There is hope in Gaza

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Miko Peled

Israel's assault on the people of Gaza is so horrendous that it will not soon be forgotten. This vicious attempt by Israel to destroy an entire nation has tipped the scales for good and Zionism will forever be remembered as a blemish in the history of the Jewish people. The people of Gaza, however, give us hope and they will forever be remembered for their courage and resilience during these trying times.

The people of Gaza, while being deprived of rights and resources, still find the inner strength and the belief in their destiny to send their children to school. There are close to 800,000 children living in Gaza; they make up more than half of the population. The mothers and fathers and teachers of Gaza are creating hope where others see none, and they are building a future where some would claim there is none. But the price of education in Gaza is dear as the number of children targeted by Israeli violence rises continuously.

In a previous article ("It's time to visit Gaza") I quoted from journalist Charles Glass' The Tribes Triumphant and I wish to do so again here. Glass, unlike CNN or any other news agency is not obsessed with violence but is impressed as we all should be by the children: "Thousands and thousands of children's feet padding the dusty paths between their mother's front doors and their schools ... Beautiful youngsters so innocent that they could laugh even in Gaza." One can only imagine the mothers preparing lunches for these children, and making sure their clothes are ready and clean as they send them off to school. But the road to school in Gaza is an uncertain one, and risk of death by Israeli death squads is imminent.

I was deeply moved by Ramzy Baroud's recent piece about his late father ("There are no checkpoints in heaven"). Clearly the man was head and shoulders above most people and clearly he recognized the need to defy the occupation and maintain his dignity as a man and as a Palestinian. He paid dearly for this, because there is nothing more threatening to Israel's occupation than a man who would defy its brutal force.

Ramzy's story is similar to that of another friend of mine who is also from Gaza and who was also prevented from visiting his dying father. This gentleman is a physician and is devoted to saving the lives of children. He is an inspiring man of deep religious conviction and optimism. When I visit Gaza, as I am determined to do before this year is out, I hope that they will be able to join me. In fact, I hope to be able to go with a delegation.

For over 60 years Gaza has proven itself to be an endless source of optimism and courage. Even with a population density that is among the highest in the world, and a lack of resources that seems hopeless, and even with a brutal occupation and severe restrictions that have been part of life for Gazans since the destruction of Palestine some 60 years ago, still Gazans fight on. Resistance to the occupation, education and steadfastness are only a few of the hallmarks of the people of this ancient land.

read on!
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9510.shtml

[hack89]

1. "An endless source of optimism and courage."?

as they sink further into the abyss? I question the basic premise of this article - if the world can ignore Darfur or the war in Congo (both catastrophes that dwarf Gaza in terms of human misery) then the world will find a way to ignore Gaza.

[azurnoir]

3. Wishful thinking?

Gaza will not be ignored, Israel won't let it be. Every news report of how the rockets and how the people of Sderot suffer "shock" from those rockets draws attention, and to more than just the rockets, every time Israel claims to have accidentally shot a journalist or killed an innocent family draws attention, each visit by Condi Rice to Israel on a supposed peace mission draws attention. Darfur gets ignored because it is located in backwaters of Africa and more because neither side has the means or at the very least in the case of the Janjaweed desire for the kind of media attention Israel draws to it self.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Vegasaurus]

5. I've noticed this too

the horrific conditions of genocide, population transfer, injustice, human rights abuses, etc, are all apparently much less important than what happens with Israel.

Of course it has to do with Jews.

There is no other reason that there is so much attention on this issue, because clearly people who care about genocides and tragedies should be up in arm about situations worldwide that are ten times worse.

[azurnoir]

10. See post #12 n/t

[azurnoir]

12. Seeing as how you

and the other "proIsrael" people are so aware and concerned about Darfur why do you not start one or at least request it.
Oh that's right Darfur is only a concern as a supposed deflection from the subject of this forum that being Israel/Palestine.

And as far your not very subtle accusation of antiSemitism as a motive it falls flat as usual, and once again you need to reminded that over use of that term as a cheap means of scoring a political point puts the term it self in danger of becoming meaningless.

BTW why is Darfur ignored? Outside of the reasons I gave in my post? Why was Rwanda, Sierra Leone, andLiberia to name a few ignored?

The fact is that many more both on this board that you so disdain, have relatives on one side or the other of the I/P conflict and a few of us have family members on both sides, even if we have not posted such.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[notfullofit]

7. I do believe the

only reason the people of Sderot suffer from "shock" and not death, is not for the want of trying by the militants to kill innocent civilians, but due to the innacuracy of the rockets.
Imagine the death toll if they hit the intended targets.

[hack89]

8. So the fact that the Janjaweed are Muslim is irrelevant?

In the UN the Muslim nations constantly decry the brutality of the Jews yet ignore the near genocide of Muslims by fellow Muslims. Why are they so silent?

Darfur is ignored because it points out the hypocrisies of the Muslim rulers.

[azurnoir]

11. Sir the UN has been the least "silent" of all n/t

[hack89]

14. The Arab League fought the UN tooth and nail on the issue of Darfur

because the Arab countries refuse to support a foreign intervention in Darfur. Look back to 2004 when the crisis was new and you see stories like this:

Hafez said UN intervention was necessary because the 22-member Arab League was unwilling to apply military and economic pressure against Sudan, a member state.

"The Arab League works in favour of Arab governments and not their people," he told IPS. "We saw this happen before in Iraq, and we're seeing it again in Sudan."

Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo this month opposed any form of sanctions against Sudan. They agreed to send observers to monitor a ceasefire agreement between the Sudanese government and rebels, but rejected outright "any threats of coercive military intervention in the region."

Dr. Gehad Auda, a political strategist at the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR) in Abu Dhabi says that by rejecting UN Resolution 1556 the Arab League has "lost its moral stance" on other issues.

"Arabs always condemn Israel because it rejects UN resolutions and its army collaborates with settlers who want to take lands from their lawful owners," he said. "Yet that is exactly what is going on in Sudan right now."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/0821aleague.htm

The Arab countries could have have saved hundred of thousands of lives but they did not.

[Vegasaurus]

15. Yes, the hypocrisy is mind boggling

Arab on Arab or Muslim on Muslim violence or genocide does not warrant any action from the Arab League (or much of the left).

It is only Israel, which gets the Arab League, and much of the world, all bent out of shape.

