liked this part . .

There was a deliberate policy put in place, of boycott and sequestration of funds, with the expressed intent of preventing the newly elected Palestinian government from being able to govern effectively.

I didn't save it though because those kinds of silly statements are all over this forum.

Let's see. Because the EU and the US does not give support and financial means to Hamas - the gang that holds the stated mission of destroying the state of Israel and that upon taking power refused to recognize Israel or abide by any past agreements with Israel - it is now our "expressed intent" to prevent them from governing effectively.

This despite Abbas and other orgs in Palestinian receiving record amounts of financial aid from the US and the EU this year.

And with all that aid, why are we not hearing about the new schools and hospitals being built or the sewage treatment plants getting renovated, power stations repaired and upgraded? Oh that's right. They are too busy killing each other - while trying to send bombers and rockets into Israel.

I should have added to my twisted words post,

Not financing terrorism means - "sabotaging Palestinian government"

[bemildred]

37. It is the most elementary rule when one people seeks to rule over another

that the subject people will not be allowed to form their own political institutions, unless such institutions accept their subject position. It has been the policy of the Israeli state since it's inception, in fact the struggle goes back much farther than that, to undemine and thwart independent Palestinian/Arab political institutions, that is what politics is all about isn't it? Who's the boss? It's not like it's a new idea, it's old as the hills. Any such political entities are an existential threat to the Israeli state, especially if they are strong and effective.

[msmcghee]

39. Actually, you are as wrong as you could be.

As pelsar has explained repeatedly, the great majority of Israelis would like to see nothing more than a strong effective government in Palestine. That is the first requirement for peace. Somebody has to be able to enforce it.

The idea that Israel would prefer chaos, anarchy and armed factions killing each in between terror attacks against Israel is amazing. The idea that any peaceful state wants to see chaos on its border is absurd - though perhaps useful for making other silly assertions - such as,

It has been the policy of the Israeli state since it's inception, in fact the struggle goes back much farther than that, to undermine and thwart independent Palestinian/Arab political institutions, that is what politics is all about isn't it?

Of course, Israel will try to obstruct any government in the world that is out to destroy Israel - not just Palestine. If the Palestinians ever come up with one you'll see an immediate transformation in attitudes toward the Palestinians - throughout the region and the world.

Israel and the rest of the free world would like nothing more.

[bemildred]

40. Subservient is the key word there.

I assume you are not trying to say that an effective and militant Hamas led government is what the Israeli government wants more than anything. It is true that it seems to be dawning on some people now that the result is not desirable.

[msmcghee]

42. Subservient is not necessary.

Peaceful is.

[bemildred]

45. That seems like the same thing.

If there were no disagreements between the two peoples, you could have autonomous and peaceful. When there are disputed matters, as here, if they are independent, there will be conflict. Even as it is, there is conflict. Demanding "peaceful" is equivalent to requiring that they accept an Israeli dictated resolution to the issues between the two peoples, something they apparently aren't willing to do yet.

[msmcghee]

50. Sorry to disrupt your narrative.

The US and Canada, two independent and powerful nations, disagree over softwood price supports and other NAFTA matters. So far I haven't seen any Canadian suicide bombers hitting Seattle.

Demanding "peaceful" is equivalent to requiring that they accept an Israeli dictated resolution to the issues between the two peoples, something they apparently aren't willing to do yet.

How can you possibly say that after Taba? Oh, I guess it was not Arafat who walked out.

I guess these make-believe stories are necessary to make the narrative work - Israel as the great colonialist war power in the ME.

How about, peaceful simply means don't attack Israel?

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. Arafat did NOT walk out of Taba..Israel ended the talks because of the election

these facts are not in dispute.

Here is the link to the European Union notes known as the Morantinos documents which all sides have confirmed to be a reliable record of what occured at Taba, Egypt in January 2001.

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

snip:"Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election."

snip:"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to European Union notes:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

.

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University of Connecticut

link: http://anacreon.clas.uconn.edu/~pressman/history.pdf

.

It should also be remembered that everyone expected Mr Sharon to win the election. And Mr. Sharon had already said that he would not accept any agreement reached by the outgoing government. Mr. Barak also distanced himself from the talks.

.

[msmcghee]

54. Arafat effectively ended the talks knowing . .

. . that the elections were coming and refusing to offer any suggestions or even ask questions. He was effectively not participating. I trust the word of Dennis Ross. He was there. Arafat got what he wanted. More war. More suffering for Palestinians.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. All sides have confirmed the European Union notes as being a reliable record

Arafat did not end the talks. Israel ended the talks because of the elections. The talks were making progress. The European Union notes have been confirmed by the Israeli and the Palestinian team as being an accurate record.

