Cafe culture blooms in West Bank's Ramallah

[cali]

RAMALLAH, West Bank — While Paris's Left Bank is famous for its fine restaurants and bustling cafes, Palestine's West Bank is not. But that might be about to change.

The hilly city of Ramallah, which lies just to the north of Jerusalem, has undergone a massive boom in recent years on the back of Western donor support, with new smart eateries and bars mushrooming alongside a plethora of pristine office blocks.

Latest data says Ramallah and the adjacent town of Al-Bireh that it has utterly engulfed have more than 120 coffee shops and some 300 restaurants, with 50 new diners opening in 2010 alone.

"When I started, I was competing with three to four other places, now I compete with many," said Peter Nasir, who turned an abandoned family house into a bustling restaurant in 2007, which draws around 150 customers a day.

<snip>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42450613/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

[LeftishBrit]

1. Encouraging news!

[oberliner]

2. Have you been to Ramallah?

Just curious. If so, can you share any insights?

[King_David]

3. I was there many years ago

Before any checkpoints . I think its time to return.

[Ken Burch]

5. it's time to let people drive between Ramallah and East Jerusalem again

Palestinians should never have been hindered from visiting a Palestinian city.

[King_David]

6. That hinderence saved many lives

as does the Wall.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Did you feel that way about East and West Pakistan before Bangladesh split off?

There is no requirement for a sovereign nation to be forced to allow transit over its territory for those whose stated aim is the destruction of that sovereign nation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. you are saying that Palestinians who want to travel through Occupied Palestinian Territory

to another part of Occupied Palestinian Territory are doing so only for the purpose of wanting to destroy Israel?

[Ken Burch]

9. They're BOTH assuming that the ONLY reason a Palestinian would want to travel

between East Jerusalem and Ramallah would be to kill people.

They refuse to accept that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are decent, ordinary human beings like anyone else.

This is all part of the refusal to recognize the humanity of Palestinians and other Arabs.

[azurnoir]

11. I must differ with you and Douglas on that one

I think the inference here was more that if a 100 or a 1000 of Palestinians have to put though the check points system on a daily basis saves even 1 Israeli Jew from harm it is more than well worth it
at least that's the way I took it

[pelsar]

13. thats closer to the truth...

waiting in line, being inconvenienced etc is considered a lesser evil than getting people killed.

I assume by your post you disagree.....i guess its a cultural thing

[azurnoir]

16. '.i guess its a cultural thing' what culture are you talking about? n/t

[pelsar]

18. different value system

i attribute to different values to different cultures.....for some people the checkpoints that can and do cause many lost hours to the Palestinians is of more importance than the bombs caught and lives saved.

[azurnoir]

32. ok I've never thought of we're more important than them or more

we have the advantage over them so they have to live with it or what can they do about it? as a value exactly but to each his own, however this almost seems like one those self fulfilling prophecies, but if it wasn't what good would it be?

[pelsar]

38. actually its more of:

we can try to stop some of them from trying to kill us by using various detection methods....those methods simply take time. It has nothing to do superiority and everything to do with maximizing limited resources....i.e. profiling.

and for the most part they seem to work, though not always

[pelsar]

12. you really should stop demonizing us israelis..

they will take away your progressive credentials one day....

"its not nice to generalize about whole groups"...isnt that one of the progressive creeds?

[Ken Burch]

14. I was only talking about those two posters

Neither of whom, to my knowledge, actually lives in Israel(Progressive Professor, in fact, lives in Southern California and once lived in Hawaii, judging from the flag in his posts).

I wasn't talking about anyone but them.

[pelsar]

17. i admit i was exaggerating...

not keeping to the facts, i'm trying hard to integrate myself to the local culture here....

but then again, so was your post....and exageration

[King_David]

21. I know you like to talk `for` whole groups of people BUT

kindly let me speak for myself.

[Ken Burch]

24. I wasn't stopping you speaking for yourself

I was simply responding to what you said when you spoke, or rather, posted.

[King_David]

22. 'Neither of whom, to my knowledge, actually lives in Israel' -(Ken Burch)

So tell us : Have you ever even been to Israel or the occupied territories or Ramallah or Jerusalem ,even ONCE before?


Where does YOUR 1st hand ''knowledge'' come from??





:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Ken Burch]

25. As far as I can tell from your posts, you are an American

The Professor has repeatedly self-identified as an American.

Further, you have the Microsoft logo in your posts, which is likely something only an American would do(people in other countries don't fetishize corporate logos in the same way Americans do).

And you don't have to visit Israel OR the Territories or Ramallah(which is in the Territories)to have the right to express your views on the matter.

[King_David]

26. Huh ??

'And you don't have to visit Israel OR the Territories or Ramallah(which is in the Territories)to have the right to express your views on the matter. '

But its important to you if we live there or not?

okie dokie.

(And Microsoft is a huge deal in Israel btw )

[Ken Burch]

28. The only reason I referenced where you lived is that pelsar claimed

that I was making a sweeping comment about Israelis. I referenced where I believed you lived in order to bolster my point that I wasn't referring to Israelis at all, but solely to you and the Professor. OK?

[King_David]

29. ok nt

[azurnoir]

15. I was talking about 2 posters but is the reasoning different?

is protection for all Israeli's? I bet that's it right?

[pelsar]

19. of course its for our protection..

and i know what i'm about to write is consider blasphemous but here goes:

follow the history, from no checkpoints, to lots of them to fewer.......if you can figure out the logic (and admit it), you might actually learn how things happen in the I/P conflict.....

nah......i'm just kidding, no one here likes to look at the local history to understand the actual events......