[azurnoir]

20. Yes I will agree

but not just that of the Arab league

[azurnoir]

24. The Arab League fought the UN tooth and nail?

or was it the part of the resolution that called for foreign military intervention? The resolution despite the supposed efforts of the Arab League passed in 2004 signed by Security Counsel all in all there were 13 votes for none against and 2 abstentions those being China and Pakistan. BTW just were is that intervention now, are you suggesting that the UN members who signed the resolution are so very intimidated by the Arab League that they are afraid or was it all just smoke and mirrors anyway the appearance of "doing something"

In the mean time though the Arab League adopted their own resolution-

Arab League Ministerial Council Adopts Resolution on Sudan August 8, 2004
Prompted by a call from the Sudanese president, the Arab League's Ministerial Committee convened a special session to deliberate the developments in Sudan's Darfur region. Delegations attending included: Prof. Alfa Omar Kunari, Proconsul of African Union; Hamed AlGhabed, African Union Special Envoy to Darfur; Ian Bronk, UN Sec. Gen. Special Envoy; and HE Haj Abubakr Tango, Foreign Minister of Nigeria representing President of the African Union, Pres. O. Obasanju.
The meeting issued a detailed statement and adopted several resolutions. Below are excerpts of those resolutions:
1. Expresses grave concern at the human tragedy facing the Darfur refugees and those who fled to neighboring Chad. Also it is alarmed by the level of violence against civilians and human rights violations practiced by all parties to the conflict, and by armed factions including the Janjawid.
2. Welcomes the measures announced by the Sudanese Government to implement its agreements and obligations reached with the UN Secretary General on July 3, 2004.
3. Welcomes the bilateral agreement reached between the UN Secretary General, Sudan's Foreign Minister, and the UN's Special envoy to Sudan to include the Arab League's General Secretariat in the combined efforts aimed at ensuring the implementation of earlier agreements.
4. Approve the removal of rebel forces into previously defined positions, and for the Government of Sudan to disarm the militias, in a coordinated step and under the auspices of the (African) Union.
5. Welcomes the efforts by the independent Sudanese Investigation Committee, and authorizes the General Secretariat (of the Arab League) to work closely with the Government of Sudan to assist and bolster its efforts to investigate human rights violations.
6. Calls upon both rebel groups to resume peace talks with the Government of Sudan, under the auspices of the African Union, unconditionally in order to reach a political solution in Darfur.
7. Calls upon the (U.N) Security Council to allow appropriate time for the Government of Sudan to implement its obligations and agreements stipulated in the joint statement with the UN and the Security Council's resolution 1556. Denunciation of any suggestion for military intervention in Darfur, or imposition of sanctions against Sudan, and, instead, provide the needed assistance for the refugees to return to their villages and farms. Also, it implores the international donors and the UN to quickly finance human needs for those involved in Darfur and the refugees in Chad.
8. Provide adequate and complete Arab (states) assistance to the African Union in its efforts to resolve the crisis in Darfur. And, calls upon member states (of the League) to actively participate in the cease fire observers effort and contribute to its safety.
9. Provide immediate financial, technical and logistical assistance to the Government of Sudan and bolster its efforts to maintain security and stability in Darfur.
10. Appeal to the neighboring countries to deny armed militias from establishing bases within their borders, or allow their free movement.
11. Request the General Secretariat to coordinate with the Government of Sudan to organize regular visits to Darfur by a representative committee of the member states, and to coordinate relief efforts with the African Union observer team.
12. Call upon the Secretary General to immediately commence contacts with the Security Council members and with the international community and update them on the Arab collective efforts to resolve the crisis.
13. Requests the Secretary General provide an update at the next session of the League's Ministerial Committee




http://www.arableague-us.org/ministerial_council.html

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/site/c.glKWLeMTIsG/b.3041197/k.1777/August_2007BRDarfurSudan.htm

[hack89]

25. They provided cover for Sudan to murder with impunity

they did everything in their power to forestall any meaningful resolution while saying the right words. Despots like the Arab leaders are just and familiar with the smooth lies of diplomacy as anyone else.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[azurnoir]

40. The link you posted was to a RW site

when I googled resolution 1556 arab league the 3 or 4 i got were right wing sites and you never did say what was up with the lack of military intervention that was part of 1556, oh that is right its the arabs fault another old smear

[hack89]

54. Right wing? Look again.

look at all those RW hate groups represented on their board of directors:

Saferworld
InterAction
Oxfam
Médecins Sans Frontières
Former UN Assistant Secretary General 1994 - 1998
Worldwatch Institute
Social Science Research Council
Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children
Institute for International Peace Studies
Campaign for Peace and Democracy
International Labor Organization to the UN
Division for Social Policy Development (DESA) UN
Professor of Peace and World Order Studies, Rutgers University
International Women's Tribune Center

http://www.globalpolicy.org/visitctr/about/board.htm

I can certainly understand why you would want to dismiss them out of hand.

[azurnoir]

2. Each day that the people of Gaza manage to live

their lives in any semblance of "normalcy", raising families, sending those children to school, maintaining a home life of any sort is an "assault" on Israels siege. Yes, Israel has the military ability to wipe out Gaza, but does not have the "political capital" to do so. The people of Gaza and Palestinians in general have time on their side, life is and will be very hard and yes miserable, but in the end what more can Israel afford to do?

[Vegasaurus]

6. This isn't really true

the Gazans do not have time on their side.

Their lives are becoming increasingly miserable.

They are so much more miserable than they were ten years ago.

It is time for their leadership to put the lives of innocent Palestinians above the desire to kill Israelis.

Then and only then will the Palestinians finally have "normalcy" in their lives.

[azurnoir]

13. How do they not

have time on their side? Are they in danger of dieing out? Last I saw the demographics hysteria was in full swing and the Palestinians will in the next decade or so outnumber the Israeli's and as there are those of you who wish to count Israeli Arabs as Palestinian also, that fact becomes doubly true.

[Vegasaurus]

16. Demograhically they do have time on their side

Although I suppose having more kids means more potential suicide bombers, so maybe you are right.

FRom a sane point of view though, they don't have time on their side, because each year that passes leaves them with fewer options.

Just look at what they have lost already.

And there is still more to lose.

They could turn it around, but time is running out.

[azurnoir]

19. What have they lost?

Unless this is yet another proclamation that Israel will never give up the settlements or Israel is retaking Gaza. Anything lost was lost 60 years ago by a war that was inevitable.

[hack89]

26. Before the first intifada

didn't the Palestinians have a much higher standard of living then they have now? Didn't they have jobs and a working economy? Weren't there far fewer check points and no wall?