Dennis Ross is a popular speaker and enthusiastic supporter of AIPAC. He is not a neutral or dispassionate source. Wiki is certainly not a neutral or dispassionate source. The European Union notes are a neutral and dispassionate source and have been confirmed to be so by both the Israeli and Palestinian delegations:

link to European Union notes:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

.
Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University of Connecticut

link: http://anacreon.clas.uconn.edu/~pressman/history.pdf

.

It should also be remembered that everyone expected Mr Sharon to win the election. And Mr. Sharon had already said that he would not accept any agreement reached by the outgoing government. Mr. Barak also distanced himself from the talks.

.

[msmcghee]

57. I repeat for your benefit . .

Throughout most of the world, the failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer, though counter offers over specific details have been detailed by Israeli negotiators, and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began during the summit.<8><10> Clinton later stated "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." <3> Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.<4> Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan also criticized Arafat for not accepting the offer from Barak telling him that he would never get a better offer. In 2004 two books by American participants at the summit were published that placed the blame for the failure of the summit on Arafat, The Missing Peace by longtime US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross and My Life by President Clinton.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. okay if one does not want to believe the official record that all sides confirm to be reliable..fine

link to European Union notes which have been confirmed by all sides as being a reliable record -

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

"The "Moratinos Document," as it is called by the Taba negotiators, is a summary of the opening stages of negotiations that took place in good faith. The main difference between Taba and Camp David is that in the United States, Israel presented its offers, but the Palestinians merely responded with criticism. At the Egyptian resort of Taba, however, the Palestinian delegation also presented its proposals. Ideas were exchanged and plans and even maps were presented. Based on the progress achieved between Camp David and Taba, it is possible that the next meeting between Barak's and Arafat's envoys, or perhaps the one after that, would have ended in a peace agreement."

"Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election. At the time, the two sides were discussing arranging a Barak-Arafat meeting in an effort to close the gaps; they had also discussed continuing the talks the day after the election, independent of the outcome. Beilin himself continues to talk with the Palestinians about ways to solve the various issues that remain open. From his perspective, the basis for negotiations was, and remains, the proposals made by former U.S. president Bill Clinton."

link to the European Union notes which have been confirmed by the Israeli and Palestinian delegation and being an accurate record of what happened at Taba in January 2001:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

.
Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University of Connecticut

link: http://anacreon.clas.uconn.edu/~pressman/history.pdf

.

[msmcghee]

59. The EU is a big organization.

To believe that account the majority of observers are not only wrong - the people who were there would have to be lying.

Also, Dennis Ross and Bill Clinton and the Israelis that were there must be lying. Go ahead and believe that if you want to. This has been hashed out endlessly.

Clinton and Ross wanted an agreement. Clinton wanted his legacy. He had no reason to place his legacy as less important than lying about Arafat - which is what you are suggesting.

Clinton and Ross have no reason to lie and place the blame on the wrong party as far as I can see. If Israel was obstructing the negotiations I have no doubt Clinton would have said so. You go ahead and believe the story that makes you feel good and makes Arafat an honest negotiator and Clinton a liar.

[msmcghee]

60. The DU server is having a senior moment. Self delete.

[msmcghee]

55. I also trust Wiki . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Reasons for impasse

Both sides blamed the other for the failure of the talks: the Palestinians claiming they were not offered enough, and the Israelis claiming that they could not reasonably offer more. According to The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, "most of the criticism for failure was leveled at Arafat."<8> Ehud Barak offered Arafat an approximate 91% (see section on territory) of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees would receive a compensation package from the Israeli government. But before any gradual Israeli withdrawal, all Palestinian terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Arafat, however, refused. The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would crush all Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation."<9>

Throughout most of the world, the failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer, though counter offers over specific details have been detailed by Israeli negotiators, and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began during the summit.<8><10> Clinton later stated "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." <3> Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.<4> Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan also criticized Arafat for not accepting the offer from Barak telling him that he would never get a better offer. In 2004 two books by American participants at the summit were published that placed the blame for the failure of the summit on Arafat, The Missing Peace by longtime US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross and My Life by President Clinton.