[azurnoir]

36. Douglas already said it others have said it and I've said to you many times before

Israel can wall it self on Israeli soil but it's all kinda deja vu been here said that

[pelsar]

37. thats a discussion that never happens....its avoided like the plague....

this is where the 'conversation stops"....mainly because people here prefer simplistic solutions that have little to do with reality..hence your "put the wall on the 67 line"..as if that would solve anything.

see gaza for prime example of what may very well happen in the westbank......then get out a map and start measuring distances from the 67 line to jerusalem, TA, the airport....as the kassam flies

then pretend i never wrote this and you never saw this....as its a conversation you don't want to have

[azurnoir]

39. no it is a conversation we have had before

and a kilometer or 2 or 3 isn't going to make much difference in whether or not Tel Aviv or Jerusalem is reachable by the weaponry currently in use at least in Gaza

[pelsar]

43. as i said....its never happened...

because the reasoning is not the kilometer or two for the wall.....
Douglass actually "touched" on it, the realities of the settlements/wall and the IDF in terms of how they actually serve to protect the israelis interior, but was obviously uncomfortable in talking about it, so quickly left....

but he was the only one who actually was willing to go that far....you and the others here, wont even touch the subject. Its not a matter of disagreeing or agreeing its a matter of "avoiding the conversation" shutting down the conversation...and all of those others nice sayings that are meant to demonize israel when in fact its the left that is actually doing it.

example is right here......in your attempt to stop this little discussion by saying " we've all ready had it"...nope, its never been

[azurnoir]

53. I misunderstood you wish to discuss why Israeli nationalism and landownership

called 'security' here is somehow better or more necessary than Palestinian nationalism and landownership

[Jefferson23]

41. Simplistic? You mean what by that statement, and there is more than

ample evidence the placement of the wall is about a land grab but screw international law and believe
it is only about security.

Snip* On 15 September 2005, the Israeli High Court of Justice also dismissed the ICJ's ruling. Notably, it disagreed with the ICJ on the relevance of Israeli settlements to the legality of the Wall. Whereas the ICJ unanimously held that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, the Israeli High Court of Justice held, in a case concerning a part of the Wall surrounding an Israeli settlement, that:

The military commander is authorized to construct a separation fence in the area for the purpose of defending the lives and safety of the Israeli settlers in the area. It is not relevant whatsoever to this conclusion to examine whether this settlement activity conforms to international law.

There is a fundamental legal flaw to this argument. When a state violates international law, it is obliged to undo its illegal act, if physically possible. This means dismantling the settlements. With the settlements dismantled, there would be no conceivable reason to build the Wall on Palestinian territory in order to protect Israeli settlers.

Moreover, there is a clear link between settlements and the Wall, both of which participate in confiscation and ultimately annexation of Palestinian land. In a recent detailed study, Israeli human rights organizations B'Tselem and Bimkom showed that the route of the Wall in many instances coincides with settlement expansion plans. On 15 June 2006, the Israeli High Court of Justice issued a judgment rebuking the Israeli government for concealing such an expansion plan in a case relating to the route of the Wall. On 8 March 2006, then Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated that "the course of the fence - which until now has been a security fence - will be in line with the new course of the permanent border." In November 2005, then Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said that it will serve as "the future border of the state of Israel."

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4950.shtml

[pelsar]

42. even more simplistic your argument.... as simple as it gets

by applying a single conclusion to define wall is a simple as it gets....the walls first and foremost objective was to save israeli lives....no matter where they lived.

the wall has proven that it can stop suicide bombers.....you might want to find a simple table or graph that has the number pre wall and post wall...(though i get the impression that is of little importance to you and others-this fact is preferred to be avoided at all costs)

its also been a 'land grab" in many areas as well...politics being what it is, many used the wall as an excuse to physically grab some more westbank land...other reasons for the walls placement has to do with geography as it requires certain minimum slopes etc.

____


hence the simplistic single argument for defining the wall is best used for the potential useful idiots whom you are trying to convince to join your side, who have a hard time with the more complex real issues.....(i.e. use it on someone else who knows less)

[Jefferson23]

44. The complexity factor, yea right. Your statement was void of ANY

reference to the fact that it is a land grab due to where it is. Nothing I stated nor posted suggested Israel should not could
not have one. Save your passive aggressive potential useful idiot bullshit line for someone else.

[pelsar]

45. read s l o w l y...(i shall quote myself)

i wrote:
its also been a 'land grab" in many areas as well

did you miss that statement?.......or did you prefer to ignore it?


not sure what a "passive aggressive" is....i believe i was just being aggressive on a simplistic argument that has no place in a discussion about the conflict.

[Jefferson23]

46. You know darn well I am referring to the post of yours I responded to initially.

Oh I do disagree with your last statement, I believe that is evident in your posts here too.

[pelsar]

47. ahh....now i understand.....

you were referring to my post to azurnoir ....didnt know that.

that post was referring to the amazing one sided conversations here about israels security and the simplistic solutions such as put the wall on the 67 line and the attacks will stop, the wall is illegal therefor it must be torn down...its nothing but a land grab....

all of which have (may) some truth to them taken by themselves, but placed in the real environment of the conflict of the region, they are only a small part of the larger puzzle and none of which will insure the end to the conflict let alone the end to the attacks on israelis.

claiming its illegal does nothing to solve the problem of the suicide bombers that were only efficiently stopped (and reduced the checkpoints) via the wall....given a choice of being dead, crippled and a society living in fear.... or having an illegal wall...we go for the wall....that is the real discussion.

[Jefferson23]

48. In your assessment that is the real discussion, at least lets be clear

on that point.

[pelsar]

49. yes we are clear...the discussion that is missing...

which clearly you dont want to enter, are the real limited options all of which have several different consequences....none of which are definite.

its those different consequences that no one here likes to discuss (i guess it would prove very disturbing to those with simplistic views?)......

[Jefferson23]

50. It would be helpful if you would cease telling me what I will not, have

not discussed. I already posted for you several positions I support..that you do not agree with them is fine.
To suggest the conversation has never taken place is false.

[pelsar]

51. i must have missed them?

as far as i know you mentioned that the wall is illegal.....and i assume that means you would like it to be torn down (i'm just guessing here) and perhaps placed on the 67 border? (agains just guessing)

so then if that is your position, looking at the history when there was no wall, and the fact that the Palestinians are still attempting to bring bombs in, isn't it realistic to assume that the settlers exposed to the suicide bombers would then start getting blown up....as per the period pre wall?

and is that even relevant?


that is the discussion that never gets taken place:

i'm very familiar with the "i've already discussed that" ....its the same thing as saying" i dont want to go any further with the discussion...i stop here"

and people then complain about never having a "real" truth to power" conversation (and other such lame expressions).

[Jefferson23]

52. There was more info within the link but you may not have read it, and

this would represent a broader look at the concerns. The ICJ advisory ruling is not a small matter to dismiss imo.
This is a substantial legal body of which Israel ignored, their court's response you are well aware too. The wall, as already
stated is in and of itself not the main obstacle, but where.