[azurnoir]

29. Yes they did

they were allowed to menial laborers in Israel in the same tradition as Blacks in the pre1964 US South. And yes there were far fewer checkpoints, on that thought why are we to believe that Israel has any intention of ever removing, they played a so-so game with doing that recently, "peace deal" or not?

[Vegasaurus]

41. I'm sure your average Palestinian would prefer a real job in Israel

to abject poverty under the rule of Hamas.

Why would you prefer a wall and checkpoints, when there used to be neither, before suicide bombers chose blowing up Israelis, over developing their own lives?

Of course life was much better, before violent resistance curtailed their freedom.

And it was even better before 1967, when they were occupied by other countries.

The Palestinians chose to start another war, which they again lost.

So many lost opportunities, and life was better, and could have been much better than it is now.

[azurnoir]

42. They may have lost battles but the war

is far from over and most likely will be won not with bullets but with words, which is what frightens some people.

[msmcghee]

43. It is the use of bullets that causes the problem. I think few . .

. . in the West object to "wars of words" in that we've been having them for over two-hundred years now. In fact, I welcome "wars of words" such as we have in this forum - played out under rules that apply equally to both sides. They can be interesting and educational.

[Vegasaurus]

45. WHo is afraid of words?

The problem is that Hamas refuses to acknowledge or negotiate with Israel.

There will be no "winning" of any battle, or war, until Hamas changes the demand to have back all of current Israel, and get rid of all the Jews.

Nothing will happen as a result of Hamas's stance, and the Palestinians will continue to suffer.

[azurnoir]

47. Hamas stance?

Last I looked Israel was the one saying no

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/30/content_8083997.htm

[Vegasaurus]

48. Because read the article

Hamas will just regroup and rearm so they can complete their mission to get rid of Israel.

From that article, dated April 30, "He said 900 Qassam rockets had been fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip this year as opposed to only 1,100 in total in 2007."

Sounds like peace is right around the corner, with Hamas in power.

:sarcasm:

[azurnoir]

49. Hamas will just regroup

Hamas can regroup and rearm without a cease fire, but it is the standard line for continuing the status quo, and oh Hamas firing more rockets is reason to continue fighting? The people of Sderot agree with that?
I believe Israel has also killed more Palestinians in Gaza this year than they did last in at least the same time period, but that can not oh no, never ever be the reason that a cease fire is being asked for, ruins that other standard line.

[hack89]

17. The irony here is interesting

demographics become decisive only if Israel shows restraint in killing Palestinians. Do you think Israel will show restraint?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Staying alive is definitely a victory! nt

[msmcghee]

9. This is the hope in Gaza that Palestinians give their children.

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1759.htm

The hope that all of the WB, Gaza and Israel will be one Palestinian state.

[Shaktimaan]

18. "Israeli death squads???"

Wow, EI can just write anything and there are suckers out there who'll eat it up regardless.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

31. What the hell do you call those who carry out Israel's "targetted assassinations?"

I think "death squad" is entirely apt.

[msmcghee]

32. What do you call those who carry out targeted assassinations?

You call them what they are. Targeted assassinations are dangerous and expensive attempts to stop rockets being shot at civilians in Israel in a way that does not injure Palestinain civilians.

It would be less dangerous and less expensive for Israel to simply drop bombs or use artillery on the areas where the rockets are fired from - which happen to be Palestinain neighborhoods. But, because they don't do that you call them "death squads".

I'd call them "life squads" if I was Palestinian.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

33. Euphemistic bullshit.

In 1989, I stood on my MIL's roof in Khan Younis and watched a 3-man Shin Bet team shoot an adolescent in the back and dump his body in the back of their truck like a sack of potatoes.

Death squad is as death squad does.

[msmcghee]

37. Do you have a point?

Is it that adolescents never engage in military activities or capital crime and therefore killing that person was illegal?

Actually, male criminality and dangerous competitive behavior increase dramatically right after puberty, reaches a peak prior to a society's typical age for males to be married and decreases after that - throughout a man's life.

Is it that dumping a body "like a sack of potatoes" says something about the justification for the death of the person being dumped?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

44. The point is I've witnessed the death squads in action. They exist.

What's YOUR point?

What's the point of calling the death squads some silly little jingo-istic name...life squads?

Um... Ok. Sounds like something Karl Rove would say.

You shouldn't challenge people when you really have nothing to add.

[Shaktimaan]

86. wow

But the road to school in Gaza is an uncertain one, and risk of death by Israeli death squads is imminent.

Palestiniajn parents must care very little for their children if they just send them off to walk to school while there are constantly bands of Israeli Death Squads roving the countryside, executing children wherever they're found.

I live in NYC where everyone I know walks their kids to school even though we don't even have any death squads creating an imminent risk of death for our children. If there is truly such an imminent risk of death from these death squads then how can these Palestinian parents just pack a lunch and send them off on their merry way all alone?

[bemildred]

34. They are death squads, and they were active long before there were rockets.

Extral-legal killing is extra-legal killing. There are reasons why that sort of thing is outlawed, and it is a shameful practice.

[msmcghee]

35. Really? I wasn't aware that it was illegal for . .

. . a state whose citizens are being attacked from across their border to kill the perpetrators. Which UN / Geneva Accords item or International War Crimes law are you referring to?

[bemildred]

36. The death squads go back far before the withdrawal from Gaza too.

And they include the West Bank, which Israel still claims to govern, if not to own. I am referring to the right of all humans not to be deprived of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" without a fair trial. Is that something you oppose?

[msmcghee]

38. War is an activity where each side tries to kill the other.

Look it up.

And oh yeah, you were going to show me some war crimes law that says that killing those who are trying to kill your citizens is illegal.

[azurnoir]

50. Is there a recognized declared war?

And if the settlers are Israeli then they are committing a crime by colonizing conquered land and IDF is an accomplice by protecting them as they do this.

[msmcghee]

51. There is no declared war - by Israel anyway.

But, even undeclared war is still an activity where each side tries to kill the other.

If Israel is committing a crime by allowing settlements on stateless land on the WB then that is a civil crime - if it is any crime. Palestinians using rockets, mortars and suicide bombs to killing Israeli civilians is a War Crime no matter if war had been formally declared or not.

[azurnoir]

52. Stateless it might be

but that situation exists because it was conquered, unless you are claiming Jordan just said "oops we don't want this land anymore it's up for grabs".

[msmcghee]

53. Well, that's pretty much just what Jordan said. And Egypt. n/t

[azurnoir]

57. Ah huh

please post the text of the treaties proving your assertions, other wise it is just so many words

[msmcghee]

59. There were no treaties. That's the point.

Israeli wanted a treaty - peace in exchange for withdrawing from the WB and Gaza. Jordan and Egypt said forget it. No treaty, no peace - no withdrawal. Do some reading.