<snip>

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. Mr. Sharon made it absolutely clear that he would not honor any agreement reached at Taba

Israelis, Palestinians make final push before Israeli election
January 27, 2001
Web posted at: 11:38 a.m. EST (1638 GMT) - link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

"Barak's challenger for the prime minister's post, hard-line, hawkish Likud party chairman Ariel Sharon -- who holds a commanding lead in the polls -- has said he would not honor any agreement worked out between Barak's negotiators and the Palestinians. "

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes."
_________________

Sharon calls peace talks a campaign ploy by Barak
Likud leader says he won't comply with latest agreements
January 28, 2001
Web posted at: 1:42 p.m. EST (1842 GMT) link: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/28/mideast.01/index.html

"Sharon leads Barak by 16 to 20 percentage points in opinion polls that have changed little in recent weeks."
_________


and this other CNN archived report from January 2001:

Mideast negotiators want to continue talks after Israeli elections
'Closer than ever,' negotiators say as Taba talks end
January 27, 2001
Web posted at: 6:08 p.m. EST (2308 GMT)- link:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.02/index.html

"TABA, Egypt (CNN) -- Israeli and Palestinian negotiators ended six days of talks on Saturday without an accord ending the conflict between them, but with hopes that they could complete their negotiations after next month's Israeli election.

Spokesmen for both sides said they had come close to reaching an agreement, and held out hope that what they had achieved would serve as the foundation for a future accord.

"We can say we have the basis for an agreement, which can be implemented and achieved after the elections in Israel," Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami told reporters at a news conference with Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qorei.

"We've never been so close to an agreement," he said."
___________

And again the European Union notes which both the Israeli delegation and the Palestinian delegation confirm to be an accurate record of what transpired at Taba, Egypt in January 2001:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

(Yossi) "Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election"

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

.

[bemildred]

38. I didn't make it up:

Gaza on brink of implosion as aid cut-off starts to bite

---

Israel's policy was summed up by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, earlier this year. 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,' he said. The hunger pangs are supposed to encourage the Palestinians to force Hamas to change its attitude towards Israel or force Hamas out of government.

But it is not certain that the Palestinian reality will conform to the Israeli theory. Even if the wage bill is finally paid - with Russia's help - analysts believe it will only provide a short respite until the same problem arises next month.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1754847,00.html

[msmcghee]

41. Like in any demcracy with many parties and spokesman and . .

. . many opinions you can find an opinion supporting whatever you want. So one of Olmert's advisors was talking off the cuff. Show me a policy statement and it might hold water.

And even if true - it doesn't negate what I said. Israel should disrupt ant government that's out to kill Israelis. I don't blame them a bit. Israel has a right to do whatever it can to defend its people. If putting indirect pressure on Hamas will achieve that goal then I'd say it's up to Israel to make that decision.

You constantly claim that the Palestinians have a right to be in a state of war with Israel. Well, OK then, don't complain when Israel makes life difficult for the people they are at war with.

[bemildred]

43. You are confused about what I am saying.

I'm not saying that Israel should not have tried to undermine Hamas, I'm saying the current situation is the RESULT of Israel doing that.

[pelsar]

46. acutally some palestinians actually blame themselves....

They have become like us," one Fatah activist says. "They fight over everything: money, positions, ranks, who will be director general and who will be captain in the offices and the security mechanisms that they are responsible for. There is no longer one leader who decides everything. The authority of Khaled Meshal, the head of the political bureau, has been badly eroded since the Mecca agreement. Their message to the Palestinian people is not uniform; all of a sudden, they sound like a supermarket of different ideas, just like Fatah was at one stage: Mahmoud al-Zahar speaks about destroying Israel, while Haniyeh broadcasts a moderate message. The military wing does whatever it wants."

from the article

not much more to add...and it destroys the "israel did this to us" arguement......they're doing it to themselves and perhaps they have to hit rock bottom before realizing that its up to them to pick themselves up and tell the "excuse makers" to find some other suckers to play the victim game.

[bemildred]

47. Oh, I'm sure some of them aren't behaving well.

I wasn't intending to dispute that.

[bemildred]

48. Are you asserting that Israeli policy has not been effective?

Because I don't see how you can say this situation is not partly the doing of that policy unless you also say the policy didn't work as it was supposed to to undermine Hamas' ability to govern.

[pelsar]

49. the heart of the problem...

is not hamas ability to govern....fatah was not going to give up its powerbase so easily to hamas, whether or not hamas was recognized by the world. The heart of the problem is that the clans are now making their move to protect and expand their turf....and there is nobody to stop them.

Hamas did not have the power when elected then and they dont now...and they wouldnt even if they had more money.

[bemildred]

89. Well then you have four choices:

1.) The Israeli government did not forsee this - they are incompetent, and your intelligence apparatus is ineffective. I find that ridiculous, but opinions will vary.

2.) It was forseen and encouraged as a matter of policy, my original point in this sub-thread. As an aside, this option still leaves you with idiots running your government, but at least you get points for consistency and accomplishing what you set out to do.