* American Perspective
In a 30 July 2003 interview with Reuters, Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed concerns over Israel's efforts to build a fence that could impact Palestinian efforts to establish a state. President Bush, Powell said, has "concerns" about the fence. "He has a problem with the fence, as he said to the Prime Minister , if the fence is constructed in a way or continues to be constructed in a way that takes additional Palestinian land and sort of prejudges what might be left for a Palestinian state, or if it complicates our discussions going forward," Powell said.

In the press conference following the meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Abbas, the President said he thinks the "wall is a problem," and he has discussed the matter with Prime Minister Sharon. "It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking through the West Bank. And I will continue to discuss this issue very clearly with the Prime Minister. As I said in my statement today, he has issued a statement saying that he is willing to come and discuss that with us."

In August 2003 the Bush administration was reported to be looking for ways to press Israel to halt construction of the fence, and that one option was reducing the nine billion dollar loan package approved by Congress for Israel earlier this year to help it cope with the economic effects of the Iraq war. At a news briefing, State Department spokesman Philip Reeker reiterated US concern about the fence project and said administration officials are pleased that Israeli officials have said they are taking US concerns into account. As to the loan package, he noted that the relevant legislation already provides for deductions for Israeli settlement activity and acknowledged that linking US loans to the fence project was under discussion. Secretary of State Colin Powell said a nation is within its rights to build a border fence. But he said when a fence "crosses over onto the land of others," and is built in a way which makes it more difficult to move forward on the "road map" to Middle East peace, this as he put it, "causes us a problem. (end)


What is clear pelsar, imo, is that Israel's objective is to have the West Bank for their state and the cost burden to fall on
the Palestinians not able to have a viable state.

* The purpose of confiscation is also reflected in the difficulties that Palestinians behind the Wall face in accessing their lands between Israel's internally accepted borders and the Wall (the "seam zone"). An Israeli permit is required to reach these lands and, according to UN OCHA, in July 2005 38 percent of the applications for a permit were denied. There is an increasing tendency to grant permits only to registered land owners and their direct descendants, thereby excluding most of the workforce in the labour-intensive Palestinian agricultural sector. Those who manage to obtain a permit face several further obstacles - gates are few and far apart, have limited and irregular opening hours, and farm vehicles or tools are frequently not allowed to pass. As a result, there is an increasing tendency for land in the seam zone not to be cultivated. In addition to the severe restrictions on the exercise of basic human rights, this situation facilitates Israeli land confiscation under laws allowing areas not cultivated for three consecutive years to be declared as "state land." In the past, the "state land" technique has been the main means of Israeli land confiscation in the West Bank. According to UN OCHA, much of the land in the seam zone has already been declared "state land" by the Israeli authorities.



Your concern is the protection of the settlers, ok, but again, they needed to be removed and ignoring the ICJ just made
that issue more concentrated, more fixed, did it not? You do realize objectively what these actions look like to the rest
of the world? They look like what I said earlier, Israel wants the West Bank for their state or do you truly believe that
most of the world is against these actions of Israel's for some random reason? There is no credibility shown imo when you
claim this is mainly about security.

*
On 15 June 2006, the Israeli High Court of Justice issued a judgment rebuking the Israeli government for concealing such an expansion plan in a case relating to the route of the Wall. On 8 March 2006, then Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated that "the course of the fence - which until now has been a security fence - will be in line with the new course of the permanent border." In November 2005, then Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said that it will serve as "the future border of the state of Israel." (end)


* The Israeli actions on the ground and statements by Israeli officials indicate that de facto land confiscation is a major motivation behind the construction of the Wall. It is pertinent to recall that two years ago the ICJ held that:

The construction of the wall and its associated regime create a "fait accompli" on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal characterization of the wall by Israel, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation.( end )


How is it likely the violence will end when there is little chance for a Palestinian state? What does human nature teach us about
oppressing people? The votes are consistent, the UN General Assembly, 164 nations in favor, 7 against( Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States)

Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine; http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/cd358b22995a4b078525767e006ac786?OpenDocument

[pelsar]

54. my concern is the actual real events on the ground...

Your whole argument is merely politics....that in fact are nothing more than BS. Remember the berlin wall?...Walls can be torn down, remember gaza? settlements can be removed. Remember Gaza? that was also part of "greater israel, that israel "wanted" and then israel left. (same was said about Israel invading lebanon as well).

those little facts and history make your above argument nothing more than political hot air (de facto? fait accompli)....all proven wrong in the events of the past years.
______________________
a judgement saying the law is illegal without having a realistic alternative is a useless ruling as far as i am concerned....the wall saves lives, removing the wall endangers lives....
saving lives takes precedent over rulings from europe.....at least i believe so.


you made a single statement concerning the immediate potential victims of removing the wall:
they needed to be removed

since the settlers are not going anywhere in the immediate future your statement that they needed to be removed is devoid of all reality. Perhaps since the settlers are not going anywhere soon you would like to readdress their concerns if the wall is removed?

________________________
the wall is not about ending the violence or the war ending, its a defensive measure to stop the immediate attempts at killing...a measure that was not needed 10 years ago. Suicide bombing was a strategic decision made by various Palestinian groups in an attempt to kill israelis, the wall is simply the consequence for those actions....as history has shown. As far as the additional hardship on the Palestinian farmers, etc, thats also part of the consequences

all actions and non actions have consequence, the suicide bombers and their initial success resulted in a much harder life for their fellow Palestinians
_________

a note about UN votes...i'm not much in to groupthink...nor do i buy the theory that a majority vote on anything means they are right, hence you can spare the bytes, it doesn't convince me of anything.

[Jefferson23]

55. Very telling, thanks for sharing The facts on the ground

are a direct result of Israeli policy. The majority rule in and of itself I agree does not equate with appropriate. In this
case, the conclusions of the ICJ is based on the merits and should not be ignored.

[pelsar]

56. thats it?

you ignore the most basic consequence of 'removing the wall"..what would most likely continuation of the suicide bombers that were so successful pre wall?.....and probably on the most vulnerable group of israelis...i.e. the settlers?

it could be you believe that they "deserve it" ...some sure do, if so just come out and write it......