[azurnoir]

62. So now you are claiming ther are no treaties between

Israel, Egypt and Jordan and that Israel just gave Egypt the Sinai out of generosity?

[msmcghee]

69. For someone with such strong opinions about . .

. . who the good guys and the bad guys are in this conflict . . you sure don't know very much about the history.

If you do some reading you will find that it was only many years after the '67 War that Jordan and Egypt finally signed peace treaties with Israel. Egypt signed on March 26, 1979 and Jordan signed on October 26, 1994.

The 1967 War was in June of . . yes, 1967.

[azurnoir]

73. Nice attempt at redirection

we were talking about present day not 1967 or 1948, but 2008.

[msmcghee]

78. If I could direct your attention to your post #52 . .

. . you will find the moment when you raised two vaguely related issues which out of courtesy I answered anyway - and which, after a few more vaguely related issues were raised - resulted in the sub-thread ending up at this distant point.

Having a discussion with you is kind of like a video game where you never what kind of demon is going to pop up or where it will come from. By trying to politely respond to issues you raise that wander further and further from the topic - I get accused of "misdirection". It's a challenge, for sure.

[azurnoir]

121. The post was answring #51

"If Israel is committing a crime by allowing settlements on stateless land on the WB then that is a civil crime - if it is any crime. Palestinians using rockets, mortars and suicide bombs to killing Israeli civilians is a War Crime no matter if war had been formally declared or not."

Seeing as how "the rockets" did not start until at least 2001, I thought we we're talking about the present, however the "suicide bombers and mortar stipulations left it possibly open or quite intentionally unclear so as to accommodate a change in the subject or time period, perhaps in the future you should be more clear.

[hack89]

55. Jordan relinquished all claims to the West Bank in 1988

This after Jordan conquered the west bank in 1948 and formally annexed it in 1950.

[azurnoir]

58. Conquered in 1948?

Just who did they take it from?

[hack89]

60. It wasn't theirs, was it?

I don't recall the UN planning to give that land to Jordan. There was to be an independent Arab state if I recall correctly so why didn't Jordan facilitate a Palestinian state instead of illegally claiming the West Bank for themselves?

[azurnoir]

61. Does TransJordan ring a bell?

It was part of Jordan as of 1947, although I am sure your assuertion is that in 1948 a state of war existed so it was no mans land, if so then there was no Israel either.

[hack89]

63. No - the British Mandate of Palestine was split in two in 1922

Transjordan was to the east of the Jordan river, Palestine to the west.

Approximately 90% of the British Mandate of Palestine was east of the Jordan river and was known as "Transjordan". In 1921 , the British gave semi-autonomous control of Transjordan to the future King Abdullah I of Jordan, of the Hashemite family. Abdullah I continued to rule until a Palestinian Arab assassinated him in 1951 on the steps of the Mosque of Omar. At first he ruled "Transjordan", under British supervision until after World War II. In 1946, the British requested that the United Nations approve an end to British Mandate rule in Transjordan. Following this approval, the Jordanian Parliament proclaimed King Abdullah as the first ruler of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan

[azurnoir]

64. And this applies how?

The West Bank was under "Hashemite control" in then 1946, but why the sudden interest in 1948? However you failed to "prove" that the West Bank was "unclaimed territory".

[hack89]

66. What was the intent of the UN

and why did Jordan circumvent it?

[Dick Dastardly]

81. It was not part of Jordan. Jordan captured and annexed the West Bank

Under the British Mandate Palestine was split in two with the east of the Jordan River becoming Transjordan and eventually Jordan



As armed skirmishes between Arab and Jewish paramilitary forces in Palestine continued, the British mandate ended on May 15, 1948, the establishment of the State of Israel having been proclaimed the day before (see Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel). The neighboring Arab states and armies (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Transjordan, Holy War Army, Arab Liberation Army, and local Arabs) immediately attacked Israel following its declaration of independence, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued. Consequently, the partition plan was never implemented.


Current status
Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring Arab states eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. With the establishment of Israel, the remaining lands were divided amongst Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The Arab governments at this point refused to set up a State of Palestine.

In addition to the UN-partitioned area it was allotted, Israel captured 26% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan river. Jordan captured and annexed about 21% of the Mandate territory, known today as the West Bank. Jerusalem was divided, with Jordan taking the eastern parts, including the Old City, and Israel taking the western parts. The Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#UN_partition

[azurnoir]

65. Because the Palestinians were in disarray and weakened

and Israel would likely have attacked and annexed the West Bank at first opportunity, Jordan only stalled it for 19 years

[hack89]

68. And if Jordan hadn't attacked in 1967

the West Bank would still be theirs:

The IDF's strategic plan was to remain on the defensive along the Jordanian front, to enable focus in the expected campaign against Egypt. However, on the morning of 5 June, Jordan began shelling targets in west Jerusalem, Netanya, and the outskirts of Tel Aviv.<6> The Royal Jordanian Air Force attacked Israeli airfields. Despite this, both air and artillery attacks caused little damage, and Israel sent a message promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war. Hussein replied that it was too late, "the die was cast"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#West_Bank

[Shaktimaan]

72. The settlements are not a crime.

They are not part of Israel, Palestine or Jordan, but Jews were expressly given the right to settle that land by the League of Nations. Point being that Jews had lived there for thousands of years, excepting the few decades that it was under Jordanian control. Just as the Arabs have the right to settle there, as they have also been living there for over a thousand years, Jews equally have that same right. Arafat was Egyptian yet no one disputed his right to settle in Ramallah. Israeli Jews have at least as much right to settle as he did. Whether the settlements will remain is yet to be determined. But that is a separate issue.

The question of what part of that land will eventually belong to what state is to be answered during final status talks according to the Oslo Accords, a recent treaty signed by both parties fighting over this disputed territory. Meaning that until final status talks are conducted the settlements fall within the legal framework agreed to by everyone. Not illegal. Not morally defensible perhaps, nor politically wise, nor helpful towards facilitating the peace process. But in terms of the legality... settlements aren't illegal.

Plenty of legal scholars agree with me of course. But plenty disagree as well. As the issue doesn't fall under any court's jurisdiction it seems unlikely that we will ever get a binding ruling on it. Considering the lack of any authoritative ruling, we can probably agree that the issue is currently legally unresolved, at best. But from my own study of the situation, although admitting a limited knowledge of international law, I fail to see how they could be considered illegal.