3.) It was forseen and ignored. Again not an encouraging view of your government and intelligence apparatus. Considering that the stated object was to prevent the Hamas led government from governing, this is hard to support. You can argue that they did not forsee the current situation, the Somalia-ization of Gaza, which leads back to option #1, and seems hard to support on the facts.

4.) It was forseen, and the government wanted to try to prevent or ameliorate it, but did exactly the wrong thing to accomplish that, again ridiculous, although perhaps not as ridiculous as one could wish; and again not a pretty view of the government.

Hopefully, this will explain why I favor option #2. You, of course, may take your pick.

[The Magistrate]

90. Some Tuning Or Blending May Be Required Here, My Friend

The victory of Hamas came as something of a surprise, even a shock. Thus, there must have been an improvisational note to the policies embarked on in response to the event. Planning was for a degree of co-operation with the Fatah, to make the withdrawl a sort of show-piece success, not for the event that actually occured. Domestic political considerations, including popular Israeli dismay at the spectacle of Hamas triumphant, must have weighed heavily. Not the best circumstances for a government in a new party's hands, led by a stand-in rather than the inspirational figure around whom it had coalesced in the first place, to be making decisions with long term implications for a very complex situation.

My guess would be that what was undertaken was done with the hope that matters could be got back to the originally anticipated track, and fairly quickly. Wishful thinking, certainly, but pretty common, in people and governments, in the face of an unexpected disappointment that presents a different future than had been anticipated. The temptation will alweays be to minimize the real degree of the upset, and the view that what was anticipated was the natural course, to which things ought to revert soon enough, will be clung to. Prevent Hamas from delivering, and the people will return to Fatah, would have been the natural calculation in the situation.

The matter is compounded, of course, by the unfortunate fact that Hamas is unalterably hostile to Israel, and its consolidation of ruling power in Gaza would be no improvement, from the Israeli point of view, to the present chaos. There was some early hope that actual authority might temper the organization, but that faded fast, dimming quickly to a point where no government could have banked on it in setting policy.

[bemildred]

91. So you favor option #1, more or less.

Not unreasonable, but no reason for optimism about the quality or cold-eyed realism of ones leaders. There were plenty of people, as I remember, saying various forms of the idea that Israeli policy was strengthening Hamas vis-a-vis Fatah, it was not some stroke from the blue.

Edit: if you follow the idea that the present situation is not worse than a successful Hamas led government, we are back at my original view in this sub-thread, in terms of motives of Israeli policy.

I would be inclined to dispute that that is so. A successful Hamas-led government has the same incentive as any other government to impose and maintain order, within and without. Governance is first and foremost about control, about the expectation of being obeyed.

[The Magistrate]

92. More A Blend Of Nos. 1 And 2, Sir, With Pinches Of The Others As Well

How often are things attempted that work out a bit differently than was intended?

While you are certainly correct that a successful Hamas led government would by definition have had to maintain order, and thus the present chaos would not exist if there were such a thing, order is not maintained in isolation from other considerations, and a government regarded with complete hostility by Hamas must take other items than order alone into account. Chief among these is to what use Hamas would turn the order it maintained. There is no reason to suppose, for instance, that from a Gaza kept in order by Hamas, fewer rockets would take flight into Israel than do at present, or fewer operations against Israeli border posts be attempted. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Hamas would not use its authority, and maintainance of order, to cripple its opposition within Gaza, under guise of suppressing 'collaborators', making their victory another example of the old "one man, one vote, once' model. Hamas is not, after all, an assemblage of Jeffersonians, but rather a body convinced it does the work set for it by the divine, and that the directions of the divinity trump any other consideration, including the will of the people should that differ from the diety's prescribed course.

It is also possible that chaos is an inevitability, given the actual balance of hostile armed factions in Gaza, and Arab Palestine generally. It seems to me an open question whether either of the leading factions, even with control of some semblance of state apparatus in its hands, could impose itself on the other, should it resist the imposition, by any means short of a full-bore civil war, the outcome of which would be difficult to foresee. If this is the case, then the only long term prospect for order must include a passage of bloody chaos indeed, and nothing can really be known, or done, till the ordeal is undergone and over.

"Battle creates clarity."

[bemildred]

93. Well, it is true that speaking of governments as though they had will and purpose

like individuals will get you into a confused state every time.

I don't think I will get into the issue of what the Hamas-led government might have done, since no agreement seems likely. I do think it is an error to portray them as enraged loons, although it is certainly true that they were not likely to be subservient to Israeli wishes, and that is certainly enough, from an Israeli-government point of view, to justify opposing them. I am simply saying that it is reasonable to think that they would have pursued their own interests, like anyone else, and that that offered an avenue to avoid the chaos being deplored in the OP, which now appears to be lost.