[Jefferson23]

57. I haven't ignored anything, quite the contrary. I have read your response

to the serious meaning of the ICJ advisory ruling, we do not agree pelsar. It seems you believe violence will end via the Palestinian side regardless of the continual force of Israel to make it as close to impossible for them to have a viable state? The evidence that was
brought to bear before the ICJ determined the nefarious root of Israel's objectives.

You also dismissed the proposal below without anything convincing to offer for the rejection. I say to you again, I am
not ignoring anything, that would be Israel. You know as well as anyone the wall would not come down in a day, the process
itself, the movement toward it is essential.. but there is nothing remotely resembling that happening is there?

Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/cd358b22995a4b078525767e006ac786?OpenDocument

Israel has taken no measure to act in good faith to address their land theft all these years, I previously stated
to you what Israel needs to do about the settlers, it is their choice. I'd appreciate it if you would not suggest I could believe
the settlers deserve to be dealt with violence.

To answer your question more directly, "is that it?". We our unlikely to convince each other, I believe we would agree on that.

[pelsar]

58. i am not interested in convincing you...i am interested in

getting a further understanding of "your side".....

in all of the years that i have either been here, on other sites or having discussions with one of my brothers (classic professor in an elite university)....there are things that i don't understand.

We, us israelis, look at history, (the short one), we compare our actions to what you claimed we "should do"..... we see the results, the consequences and wonder why you dont see those very same consequences?

olso? gaza?

our views are far less religious and more event based as one can see by who we elect....yet "your side" seems to stick to the same formula irreguardless of what happens in the field.
_____

and example:
Israel has taken no measure to act in good faith to address their land theft all these years,...my reaction: what the f*ck was leaving gaza all about?
we left the sinai, when offered a peace agreement from egypt. we left gaza as well to an unstable PA govt, but left never the less...

wasnt "your side" screaming that its the settlements, that we'll never leave gaza, that all we have to do is do something of "good faith" to prove our intentions.....and then we left gaza, destroyed settlements, removed settlers....(got 30 kassams that very night) and i see the very same claims against us as if leaving gaza and the sinai never happened

care to explain why leaving gaza wasn't an act of 'good faith" to prove intentions? what happened to leaving the sinai, that too doesn't count as toward our flexibility? and if that wasn't good enough what would be?...and to whom would it be "good enough".

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. Sharon epeatedly said Gaza withdrawal would help consolidate Israel's control in the West Bank

Mr. Sharon repeatedly justified the withdraw on the basis that it would help consolidate their their position in the West Bank

Officials: Robust Growth in W. Bank Settlements

Friday, August 26, 2005

JERUSALEM — An Israeli government official said Friday the population in its West Bank (search) settlements has grown by more than 12,000 in the past year, reinforcing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's goal of strengthening large settlement blocs while withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.

snip:

Israel this week completed the evacuation of all 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza (search) and four isolated enclaves in the West Bank. About 9,000 settlers were removed from their homes.

Sharon has repeatedly said the withdrawal would help consolidate Israel's control over large settlement blocs in the West Bank, where the vast majority of Jewish settlers live. New figures from the Interior Ministry show robust growth in these blocs.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167143,00.html

In West Bank, Israel Sees Room to Grow
Government Moves Swiftly to Capitalize On Pullout From Gaza Despite Criticism

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 28, 2005

MAALE ADUMIM, West Bank -- In the tan hills a few miles east of Jerusalem, construction cranes dangle over a string of red-roofed neighborhoods that make up the largest Jewish settlement in the West Bank. It is here that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is reengaging with his electoral base following Israel's efficient but divisive exit from the Gaza Strip.

Enjoying a moment of international sympathy, Sharon's government is moving swiftly to capitalize on its unilateral withdrawal and ongoing demolition of 25 Jewish settlements. The government's efforts are focused largely in the West Bank, land of far more religious and strategic importance to Israel than the remote slice of coastline it has left behind.

A little more than 31,000 Israelis live in Maale Adumim, a suburban settlement built on land captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. Israeli officials say it will grow to more than 50,000 people and eventually touch the edge of East Jerusalem, even though the U.S. government and Palestinian leaders have said that such growth would severely complicate efforts to establish a viable Palestinian state.

Last week, as the world watched settlers being hauled from their homes in Gaza, government officials ordered the confiscation of 400 acres of West Bank land for a barrier that will separate Maale Adumim from Palestinian-populated territory. Just east of the main settlement, where construction plans had been frozen because of U.S. opposition, Israel will soon break ground on a new police headquarters serving the entire West Bank.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082701113_pf.html

[pelsar]

62. wow...so insulting?

i don't recall anybody here claiming that not only must israel remove the settlers but that when they do so, they must take into account the sensitive]y of the Palestinians so that they don't get insulted....and consequently get so unnerved that they and incapacitated that they only thing they can do is try to continue to kill more israelis....

is that not your conclusion?


I 'm sorry Douglas but this has got to be one of them most lamest excuses i have ever come across.......

(btw..there was no exponential growth in the westbank, after the withdrawal...hence is was just yellow journalism making up an excuse for the Palestinians and their supporters to save face after the withdrawal.

this might help:
http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/israeli-west-bank-settlement-growth.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. thanks for the chart

http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/israeli-west-bank-settlement-growth.html


and for the excellent article you linked to:

The critics are right. West Bank settlement population has indeed increased every single year. But what's really surprising is that the general trend has not changed significantly even when Israel was intensely negotiating a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. This implies that Israel has never actually been serious about a two-state solution.

http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/israeli-west-bank-settlement-growth.html

[pelsar]

64. so you believe in the "all or nothing" viewpoint....

so clarify, from what i take from your point of view....its all or nothing, there is no room for small steps. Israel has to vacate everything, before the PA/hamas has to react with anything other than trying to kill israelis

that is EXACTLY what you are claiming...which directly contradicts the "confidence building measures" mantra.



_______________

if you want a more reasonable, more serious reaction to intl relations, just look at egypt and jordan.....

with the peace with egypt:
egypt also forbids all professionals to work with israelis
egypt also in its govt controlled newspapers constantly attack israel
egypt has no tourist in israel, etc
____

jordan has a peace agreement with israel
jordan also forbids its professionals to work with their israeli counterparts.
_____

obviously not perfect but, hardly a "all or nothing" mentality as what appears to be your point of view.