[azurnoir]

74. The League of Nations said so LOL

now that is unique. The legality of the settlements is at best in dispute, with some they are counter to the 4th Geneva convention and others saying they are not, but I will agree that you continually fail to see how anything Israel does is in any way wrong.

[The Magistrate]

77. There Has Been An Authoritative Ruling, Sir, By The World Court

That the Geneva Conventions apply to the territories over-run in '67. These specifically prohibit an occupying power from settling its citizenry on land held under occupation.

[msmcghee]

79. Some argue about the authoritativeness of that ruling.

Among the arguments is that some of the settlements are in areas that were Jewish communities before the 1948 war when the Jews were expelled from them and/or killed by Jordanian forces. One could ask why it was OK for Jordan to expel or kill the Jews and allow Palestinain settlement in those areas until 1976 but if Israel allows Jewish resettlement on the hilltops near those towns it is now seen as violating the Geneva accords.

There are several other reasonable arguments out there. Since the UN does not have the authority to enforce the ruling it will have to remain as a "disputed" ruling until that changes.

[The Magistrate]

80. They Can Argue All They Like, Ma'am

It is the only ruling by the World Court on the matter, in the course of responding to a request for an advisory ruling from the United Nations regarding the security barrier's position. It is the first precedent any future tribunal will consult, and they will need a much better reason than the ones you suggest above to set it aside. A burglar cannot argue in court that because there are other burglars who have not been charged abroad in the town, he should be allowed to continue burgling, and that is what the items you present boil down to. Yes, many parties broke many laws...so what? It is in the nature of things that enforcement of law will have an uneven, even arbitrary appearance at times.

[msmcghee]

82. I appreciate your view of this and have read it previously.

However, I still see some real problems with the matter. Let me explain just a bit here because my purpose is not to argue the several points themselves which are all interesting - as much as to take a broader view - which is why I only pointed out one weakness above.

More than anything I think the problem lies in the inability (or refusal) of the UN to enforce any kind of order according to its own Charter in the region starting with 1947-48 period through the present - and instead allowed Israel to remain pretty much on its own and at the mercy of the surrounding Arab States - which have attempted several times now to attack and destroy Israel. If you'll recall, Israel was the side in the dispute that accepted the Partition Plan and did not declare war on the Arab League and did not try to evict the Palestinians from the rest of the mandate territory.

The failure of the UN to act in any way according to its own Charter on those matters - for 60 years now - to prevent aggression against the member state of Israel, places the words of that body in a severely diminished capacity at this time - despite what others may claim about the force of their rulings.

When it comes down to it, the UN has shown by their own actions that their rulings in this matter are worth no more than the posturing of many of its more duplicitous members (including the US, France and Britain). My opinion (and others) on it are not what matters, however. It seems indisputable to me that unless the UN is ready to send troops into Israel and the WB to enforce its rulings regarding the fence and the settlements then those rulings have no force at this time and are as useless as the Charter has been until now as an instrument of peace in the region. Indeed, if the UN had performed even partially, its duties as described in its Charter there would have been no 1967 War, no occupation and no settlements to worry about.

At some future time either the UNs posture or Israel's may change and we'll see what happens. Until then, the World Court ruling on the matter is just an interesting topic for discussion and nothing more. This pragmatic view requires no legal bickering over a very complex history. It only requires clear eyes and an appreciation for seeing the world as it is - rather than how some would like it to be.

[The Magistrate]

83. Even Granting All This, Ma'am, For Purposes Of Argument

And it is in large measure sound, as fact, the ruling remains the ruling of the World Court, and is the only case law on the matter. It is not enforcement that makes law, and there will never be an enforcement of this ruling. But that lack of enforcement does not make the settlements legal under the Geneva Conventions, or alter that they apply in the territories over-run in '67. People who want to say the settlements are illegal are simply speaking plain fact, whether one likes it or not.

Forgive the brevity of this, as things in my forum upstairs really are busy, and this is snatched time in consequence.

[msmcghee]

84. My argument is not about their legality.

It is that there is no world body sufficient to issue a legal opinion that can be enforced. Of course, the ruling could have a bearing on future events - but not as a matter of enforceable law. Law without authoritative force behind it is just words.

PS - get back when you can. There's no hurry.

[Lithos]

87. If I may

This argument falls back to the notion of might makes right or bully's perogative. Not the kind of behavior which is endearing.

But perhaps, what matters is that the World Court has established a precedence that places any group or individual who has actively supported such an endeavor at the mercy of any subscribing state's legal system. Witness the legal Rumsfeld has faced traveling to Europe as a citizen for his involvement in purported War Crimes.

L-

[The Magistrate]

89. It Is A Little More Than That, My Friend

A lot of Ms. McGhee's argument is that where law is un-enforced, there is a sense in which it is hard to say it exists, or is binding, or that anyone can be reasonably expected to conform to its dictates. Even today, international humanitarian law is very seldom enforced, and those on whom it is enforced in any meaningful manner are generally powerless back-waters. States with real power, whether measured in military force, resource control, or political heft, are effectively immune. Discussion of the matter does need to take this reality into account.

[Lithos]

92. The Westphalian Sovereignty on which this is based

Is increasingly becoming outmoded, particularly due to the necessities of living within the larger Global community. While Israel can ignore it to some degree, the costs it must pay externally and internally to be a Democratic member of the world at large are far greater than what China or Russia pay based on their own governance model for their own policies.

L-

[The Magistrate]

94. Certainly, Sir, Because It Is Smaller

But though my position on this differs greatly from Ms. McGhee's, that does not prevent me from recognizing there is some merit to the ground from which she argues. The ideal of international law remains far more an ideal than a reality, and will remain so until there is some power able to enforce it on first rank powers.

[Lithos]

97. It is a fact of life...

Witness Shrub's life in the TANG. Under any fair set of rules, he would never have been considered acceptable and would have served a term in an active force in Vietnam.

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, theyre red, white and blue.
And when the band plays hail to the chief,
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,

[The Magistrate]

98. Absolutely, Sir

And leftism, it could be said, boils down to complaint concerning things that are facts of life, and perhaps need not be, and ought not to be....

"No young man worth his weight in gold meets death in the market."

(edited on belated notice the second 'not' had been omitted....)

[Lithos]

100. At some level

Yes, I think it does boil down to a sense of liberte, egalite and fraternite

[msmcghee]

90. I always have some trouble understanding your posts.

"This argument falls back to the notion of might makes right or bully's perogative."