[The Magistrate]

94. Fair Enough, My Friend

The rub, of course, would be in determining from the outside what they considered their best interests, and we will all have had experience of watching people act energetically against what seemed to others to be their own best interests.

[bemildred]

95. That seems to be sort of a fad lately Sir.

I regret, once again, that Ms Tuchman is not with us to comment on the current "March of Folly".

[The Magistrate]

96. Someone Here, Sir, Whose Name Escapes My Recollection

Used to have a signature that ran approximately: "History doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes it smacks you upside the head and yells, 'Weren't you listening?'"

[pelsar]

97. i think your basic assumption is wrong...

it appears that with your choices is the idea that israel has/had the power to influence the actions in gaza.....i disagree. Israel in fact has actually very little influence on the political events. What ever action israel does creates another action on the side of the palestinians, what the action will be, when it involves politics is always an unknown.

a few examples: Lebanon, israel tried to get a PM of their liking...killed
Israel helped create hamas
israels actions made hizballa

____

it would be reasonable to assume that we for saw the "somailiaztion" of gaza, at the sametime there was little we could do about it....the only answer to that is occupation......and that proved to costly.

The real decision was a matter of sacrificing gaza for national unity. Us liberals are all for leaving the westbank.....but gaza has given us a clear picture of what that means....kassams on our cities, so from a national unity point of view, its was a great success.

On the other hand, had the Palestinians made something out of gaza, that too would have been a success, since most israelis do want to leave the westbank and that would have been quite the encouragement to do so, and that is the majority. Leaving gaza was a rare but smart move on the govts part. It left it entirely up to the palestinians to decide the near future and whatever they decide from an israeli point of view, it will have the majority with them.

[bemildred]

98. Well, if it doesn't matter what you do, you might as well do what I say.

You had Kassams before you left Gaza, you have Kassams after you left Gaza. Therefore the Kassams have nothing in particular to do with whether you are in Gaza or not. Leaving was, as you say, a practical decision, the abandonment of a failed policy, it didn't really have much to do with the Kassams.

It seems clear your government felt it could undermine the Palestinian government by boycott and witholding of funds, and my own government was fully on board with it too. If you want to assert they are both collections of fools I won't argue with you.

The Winograd commission and I both agree with you that short term thinking and an undue emphasis on expediency rather that principle are part of the problem. It's not that I expect you to fall in love with Hamas, or that they will fall in love with you. There is no neat and simple solution, you are right about that. But at least if you have a legitimate and functioning Palestinian government, there is someone to talk to, someone to deal with. Being enemies doesn't mean you can't make deals, or that you can't expect deals to be kept, if it's in their interest to keep them. You have plenty of leverage, food, money, jobs, cooperation, your military, tremendous leverage really, but it's not on the table. It's always first do everything I want and then I will consider doing something for you. As it is, there is nobody to talk to if you want to negotiate the return of detainees for example, just this endless stream of media bullshit and emperor wannabes saying that something good is going to happen any day now.

Sorry, I don't mean to rant.

[pelsar]

99. your assertion...

If you want to assert they are both collections of fools I won't argue with you.

____

now how can i possibly argue with that?

[bemildred]

100. Indeed, always a pleasure when we can agree. nt

[Shaktimaan]

61. I disagree that the strife in Gaza is due to the halt in aid to Hamas.

Reading the OP it appears that enough money exists to pay for core services. Sure, the teachers and civil administrators have not been paid in months, but Hamas and Fatah are both running their security apparatus without a hitch. I actually read in another article a few weeks ago that jobs in Hamas' security detail are sought after as it is one of the only organizations around that always pay salaries on time. This is all in addition to the normal police force, which remains undiminished. So it's not as if they would have more police if their aid was restored. There's more than enough partisan security goons and fully equipped police to maintain order, if they could be so persuaded.

I would consider your idea as a possibility if the violence was due to people fighting over limited supplies or food, or something else related to the sanctions. But it appears that there are two main causes for the violence. The first is the political battle raging between Fatah and Hamas. That's obviously all about seizing political power, (and differing ideology, I'd imagine.) The second, according to the OP, is blood feuds, also an example of fighting that's unrelated to the sanctions.