I think what we are going to discover with the discussion if it continues is that despite the various "mantras" regularly mentioned here, we're going to discover that you all expect israel to vacate everything, the PA/etc have to offer nothing in return no matter what israel does and what comes after that is simply irrelevant. (and that is the key disagreement....what comes after, which is crucial to israelis and of no real consequences to most others-the events happening around the arab world shows the folly of such naivety.

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. I think you need to take a valium

but thanks again for the chart and also the excellent article you provided:




"what's really surprising is that the general trend has not changed significantly even when Israel was intensely negotiating a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. This implies that Israel has never actually been serious about a two-state solution."

http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/israeli-west-bank-settlement-growth.html

.

[pelsar]

66. how about continuing...or is it time to ignore the posts...

this is about the time, when the posts stop....when it gets a little to close to comfort and the simple PC explanations no longer work...

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. a state based on 22% of their homeland is hardly all or nothing

Expecting Israel to stop making impossible by relentless settlement expansion the two-state solution based on 22% of their homeland is hardly all or nothing.



“there is no Palestinian state, even though the Israelis speak of one.” Instead, he said, “there will be a settler state and a Palestinian built-up area, divided into three sectors, cut by fingers of Israeli settlement and connected only by narrow roads."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=12&pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=22948d4799a34065&ex=1187496000&emc=eta1&oref

Israel almost doubled its settlement expansion during the Oslo period from 1993 to 2000 and used the whole Oslo process to cut up and dissect the Occupied Territories into multiple cantons - restricting movement and making life far more difficult and living stands far lower for the vast majority of Palestinians than it was even before Oslo.



" what's really surprising is that the general trend has not changed significantly even when Israel was intensely negotiating a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. This implies that Israel has never actually been serious about a two-state solution."
http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/israeli-west-bank-settlement-growth.html

.

[pelsar]

69. if your going to "quote"

at least use quotes that are relevant and intelligent and relate to the environment:
what's really surprising is that the general trend has not changed significantly even when Israel was intensely negotiating a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. This implies that Israel has never actually been serious about a two-state solution."

look i understand you have to ignore israels leaving gaza...since it makes the above quote nothing more than an ignorant joke...

and since gaza is very significant...at least to us israelis...please reference it in all future quotes. (the graph your using ignores gaza.....please place the info in so that its relevant)
_____

also don't make a mess of my posts.....i would appreciate an intelligent discussion that sticks to the subject. So to clarify...you have no expectations out of the Palestenians in terms of stopping any attacks on israel until they get their state?

is that it?

[Douglas Carpenter]

70. of course I want all attacks to stop NOW. but for this to hold there has got to be an end to

settlement expansion. Until the expansion stops no one is going to believe Israel is serious about the two-state solution. Unfortunately Mr. Netanyahu has completely ruled out this possibility or even the removal of one single settler.

I want to see Israeli embassies open in every single Arab capital. I want to see open trade between Israel and every single Arab country. I want it to be possible for someone in Tel Aviv to drive a few hours and visit Damascus or Beirut and vice versa It is no big secret what it will take to achieve this.

[pelsar]

71. this is a discussion based on realism not Utopia....

the question that your comments have brought up is simple:

given that israel did remove settlements, did not stop expansion of others.......i understand from your point of view, that small steps by israel are irrelevant and that you have no expectations for the Palestinians to "react positively to any any small step by israel?

i repeat my conclusion from your posts: until israel removes all settlements the Palestinians are under no obligation to stop the attacks (or do anything else that might be considered a positive reaction?).

you seem to reject the theory of "confidence building measures"....is that true?

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. obviously the attack should stop NOW - if for no other reason than they do no good and

obviously the Palestinians do not have a military option. But until the settlement expansion stops and stops for good and settlement dismantlement begins without expanding elsewhere - it simply is not going to hold. This is not what I prefer. This is simple realism. I would prefer all attacks stop now unconditionally if for no other reason then they are obviously counterproductive.

But the reality is that Israel even during Labor governments have never stopped or even slowed down their settlement expansion except under Netanyahu with a promise to the settler movement that they would resume and never again be repeated and not one single settler would ever again be evacuated. Even when they were supposedly in serious negotiations, the settlement expansion continued at full pace thereby convincing most observers and even more so the Palestinians that the Israelis are really not serious.

Given that all 22 nations of the Arab League have stated clearly that they would establish diplomatic relations with Israel in a final and full resolution to the conflict - my idea of Israeli embassies in every Arab capital is really not that utopian at all. It IS possible and it is possible in our time.

[shira]

73. So Israel vacates and the extremists (running Hamas and the PLO) view that as Israeli weakness...

...and a war begins after the first qassam lands on Ben Gurion airport - or in the middle of Tel Aviv.

How do you expect peace to result after Israel vacates?

What do the Palestinians have to do?

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. frankly, I believe it would help a lot to see a peace treaty between Syria and Israel

What do the Palestinians have to do? They have to give up their claim on 78% of their homeland which is already acknowledged in the Palestinian Authority constitution which recognizes the 1967 border:

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

Bill Clinton: Israel-Syria peace deal could be reached within 35 minutes

"A peace agreement between Israel and Syria could be reached within 35 minutes, former U.S. president Bill Clinton told the Lebanon-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper in an interview published Sunday."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/bill-clinton-israel-syria-peace-deal-could-be-reached-within-35-minutes-1.218114

It is true that the Palestinian body politic is quite splintered to put it mildly. Even the PLO is by no means one single body - but a very broad range of groupings. I believe that by bringing the whole range of Arab states on board - the Palestinian leadership will have the cohesion necessary to have the full control that they need both to function as a proper state and to control unruly elements. A peace treaty between Israel and Syria would go a long ways toward making this possible and seeing the day when there will be Israeli embassies in every Arab capital and someone in Tel Aviv can travel a few hours and visit Beirut or Damascus and vice versa. This is not some utopian dream. The whole Arab world is sick to death of this conflict and a full peace is possible and it is possible in our time.


Alternatively, Israel can continue down the path of permanent expansion and the two-state solution will become completely and totally implausible and Israel will cease to be viable as both a Jewish and democratic state and it will be ruling over within a few years an overwhelming Palestinian-Arab majority.