Well, actually it is an opposite argument - that if the forces for peace and legal behavior according to fair rules (the UN) are not capable of enforcing their rules or are not willing to enforce their rules - then bullies will have their way by default. I am blaming the UN for allowing that to happen and by their failure to enforce their own Charter to be a contributing cause of the death and suffering in this region over the last 60 years - rather than a force for the good.


"Not the kind of behavior which is endearing."

What behavior is not the enduring kind? The behavior of bullies? The behavior of the UN for enabling the behavior of bullies. My behavior for pointing it out?


"But perhaps, what matters is that the World Court has established a precedence that places any group or individual who has actively supported such an endeavor at the mercy of any subscribing state's legal system. Witness the legal Rumsfeld has faced traveling to Europe as a citizen for his involvement in purported War Crimes."

I think you are saying that UN member states could arrest Israeli politicians or perhaps Israeli citizens if they came within their jurisdiction for violation of a world court ruling for allowing Jews to move into settlements on the WB where other Jews were previously ethnically cleansed by Jordan. Now, that would be something to see.

[Lithos]

96. Again

You're back to the point which The Magistrate above commented on where some people are allowed to get away with a crime while others are not. Doesn't detract that a crime was not committed. Israel can do what they want, but it will cost them in terms of global standing and in how it affects their own internal definition and practice of Democracy. Other countries such as China and Russia certainly do things which are also illegal, but the costs they pay to their internal systems and to their Global standings are far different and relatively smaller than what Israel pays.

Also, are you suggesting that Israeli settlements in the WB have remained purely on land which was under Jewish ownership/occupancy at the start of events in 1947? I find such a notion to be fantastic given the volume of settlements. Didn't an Israeli General spend a rather lengthy period of time in a plane out on a tarmac when he received word that he was about to be served arrest papers? You don't think that this type of action will only increase?

L-

[msmcghee]

108. Regarding the UN and Israel, Jews and Muslims

The UN was created in the aftermath of WWII as a voluntary organization under a liberal democratic set of rules aimed at ending aggression against peaceful member states by providing the ability to put together an ad hoc legal force from among its members to militarily oppose any state foolish enough to commit aggression against another member. They did this while trying to preserve the Westphalian notion of sovereign states acting in their own interest - but voluntarily working together to provide this noble force against aggression on a case by case basis.

My sense is that, however noble, this basic concept violates several elements of human nature and was doomed from the start. In practice, the problem with the Magistrate's observation and with the early belief that the UN would fulfill its role as a new force against aggression is that the UN in practice has been shown to be quite selective in its complaints and has been shown to be easily corruptible against its own ideals - as the left has always been.

One of the most remarkable examples of this selectivity and corruptibility is shown in the history of the UN regarding Israel which is also the main topic of this forum. From the very start, the Partition Plan itself was hardly a reflection of the sense of the original Mandate or The League of Nations on the matter.

a) After 80% of the mandate was given to non-Jews in the form of Transjordan - a state where Jews could not live as citizens - the rest was divided in half again with the greatest part of desert offered to Jewish sovereignty - to do with what they could.

b) The vote - even for that much - was won only by a single vote majority from among UN member states.

c) Israel was aggressively attacked by the Arab League the moment it accepted it's portion of the plan. That was met with no response by the UN to defend Israel.

d) Israel has been attacked repeatedly since then by a similarly constituted and motivated force and each time Israel has been left to fend on its own - and even condemned for defending itself too energetically.

Together, those are the reasons that Israel is today occupying the West Bank. The Occupation is the direct result of the UN's inability and refusal to live up to its own Charter. It seems that when it comes down to it - the UN is ready to support a military campaign of member states against aggression as long as Jews are not the party being attacked.

Probably because the UN presented itself as a credible force for good, yet walked away from that mission while continuing to claim moral and legal authority - which was a particularly ugly hoax on mankind - the history of the occupied territories has become a complex and twisted narrative of competing legal, military, ethnic and religious aspirations and actions repeated through a century of aggressive wars and even annexation by non-Jewish states. There really is no clear legal path or precedent in history for settling the dispute. We only have competing UN resolutions that are not enforced (and largely unenforceable) on either side. One of those is the UN World Court ruling that Israel's defensive fence and settlements are illegal.

This, while Israeli has been under repeated aggressive attack by massed armies, snipers, suicide bombers, mortars and rockets by a people who use the exact same words they used in 1948 to describe their intentions - that they will continue attacking with impunity the civilians of Israel (a war crime and the prevention of which was a primary reason for the creation of the UN) until there is no longer a state of Israel.

The UN has not only refused to defend a nation of Jews under attack, but has condemned those Jews for defending themselves and has stood by and permitted (in some cases assisted) ongoing and repeated aggression by the Arab/Muslim states of the ME against Israel. The UN started out as a means to end aggression and preserve world peace. It almost immediately become a means for preserving the access of member states to the Suez and the oil under the Arab sands - a reality that preserves to this day.

And after all that, we now hear the laughable complaint coming from the left that "some people are allowed to get away with a crime while others are not". Indeed.

[The Magistrate]

113. Still, Ma'am

The essential founding charter remains the '47 Partition, and the intent was the creation of two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Israel was allowed to annex a goodly portion of the territory alloted to the latter in the course of the '48 war. It has no right to absorb and annex the rest of that territory in the wake of the '67 war, and that is what the settlement program aims at.

[msmcghee]

114. Which brings us back to my original claim . .

. . that, in the absence of a credible force for proper legal behavior between states according to just rules, rights are, and will always be, a matter of might.

I'm not saying that's good. It's just the unfortunate reality and is the direct result of a corrupt United Nations in this case. It is not the result of any illegal or immoral intentions on Israel's part - judged on any comparable scale of moral behavior in violent conflict over the last century.

I think we have both expressed our clear opinion on this. My purpose is not to say that you are wrong or change your mind. It is only to describe reality as I see it, which could easily be wrong. I appreciate and understand your view. It will be interesting to see how things unfold in the future and I look forward to more conversations about which of us was the more accurate observer of reality at this time.

[msmcghee]

39. Every military combat squad is a death squad - by defintion. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

85. Soldiers.

Targeted assassinations and similar actions are fairly commonplace actions during a war, are they not? Using the term "death squads" in that context means that all armies make use of them. Does America have "death squads" in Iraq or Afghanistan? Well, they have squads of people who kill others... is that a death squad?