The OP gives a single reason for the lack of law enforcement. Fear of retribution. Police can't arrest anyone too connected or they will be attacked themselves. And that's just referring to civilians. Lord knows they can't enforce any law pertaining to the private security details of Hamas or Fatah. Actually, does anyone else find it troubling that these private armies even exist? (Or that they are the only people being paid? With aid money?) What was described is basically a complete collapse of the law enforcement and judicial structures of Gaza. While it appears impossibly coincidental that this collapse happened directly after the sanctions, you have to remember that the sanctions were imposed right after Hamas took office. And the violence we are seeing is much more indicative of fragmented/weak/violent governing than it is of economic restrictions. When have sanctions provoked a similar collapse of law and order elsewhere?

If the Palestinians can find 5000+ dollars to pay for every salvo of Qassams fired (do you know how many of those things are fired?!) then lack of cash is not their primary problem. It is A problem, sure. I'd even say it's a huge problem. Far huger, however, is the Palestinians lack of strong, capable leadership. A Martin Luther King or a Thomas Jefferson is what they really need. They would be better off with a single Ben Gurion and a soapbox than all the aid in, well... UNRWA.

[pelsar]

67. the far more interesting question...

of which i find little info: what do the westbankers think/believe when looking at Gaza. Israels constant raids keep the "gun toting" palestinians in hiding within the westbank, once let out, when israel leaves might lead to Gaza II....would they prefer "no israeli occupation' to the Gaza's version of "freedom'?

or as in years past: which was better: the secular shah? or religious Khomeini for the people of Iran? (first thing he did was string up the lefty/liberals)

same question for afgans...russian occupation of the fanatics of the taliban?

(an interesting question that i've posed here and never received an answer....)

[azurnoir]

69. Not easy questions

Iran I really would have to say the Shah, which is worse being oppressed for being too religious or being oppressed for not along with the political oppression, both rulers dealt harshly with dissenters and censor(ed) media, when you couple that with the hardships endured though the Iran/Iraq war the Shah gets prize.
In Afghanistan the Taliban is slightly better the Russians were brutal occupiers, I remember reading stories of them rounding up and executing entire villages, sometimes in the most horrible manors imaginable. I have not heard of the Taliban doing that, they tend to apply Sharia law in a brutal, Medieval way in particular were women and girls are concerned. So is it worse to possibly rounded up with your family, neighbors, friends and executed shoot if you were lucky, or live under a religious system applied in a way that keeps the entire country metaphorically "barefoot and pregnant".

[pelsar]

70. tough reading the "future"

"nation building" or modifying or whatever its called is pretty messy:

on iran..i prefer the secular dictator as opposed to the one with "god on his side"... However, the shahs over throwing was in essence a "people revolution, something in which normally we would regard as a good thing...except that the forces that joined together for his overthrow (religious fanatics and liberals) does go to show the weakness of opposites joining together in creation of single govt. (which is one reason why i always get disgusted when i see the left protesting with the religious).

Russias afganistan i guess is a "toss up" between evil and evil...so perhaps they're not that relevant here:

back to the I/P.....Gaza has shown the present inability to govern themselves, whether its a long term problem or not, obviously nobody knows, but with the UN leaving, the journalists leaving, anybody who does actual care about them, wont be there, it doesnt look good for them. Egypt is keeping their border closed, kassams on the entry points to israel is a sure way of keeping them closed as well.....

Its not so much as there are few real options for gazans, the other question is what are the real options for the palestinians in the westbank?

[azurnoir]

71. The future for the I/P is

unfortunately not that hard to read, things will continue as they have been for the last 60 years. Neither side will admit their own culpability in the situation- you state that the Palestinians present is their own fault but why for electing a PM who Israel did not approve of you yourself state that. The Palestinians on the need to use more self control they did stop the Kassam launches until the Jericho jail raid, when they began again leading to invasion. Israel does have a tendency to to act provokingly and then play victim when answered too, this is true of both sides, to be honest. To me as an outsider both sides act in a rather childish manner, taking pokes at one another and crying when they get smacked back, until BOTH sides are willing to take blame and stop pointing the finger at each and going it's all your fault nothing will change.

OK all that being said I want to give you a chance to take one at the US what is your take on Iraq, note that I myself do not believe for a moment Israel and /or AIPAC had anything to do with it, I think that invading Iraq and taking control of their oil was the purpose of the Bush presidency and was inevitable from the moment he got into office.