.

[shira]

80. What would Israel have to do to satisfy Syria, Iran and Hamas, in your opinion? n/t

[azurnoir]

81. are Syria, Iran, Hamas, did you forget Hezbollah all the same in your mind?

you were asked soley about Israel Syria yet insist on bringing Iran and Hamas into your question could it be you are uncomfortable with solely Syria and Israel?

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. it is no big secret what needs to be done to achieve an agreement with Syria as President Clinton

learned and is mentioned in the article above. Of course the issue is the Golan. An agreement with Syria would by its nature weaken the position of Iran. In that Hamas as well as the PFLP and of course Hezbollah in Lebanon are heavily reliant on Syria - an agreement would almost certainly mean a softening of the positions of these organization. In that Iran has in the context of the Organization of Islamic Conference endorsed the Arab League Peace Plan - they would likely have to soften its positions as well if Syria achieved full peace with Israel. There can be little doubt from what has been reported by numerous high level U.S. diplomats that Syria is really - in spite of all their rhetorical nonsense an essentially pragmatic dictatorship that would be willing to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel in exchange for a withdrawal from the Golan. It is also reported that Syria would be willing to accept early warning systems, a large demilitarized zone and perhaps even U.S. lead observers to monitor the situation and likely even agree to an American lead arbiter to monitor issues such as water and air space.

It is a little hard for many western people to imagine this - but for example during the Lebanese civil war - there can be no doubt that there were times in which Syria and Israel were cooperating and at times most definitely cooperating against the PLO. As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows. One thing is certain, Syria doesn't given a flying -------- about Palestinian resistance or any of that stuff except to the point that they perceive it as fighting a war of proxy over the Golan.

I can think of four very strong incentives for Israel to normalize relations with Syria:

1. It would greatly weaken the influence of Iran. Syria is Iran's only state allie in the Arab world.

2. It would mean the end or at least dramatic reduction in Syrian support for Hamas, the PFLP and Hezbollah including much Iranian support via Syria for Hamas and Hezbollah.

3. It could also likely mean the normalization of relations with Lebanon.

4. Syria is still a pivotal and influential country in the Middle East. Normalized relations between Syria and Israel would have the potential for opening up a great deal of commercial exchange and open movement of goods services between not only Israel and Syria, but Israel and the wider Arab world including the much more prosperous Gulf states.

I believe that it would be only about a three or four hour drive between Jerusalem and Damascus or Jerusalem and Beirut for that matter - if such movement was allowed. The commercial implications of this would be enormous.

It is accepted as a given than a withdrawal from the Golan would include a network of early warning systems and international monitors along with a workable arrangement on water usage.

There is no way that the Gulf states such as Kuwait, the UAE or Bahrain would ever normalize relations before Syria does. These are all places only about a one to one and a half hour flight from Tel Aviv or about twelve hours by land travel, small but wealthy countries with enormous economic resources and their own gateway free trade zones. Again the commercial implications of this would be enormous.

Basically I am saying that a peace between Israel and the Palestinians accompanied by a peace agreement between Syria and Israel would completely rewrite the picture for the whole Middle East. Syria has very strong incentives for wanting a peace agreement with Israel. They are isolated and are living in almost a Soviet era kind of economic reality. They want out of it and they want out of it very bad. However, no Syrian regime can politically afford to give up on the Golan and pan-Arab politics also requires the issue of Jerusalem and Palestine to be resolved as well in order for Syria and any other Arab states to normalize relations.

[pelsar]

76. i asked about the Palestinian obligation...

and did you add the gaza evacuation into the graph?

guess what?....you get settlement slow down and reduced expansion.

so why is it that you constantly ignore the removal of settlements from gaza...is it not a fact?

[Douglas Carpenter]

78. Mr. Sharon openly stated that the purpose of the Gaza withdrawal was to consolidate Israeli

control over the West Bank. Those are not my words. They are Mr. Sharon's own words. And it is an undeniable fact that Israeli settlement expansion continued unabated in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Mr. Netanyahu has now publicly promised the settler movement that there will never, ever be any slow down on settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and never again be any withdrawal of any settlers - ever.

Nonetheless, could the Palestinian leadership in the Gaza have done a better job of handling the situation? Of course. But as you know - and I suspect you are one of the few people here who do know this - Gaza is a very, very different place than the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Their problems in the Gaza are infinitesimally more desperate, difficult and complicated than the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Sarah Roy was writing way back in the early 90's how impossible the Gaza situation was even then and that was well before Gaza was anywhere near as cut off from the rest of the world as they have been in recent years. But still could the Palestinian leadership in the Gaza have done a better job of handling what was available? Of course.

It is disingenuous to use the calamity of Gaza as a predictor of the results of a future coordinated withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Let's look at the subject of THIS very OP - the booming of cafe culture and countless private enterprises in Ramallah - a place in the West Bank where the Palestinians are very much in charge. This thread is just so typical - here we have a post about something very positive the Palestinian are doing for themselves - and it gets hijacked by those who only want to heap scorn - even when they are doing something the Israelis and others are constantly lecturing down to them about what they should do - and all we see is scorn - nothing but scorn - shame on you - shame on you.

Cafe culture blooms in West Bank's Ramallah

RAMALLAH, West Bank — While Paris's Left Bank is famous for its fine restaurants and bustling cafes, Palestine's West Bank is not. But that might be about to change.

The hilly city of Ramallah, which lies just to the north of Jerusalem, has undergone a massive boom in recent years on the back of Western donor support, with new smart eateries and bars mushrooming alongside a plethora of pristine office blocks.