The problem here is that you seem to not understand what a "death squad" really is. I think you probably do and are just being purposefully evasive. A Death Squad is something very specific and Israel is not generally assumed to make use of them, even by the most left-wing media outlets who posses a shred of journalistic ethics.

The fact that EI tosses the term out so casually is a great example of their complete lack of the aforementioned quality. It is an attempt at linking Israel with regimes who have used death squads extensively such as Stalin, Pol Pot and Pinochet. The uneducated reader would just as soon assume that Israel conducts itself similarly, which just adds to the lack of accurate understanding that seems to run rampant in certain circles.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. There is definitely hope in Gaza. nt

[Jim Sagle]

27. Electronic Intifada reeks of raw hate. When its foul scribes see reason for optimism,

decent people are filled with loathing.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

46. You must be confusing EI with the settler sewage dumped in the West Bank. nt

[notfullofit]

56. I paid them a visit today and my

first impression is that they appear to be nothing more than a propaganda machine for Hamas with little concern for the welfare and well-being of the Palestinian people.

JMHO and of course I could be wrong.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

67. Why do you say that? Because they don't tow the Israeli line?

[The Magistrate]

70. Perhaps It Is Said, Ma'am

Because just about every hackneyed element of style wearily familiar from hard left propaganda aimed at the academic left in the West throughout the last century can be encountered in its presentations, with the Mad-Libs blanks filled in with Middle Eastern identifiers....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

75. Very interesting perception.

That site is one of the few analyses that ring true to me, and ring true to the experiences I have had both in the ME and here in the states. At the end of the day, I guess I am an old lefty.

EI is certainly representative of good-sized portion of thought in the Palestinian diaspora. Their conflict with ATFP, for example, is a terrific lens into the varieties of thought that exist within the Palestinian community.

The Palestinian POV is irrelevant or invisible to most who post here. I have no expectation that those posters would be open to reading analysis on EI.

Considering that the DU is a "left-wing" site, I will continue to post it anyway!

[The Magistrate]

76. It Is Not The Point Of View, Ma'am, It Is The Drivel In Which It Is Couched

"'Thousands and thousands of children's feet padding the dusty paths between their mother's front doors and their schools ... Beautiful youngsters so innocent that they could laugh even in Gaza.' One can only imagine the mothers preparing lunches for these children, and making sure their clothes are ready and clean as they send them off to school. But the road to school in Gaza is an uncertain one, and risk of death by Israeli death squads is imminent."

"Clearly the man was head and shoulders above most people and clearly he recognized the need to defy the occupation and maintain his dignity as a man and as a Palestinian."

"For over 60 years Gaza has proven itself to be an endless source of optimism and courage....Resistance to the occupation, education and steadfastness are only a few of the hallmarks of the people of this ancient land."


To take this sort of writing seriously is to be moved by Stalin-era tractor ballads and peans to Mao: it is tripe, it is maudlin to a point that makes Mr. Dicken's a hard-eyed realist by comparison....

[Lithos]

88. Taken at face value...

It is part of the myth building necessary for the establishment of a national identity. There really is no difference in this type of language than some of the pablum describing the Israeli settler of the late 1940's. The question remains, how long can a nation focus on such things without addressing the issues at hand.

L-

[The Magistrate]

91. Absolutely, Sir

And if the peans towards kibutzim of that period were being posted here as if they were a genuine account, and urged as describing the reality of the situation, my reaction would be pretty similar.

It seems to me that this sort of thing is not so much a part of internal creation of national mythos as it is a presentation aimed at foreign audiences, and particularly sentimental elements of those audiences, with the aim not of revealing but of masking the reality of the situation. Both contenders in this conflict are in large degree dependent on political support from outside parties for continuance of their side in it. In appealing to the modern Left of the West, a kind of 'happy talk' is a useful tool.

On the last item, my guess is that such things can be focused on a damned long time: the less reality is present, the more rhetoric is required to make up the load....

[Lithos]

93. I believe it is directed both directions

Inward and outward, again like the myths surrounding kibbutzim from the late 1940's. While there was a lot of internal media (movies, songs) made for internal consumption which glorified the bronzed settler toiling at the fields, there was also a lot of material published for consumption abroad.

L-

[The Magistrate]

95. Most Things Have A Dual Use, Sir, That Is True Enough

But this kind of piece, and the site that hosts it, seem to me more aimed towards towards the foreign market than the domestic.

[Lithos]

99. EI itself

Most certainly is geared for outward consumption. It's co-founders include members of ISM, Al-Awda, and International Campaign for Justice for the Victims of Sabra and Shatila. Most of the "journalists" on it make a living posting on other Western Media outlets or working for other Western-based organizations. However, articles posted there often match the tone of articles posted on Al-Ahram and Maan News which leads me to believe that it is not unique in its use of language.

L-

[The Magistrate]

101. Then We Would Seem To Be In Agreement, My Friend

This is propaganda made for foreign consumption, by persons often foreign to the conflict themselves.

Over-blown rhetoric is a feature of propagandas both internally and externally directed.

There is nothing wrong with propaganda, of course, at least within certain bounds, but people should recognize it for what it is, namely a species of weapon, and not an honest attempt at reporting on a situation or circumstance. Propaganda does not attempt to inform, but to distort, and lead people into conclusions that are false to fact, though emotionally satisfying.

[notfullofit]

102. Simply put,

you can fool some of 'em some of the time............

[The Magistrate]

103. The Ones That Cause Worry, Sir, Are The Some You Can Fool All The Time

"If a man will continue to insist that two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of argument to stop him."

[bemildred]

104. We've had some rather nice print advertisements here about cowboys

in the Golan. They seemed to be aimed at tourism, but I assumed that it was no accident that those ads were used here in the Western US, and one can see how it is serves several purposes besides getting more tourism.

Back before the 2nd intifada, we had a lot of advertising for tourism and other purposes here. After the Oslo process collapsed and while the intifada was "hot" there was little or nothing. Now it seems to be coming back somewhat. I don't know what that means exactly, but I think it means something, so I watch it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

107. Or maybe the author, an Israeli, correct? -- was just struck by the fact that in spite

of the difficulties, the human beings in Gaza have retained their humanity.

[The Magistrate]

109. No Particular Need To Assume That, Ma'am

This piece is not about retention of humanity (hardly in question anyway), as it is about rose-tinted visions of epic 'struggle', suitable for stirring the souls of non-participants who want to imagine themselves ranged with angels....