[pelsar]

72. the key to the I/P issue....

is not a matter of "tit for tat"...its a matter of each doing whats in their own self interests. Israel left gaza not because of any great empathy for the Palestinians. israel left because israeli public opinion said "leave"....and so it came to pass. and i think that it was good.

the palestinians have to "get their house in order" stop with the kassams and the suicide bombers not for any "peace dividend" or whatever, but because they are self destructive.....(internally and externally) Their first interest should be whats good for their own citizen lives....and i think thats where gaza failed and if there is no change in their own society that is where the westbank is headed....what we dont know is how long it will take to return to a lawful society after going down that slope. (Israel will leave the westbank when that too is in israels own self interests....looking at gaza however, having a chaotic warloards style govt in the westbank isnt good for us....nor probably for citizen palestinian, though this has not been stated.

iraq:
I did see iraq as dangerous...saddam attacked iran...millions dead, attacked kuwait, attacked israel...and was probably going to attack saudi arabia. I think the US went in to to protect the saudis and kuwait...not so much the people but the oil fields and the link to the US economy. I also think the US had little idea of what they were getting themselves into....from what i remember of that time, the israeli papers were full of: getting rid of saddam may be good for us, but what comes next is anybodys guess but it wont be a liberal democracy.

My opinion of protecting govts like saudi arabia is nothing less than protecting a pseudo nazi type regime. They are probably one of the most despicable regimes on earth today, next to iran. I dont think dictatorships have a "right" to exist, let alone theocratic ones, hence protecting the saudis in my mind is not reason to go to attack iraq.

What to do now?...i hate the idea of "just leaving iraq"....leaving the mess to themselves to clean up. Yet i dont see how the killing is now going to stop. The genie that has been let out of the bottle is far more than a internal matter, iran is well involved, with a regional conflct between them and the saudis warming up...and iraq is the battleground. I think the US has to get out.....though i hesitate to say when exactly

I would like to see the kurds having their own state...i think it would be a good stablizing force for the region and i think there is no reason why they shouldnt have their own independance.

[eagler]

73. Personally, any sympathy had for the Palestinians is gone.

They have no desire for peace and have no capacity for self government.

[Douglas Carpenter]

77. actually polls show by overwhelming majorities Palestinians have long wanted peace

link: http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/palestinian-poll-on-final-status-issues-borders-refugees-jerusalem-water-politics-democracy-20070304.html

"Among the various scenarios proposed for self-determination, 'one democratic state in historical Palestine for all its citizens without discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity, color, or sex (to be determined by a constitution and upon international safeguards and guarantees)' is the preferred scenario among the respondents (68 percent). However, only 16 percent support such a scenario and believe that it is feasible; 52 percent support it regardless of its feasibility.

- Almost an equal percentage support a two-state solution scenario (65 percent) where one is Palestinian and the other is Israeli (in reference to the 1988 Declaration of Independence and 242 UN Resolution. Indeed, it is the most realistic solution from the point of view of its supporters. Fifty-four percent of supporters believe that a two-state solution is feasible while 11 percent support this potential solution regardless of its feasibility.

- Sixty-eight percent of the opinion leaders do not support a potential scenario to establish 'An Islamic State on all lands of historic Palestine (Jews and Christians to be treated as minorities of non-Muslim subjects enjoying the protection of Muslim state.' Likewise, sixty-two percent of respondents believe that such a solution is not feasible. "

link: http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/palestinian-poll-on-final-status-issues-borders-refugees-jerusalem-water-politics-democracy-20070304.html
____________

I agree that there are not having a good go of things in the Gaza and there are a number of reasons for it:

Here is an interesting article by Dr. Sara Roy link:

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=169

"Dr. Sara Roy is a Professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. Dr. Roy has worked in the Gaza Strip and West Bank since 1985 conducting research primarily on the economic, social, and political development of the Gaza Strip and on U.S. foreign aid to the region. Dr. Roy has written extensively on the Palestinian economy, particularly in Gaza, and has documented its development over the last three decades."

------

Nine Israeli human rights organizations
issued an unprecedented joint call to the international community to ensure human rights in the Gaza Strip. The statement comes in light of the dire humanitarian situation there:

link:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp
_______________

some people blame the Palestinians for not accepting an agreement during talks at Camp David and Taba -- Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University of Connecticut

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/pressman.pdf

and here is a link to the European Union summary document regarding the Taba talks first published in Haaretz on February 14, 2002 -- Text: "Moratinos Document" - The peace that nearly was at Taba:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

.

[pelsar]

79. the call for human rights in gaza....

Nine Israeli human rights organizations
issued an unprecedented joint call to the international community to ensure human rights in the Gaza Strip. The statement comes in light of the dire humanitarian situation there:

....the main violaters today are palestenians...killing each other as well as trying to kill israelis for the $5,000. Not to mention the latest kassams landing near the exit points to israel-keren shalom (yes that really helps in the decisions to open them up)


the problem is that the UN is not skipping out of gaza as their own lives are now in danger....

as time goes on, the responsability, more and more for the "human rights violations goes from israel to the palestinians...and I'm afraid that soon or later your going to have to realise that its a palestinian problem to solve.....and the gang warfare in gaza today has nothing to do with israel..nor can israel do anything about it..nor should they. (I doubt you would want to see the IDF back in gaza....)