Latest data says Ramallah and the adjacent town of Al-Bireh that it has utterly engulfed have more than 120 coffee shops and some 300 restaurants, with 50 new diners opening in 2010 alone.

snip:

The Palestinian Authority set up camp here when it was created in 1994 and is determinedly building an array of state institutions in the city in readiness for a wildly expected unilateral push for independence later this year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42450613/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

Officials: Robust Growth in W. Bank Settlements
Friday, August 26, 2005

JERUSALEM — An Israeli government official said Friday the population in its West Bank (search) settlements has grown by more than 12,000 in the past year, reinforcing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's goal of strengthening large settlement blocs while withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.

snip:

Sharon has repeatedly said the withdrawal would help consolidate Israel's control over large settlement blocs in the West Bank, where the vast majority of Jewish settlers live. New figures from the Interior Ministry show robust growth in these blocs.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167143,00.html

Enjoying a moment of international sympathy, Sharon's government is moving swiftly to capitalize on its unilateral withdrawal and ongoing demolition of 25 Jewish settlements. The government's efforts are focused largely in the West Bank, land of far more religious and strategic importance to Israel than the remote slice of coastline it has left behind.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082701113_pf.html

[pelsar]

83. you still dont include. the facts...

israel did leave gaza-destroyed settlements...that has nothing to do with what sharon has said or didn't say.

so as far as i can understand from your posts: facts don't exist if somebody says something?

How can anyone have a serious conversation with you, if such a basic, undeniable fact is ignored: israeli settlers were removed in gaza, settlements destroyed no matter what anybody said, says or will say.

more so...that graph i showed you that you like using..shows that all of your quotes about increased expanded settlement growth is nothing more than BS...the graph clearly shows that the growth is continuous on a consistent basis


so?...since you know have additional information in your hands...why do you insist on using links that are clearly false?

i believe the shame is on you?

what is most interesting here is that you know have additional information in your hands, yet you refuse to change your position one bit, in fact your ignoring that additional information.




________________

btw, gaza also had a booming internet cafe season....2006/7 until the locals decided it wasn't good, bombed a few, threatened the owners and well, that was the end of that.

and yes the culture of gaza is much different from that of the westbank...but as i discovered here, that type of information is not acceptable to discuss here.
_______________

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. anyway,once again thank for the chart and the additional information YOU provided and YOU referenced

http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/israeli-west-bank-settlement-growth.html

West Bank settlement population has indeed increased every single year. But what's really surprising is that the general trend has not changed significantly even when Israel was intensely negotiating a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. This implies that Israel has never actually been serious about a two-state solution.

http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/israeli-west-bank-settlement-growth.html

.

[pelsar]

88. yes, i'm not afraid of facts, nor hide from them nor make them up...

now try answering the question please...even if its hard:

using my graph you also had a quote:
Sharon has repeatedly said the withdrawal would help consolidate Israel's control over large settlement blocs in the West Bank, where the vast majority of Jewish settlers live. New figures from the Interior Ministry show robust growth in these blocs.

since the quote about "robust growth is clearly wrong/false/lie/ etc...

why did you use it?

and just for fun, i have no idea how the gaza withdrawl "consolidated" israels control, since you like quoting him so much, do you mind explaining what that actually means?
___________________________________

[JackRiddler]

113. Israel did not leave Gaza, obviously.

They moved a small number of settlements so that they could more easily turn this small territory into an open-air prison, cut it off from the world, starve its people and bomb them whenever they pleased (including after Israel broke the ceasefire and proceeded to murder 1500 people in the "Cast Lead" atrocity).

Gaza is an Israeli prison camp for the Palestinian population trapped inside. It is still an occupied territory.

[shira]

68. Yes, he believes in all or nothing - Israel vacates everything and the PA needs to do nothing

And whatever follows after Israel vacates is irrelevant, like when just one rocket eventually lands on Ben Gurion airport - which would then start a war.

Irrelevant b/c Israel must vacate 100%.

We're dealing here with people who are pro-vacating, not pro-peace. Oddly enough, it's what the PLO and Hamas want too...

Oh, and our friends here would still favor BDS against Israel even after Israel vacates everything.

[Jefferson23]

60. You live in Israel? If the answer is yes, I don't understand why you're

asking me to explain why leaving Gaza wasn't an act of good faith. You're kidding, right? I'm not trying to
be glib here, just so you understand.

[pelsar]

61. yes i live in israel...

and if the answer as to why leaving gaza was not an "act of good faith" than yes i dont understand.

i was told that because there was no ceremony that the Palestinians were just so insulted that they couldn't get over themselves and hence just have to try to kill us.....is that it?

we now have to worry about the emotional state of the Palestinians before we do anything?
__________

btw you might want to check your "ethnocentricity meter" if you wondering why I don't know.....my world is not yours in a cultural sense, nor is the Palestinians)

[Jefferson23]

75. Your culture, nor anyone else's would prevent them from understanding

why leaving Gaza was not an act of good faith. I mentioned to you once before about a viable state, and an act of good
faith does not equate with the conditions of Gaza. The reason I asked if you live in Israel is my surprise that anyone
who lives there could imagine that to be true..so I am puzzled by your answer. Nevertheless, this is a discussion board,
so what it's worth to you pelsar, I reiterate, no act of good faith by the Israeli government.


Sara Roy
Associate of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies

Biography: Dr. Sara Roy is a senior research scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University where she completed her doctoral studies in international development and education. Trained as a political economist, 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. Her current research, which was funded by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, examines the social and economic sectors of the Palestinian Islamic movement and their relationship to Islamic political institutions, and the critical changes to the Islamic movement that have occurred over the last 15 years.

Dr. Roy is the author of The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development (1995, 2001), now in its second edition with a third edition forthcoming; The Gaza Strip Survey (1986); and editor of The Economics of Middle East Peace: A Reassessment (1999). Her most recent book is Failing Peace: Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict (London: Pluto Press, 2007) and she is completing Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza: Engaging the Islamist Social Sector (Princeton University Press, forthcoming). Dr. Roy also has authored over 100 publications dealing with Palestinian issues and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Her work has appeared in the Journal of Palestine Studies, Current History, Middle East Journal, Middle East Policy, International Journal of Middle East Studies, The Beirut Review, American Political Science Review, Critique, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Chicago Journal of International Law, Index on Censorship, La Vanguardia, Le Monde Diplomatique and the London Review of Books.

Dr. Roy also serves on the Advisory Boards of American Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA), an American private voluntary organization working in the Middle East, and the Center for American and Jewish Studies at Baylor University. In addition to her academic work, she has served as a consultant to international organizations, the U.S. government, human rights organizations, private voluntary organizations, and private business groups working in the Middle East.

http://cmes.hmdc.harvard.edu/people/research-associates




Praying with Their Eyes Closed: Reflections on the Disengagement from Gaza

Sara Roy

Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 34, no. 4 (Summer 2005), p. 64

Essay


When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, we had the Bible in our hand, and they had the land. —Jomo Kenyatta, first president of Kenya.