[Vegasaurus]

111. or virgins; rewards of the "resistance" nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

117. I am proud to share those rose-tinted glasses.

A modern people which has struggled for more than half a century to claim what is rightly theirs, that has withstood the wishes of the powerful that they would disappear, that has produced the mostly high educated national group in the Middle East, that continues to produce art, that continues to live and refuses to let go of the dream of independence and self-determination...

I find that highly inspirational and I count myself lucky to be associated, even if only by marriage and motherhood, to the Palestinian people, even if there are folks (like yourself) who find that something to ridicule.

[The Magistrate]

118. Quite A Statement, Ma'am, That Title Line

Not something people generally boast of....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

122. I had quite forgotten you applied "rose tinted" to epic struggle...I meant it as optimistic,

they way it's normally used.

I am proud of the hopefulness and steadfastness of the Palestinian people.

[The Magistrate]

124. Rose-Tinted, Ma'am, As A Variety Of Optimism

Always is employed to suggest the optimism is false to fact, and a deliberate distortion the person employing the rise-colored glasses is imposing on his or herself.

As a by-note, Ma'am: are you serious about "epic struggle"? We are discussing a rather minor low-intensity war in the levant, not at a pitch meeting to design promotional materials for a movie it is hoped will prove a summer block-buster....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

126. OK, "Sir," I have had about enough of your sarcastic bullshit. You used the word

"epic struggle." Not I.

Just to clarify:

I am proud to be associated with a people whose backbone is strong, who refuse to give up on what is rightly theirs, who refuse to melt into the woodwork because it would be convenient for Israel and their US backers, who won't be cowed into submission, who won't walk meekly to their destruction, and who, in the face of unthinkable, ongoing tyranny and suffering, maintain their humanity.

I've met day laborers in Gaza with more class in the tips of their fingers than some of the people who post here.

Is that clear enough for you, Mr. Magistrate? These human beings might be the butt of your "humor," but that's really more of a reflection on you.

Good day, Magistrate.

I'm done with this.

[Vegasaurus]

128. yet another person whose opinion this poster doesn't like

to put on ignore

[The Magistrate]

129. My Goodness, Ma'am: 'Strong Backbones' Into The Bargain...?

The vocabulary is descending from 'Social Realism' to short fiction in the old 'Saturday Evening Post'....

The object of my humorous regard here, Ma'am, is hardly the people of Gaza, but rather their self-appointed press agents.

"Once you have gilded it, it no longer is a lily."

[ProgressiveMuslim]

131. Actually, you are mocking me

and I am quite clearly talking about the people of Palestine.

I'm not quite clear why you've taken it upon yourself to dog me around the DU. There are tons of threads that I disagree with, find insipid and full of propaganda. I usually leave them alone.

I guess you're right. The people of Gaza are hopeless miserable losers. Those who call them otherwise are foolish propaganda hacks.

Happy now?

[The Magistrate]

133. Think Of It As a Robust Exchange Of Views, Ma'am

We all have to learn to get along with the fact that there are people in this world who do not agree with us, and choose now and then to speak up about it....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

135. This stopped being an exchange of views 10 posts ago.

This is you mocking my statements.

Go ahead and mock away!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

105. EI is primarily about addressing issues.

[The Magistrate]

110. Not Really, Ma'am

It is primarily about shaping views, or perhaps more to the point in most instances, in hardening existing views, in a manner that will lead to continued support for 'struggle', whatever the cost, among people who have no real point of contact with the conflict. It is, of course, pretty easy for such people to cultivate and express intransigence, being in a 'let's you and him fight' posture, after all....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

115. Nonsense.

For example, it was among the first places to analyze the coup attempt in Gaza in 2006.

You may not agree with the analyses, but a large number of Palestinians do.

[The Magistrate]

119. Nonesense How, Ma'am?

The analysis presented was a propagandist's effort, and the fact that a proportion of people agree with a propagandist's view does not make it an exercise in informing others.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

123. Check out the site over a 2 or 3 week span and then let's talk. nt

[The Magistrate]

125. My Experience If It, Ma'am, Goes Back Years And Years

Do not mistake me for a rookie down here....

"Score-cards! Get'chyer score-cards here! Can't tell the players without a score-card!"

[ProgressiveMuslim]

127. I highly doubt you've been reading EI for years. nt

[The Magistrate]

130. Your Doubts, Ma'am, Are Noted

At bottom, they are rooted in a faith in talismanic effect. In debate with students of a Jesuit seminary across from the coffee house that was my haunt many years ago, the same thing popped up: my thorough acquaintance with the Bible was obvious, and it seemed to bewilder them that someone could read the thing thoroughly and yet give no evidence at all of being moved by it to share their own belief in and commitment to the thing. It is quite possible to read great quantities of bush-league propaganda without being converted by it....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

132. I continue to highly doubt you're a regular reader.

Though I'm sure you dazzled the Jesuits with your knowledge of scripture.

[The Magistrate]

134. You Wound Me To the Quick, Ma'am, Indeed You Do

But dark and highly specialized delights await in the interval while the grand-children are still in school, and this simply cannot compete....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

136. Hopefully you spare the grands your "humor."

[ProgressiveMuslim]

106. Oh, I thought it was "hard left propaganda." Hmm...

[The Magistrate]

112. It Employs, Ma'am, The Familiar Cliches Of Hard Left Propaganda

And is mostly prepared by and aimed at hard left types.

How they square this with the reactionary attitude of the real 'teeth' of the 'resistance' they cry up is a matter for their own capabilities at mental gymnastics, and the amusement of on-lookers....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

116. Your objection is no surprise.

For most in the West, the people of Palestine fall into one cliched category (murderous terrorists, miserable victims, etc) or other.

The good news is, no one is forcing you to read it. Feel free to ignore my numerous threads from the site.

[The Magistrate]

120. Would Not Miss Them For The World, Ma'am

Propaganda is one of the steadier sources of amusement available in this dreary world of ours....

"Fun is where you find it."

[notfullofit]

71. Nope,

'According to Al Mezan's statistics, 69 Palestinians have been killed by IOF in the Gaza Strip since the start of April 2008. Of them, 20 were children and one was a woman. This brings the toll of Gazans killed by IOF since the beginning of 2008 to 316, including 62 children and 16 women. During the same period the IOF carried out 30 incursions into the Gaza Strip. During these incursions, 127 Palestinians were detained; 17 of them are still under detention. Furthermore, IOF razed 372 dunams of agricultural land, and destroyed 15 homes.'
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9516.shtml

What was the cause of these Israeli incursions?
Could it be a response to the rocket attacks?
Who is responible for the rockets?
Certainly not your average Palestinian civilian?
And who pays the price?