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. of course the situation in Gaza requires good Palestinian leadership

which have been lacking. I don't know one single Palestinian who would disagree with that for one second.

But all situations have to be also understood in their context. This did not happen over night. I'm not suggesting you are implying this, but there are those who would seek to imply that the Gaza situation is some kind of "proof" that Palestinians are such savage inferiors that they have no future as guardians of their own destiny. It doesn't take a whole lot of paranoia to understand what the agenda is of those who want to promote this notion and what their idea of a solution would be. In fact it does not take any paranoia at all. It is quite clear what their agenda is.

I absolutely agree that Palestinians need to "get their act together". Virtually every Palestinian would agree with that.

But situations did not develop over night. And the Gaza situation has long, long been far more desperate than the situation in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

[msmcghee]

81. I don't know anyone here who thinks that . .

. . " . . Palestinians are such savage inferiors that they have no future as guardians of their own destiny."

I would call that racism - except it would be a stupid racism (is there any other kind?) since Palestinians share the same genetics as all other Arabs from that region - and other Arabs seem to be able to "guard their own destiny. Saddam Hussein did it for several decades and guarded it very well - even while building a secular Arab state.

I think that statement was a diversion from your point - that Palestinians need leadership. I would put it differently. They have leaders. They need leaders who hold a different vision than the one they hold now. Their current leaders and the ones they've had for seventy years - have as their central vision for the future - the control of the land they consider to be historic Palestine - except for Jordan of course, which is already ruled by Arabs. They want Israel - and they want no Jews there - except for perhaps a small number of Jews subservient to Islam.

As long as that is their goal and their vision for the future, there will be no peace no matter how skilled their leadership.

The vision they need is one of Palestine living in peace with Israel - starting with negotiations to settle borders as per Res. 242. It's a very simple solution. It's the only solution. The only question is the same question that's been hanging there for seventy years - can they ever accept this reality - or is their culture now locked into its own death spiral?

All the rest is just BS and excuses to avoid that conclusion to the conflict for whatever ideological or political reasons feel best at the time. They have invested heavily for decades in creating a society formed around hatred of Jews and the state of Israel - instead of the prosperity of their own people.

As one would suspect, there is a heavy social price to pay for creating a society around hate - and generations of Palestinians will continue to pay that price until they figure it all out and decide that they want to change their society and its vision for the future. Until they demand a different life for themselves.

There is no other solution.

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. it is simply not true that Palestinian society is based on hate

nothing could be farther from the truth. And there is certainly no more animosity toward Jews among Palestinians than there is of Arabs among Israelis. Both animosities could fade away in time with a reasonable and just settlement.

The vast majority of Palestinians both in the diaspora and in their homeland have been more than willing to compromise and negotiate a settlement based on a sovereign, viable, contiguous and independent state based on UN resolution 242 and international law for a long, long time.

I hope people visit Palestine and meet Palestinian people and talk with them as equals. And they will see that there are few people in the whole world more kindly hearted and forgiving.

[Tom Joad]

101. Breaking the Siege of Gaza. A slow boat to Gaza

http://www.freegaza.org/index.html

We want to break the siege of Gaza. We want to raise international awareness about the prison-like closure of the Gaza Strip and pressure the international community to review its sanctions policy and end its support for continued Israeli occupation. We want to uphold Palestine's right to welcome internationals as visitors, human rights observers, humanitarian aid workers, journalists, or otherwise.

Who are we?

We are these human rights observers, aid workers, and journalists. We have years of experience volunteering in Gaza and the West Bank at the invitation of Palestinians. But now, because of the increasing stranglehold of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, many of us find it almost impossible to enter Gaza, and an increasing number have been refused entry to Israel and the West Bank as well. Despite the great need for our work, the Israeli Government will not allow us in to do it.


We are of all ages and backgrounds. Back home, we are teachers, medics, musicians, secretaries, parents, grandparents, lawyers, students, activists, actors, playwrites, politicians, singer-songwriters, web
designers, international training consultants, and even a former Hollywood film industry worker and an aviator. We are South African, Australian, American, English, Israeli, Palestinian, and more.

What are we going to do?

We've tried to enter Palestine by land. We've tried to arrive by air. Now we're getting serious. We're taking a ship.