On 9 June 2005, the last legal hurdle to implementing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement from Gaza was cleared when the Israeli High Court approved the plan and its removal of all the Jewish settlements there. The settlers, though angered by the decision, were not surprised and vowed to oppose their coerced departure with all means possible. Considerable media attention in the United States has been devoted to the suffering of the Jewish settlers and the personal costs for them of the disengagement. This attention has served to thaw and then humanize the often violent and zealous settler population, and in so doing, to illustrate and amplify the sacrifices Israel is making for peace.
By now a great deal has been written about the disengagement plan by both supporters and opponents. Many of the arguments in favor focus on the redeployment as an opportunity to break the near five-year-old political impasse between Palestinians and Israelis and usher in a new era of stability and peace. In April 2005, for example, President Bush stated that Israel's withdrawal will allow the establishment of "a democratic state in the Gaza" and open the door for democracy in the Middle East.<1> Tom Friedman was more explicit, arguing that "he issue for Palestinians is no longer about how they resist the Israeli occupation in Gaza, but whether they build a decent mini-state there—a Dubai on the Mediterranean. Because if they do, it will fundamentally reshape the Israeli debate about whether the Palestinians can be handed most of the West Bank."<2>

Embedded in both statements are a set of assumptions: that Palestinians will be free to build their own democracy, that Israel will eventually cede the West Bank (or even consider the possibility), that Israel's "withdrawal" will strengthen the Palestinian position in negotiations over the West Bank, that the occupation will end or become increasingly irrelevant, that the gross asymmetries between the two protagonists will be redressed. Hence, the Gaza disengagement plan—if implemented “properly”—will provide a real (perhaps the only) opportunity for resolving the conflict and creating a Palestinian state. It follows that Palestinians will be responsible for their success, and that if they fail to build a "democratic" or "decent mini-state" in Gaza, the fault will be theirs and theirs alone.

A Dubai on the Mediterranean?

It would be useful to consider what the Palestinians in Gaza have to work with to achieve success.

Today, there are over 1.4 million Palestinians living in the Strip. By 2010 this number will reach close to two million. The Gaza Strip has the highest level of fertility in the region—5.5–6.0 children per woman—and the population grows at a very high rate of 3–5 percent annually. Fifty years ago, 80 percent of the population had not yet been born. Fifty percent of Gazans are 15 years old or younger, with rapidly declining access to health care and education. The half of the territory in which the population is concentrated has one of the highest population densities in the world. In the Jabalya refugee camp alone, there are 74,000 persons per square kilometer, compared with 25,000 persons per square kilometer in Manhattan.<3>

in full: http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=6525&jid=1&href=fulltext

[pelsar]

77. the PA/israeli relationship is not based on "faith"

that whole concept is a "left" perversion of reality. The concept of good faith is an emotional reaction, that has little to do with nation states and their interests.

States as a rule do whats in their own best interests......this is very true of the I/P conflict
_________________

Israel left gaza because it was in israels own best interests to do so.....It was also the first time the Palestinians had a chance at their own self rule....they had several options, that have nothing to do with "good faith"

they could have chosen to take advantage of their situation, work with the Egyptians, Israelis expand their trade, economy etc. All could have been done with positive repercussions throughout the region.... your quotes of an unviable state was also written about israel pre48, but more important, it has no bearing on the limited options that the Palestinian leadership had when israel left.

they chose and nobody did it for them, the worst possible option: to try to kill israelis on an almost daily basis (and egypt).
_____________

hence if you really want to understand what happened:
we destroyed settlements, removed settlers...and received almost a daily dose of missiles. THAT was the lesson of removing settlements.
___________________

and the fact that in the discussions here "its not counted" is even more telling. The lessons of removing settlements is quite simple: they are not the obstacle to peace, there are additional factors that are in fact far more important. The question is, if your recognize them or are you (and others) so blinded (and so nationalistic) that you can't see them?

[Jefferson23]

79. You mentioned previously about a "left" perversion of reality and do

so again here. The evidence I presented here for you about the conditions of Gaza is not disputable. With that said, I do not
believe it is possible regardless of one's political views, left or right, for anyone to consider the
conditions of Gaza as an opportunity with options as you suggest.

An act of good faith is not an emotional reaction, but a response to begin a process for peace. I have no argument
with you that Israel acted in their best interest regarding Gaza and not the Palestinians...although I wish they had.

Removing the settlements according to you is not the obstacle, yet you put forth nothing as evidence, other factors
that are in your opinion far more important..you haven't stated as such.


Your last question to me: The question is, if your recognize them or are you (and others) so blinded (and so nationalistic) that you can't see them?

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about..nationalistic?


Oppressing people to the degree we see within this conflict, coupled with documented evidence brought before the ICJ,and their conclusions
should not confuse any reasonable person as to what needs to be done to resolve it. Unfortunately, the United States will not
likely act and pressure Israel on a serious meaningful level.

[pelsar]

84. yes nationalistic

where one believes that land ownership is far more important that other factors....such as civil rights...

you might notice that whereas hamas owns gaza, they have steadily moved toward a theocratic state, removing the few rights the citizens had....all of that is deemed secondary. So too with the PA in the westbank.

the little bit of independence that that the PA has received from Oslo was not to expand the civil rights of its citizens but in fact to reduce them with all of the energy going towards the nationalistic goal of land ownership-hence nationalism. (This is why the progressives and hamas can protest together, both have similar goals of nationalism and not civil rights as their goals.)

nor once they get their state will democracy suddenly flourish out of "nowhere." That lesson should be pretty obvious by now, looking at iran, egypt, Libya, Syria, Gaza, etc
----

as far as gazas economy goes....the israelis used the greenhouses to export, and had a growth economy and today
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/imf-gaza-s-economy-shot-up-by-16-so-far-in-2010-1.313654

but i've learned from your posts..if someone says something, then you feel you can ignore those facts...interesting viewpoint

[Douglas Carpenter]

87. well yes - nationalism and civil rights

and this from Wiki regarding Arab citizens of Israel - not those who live under occupation - but full citizens of Israel

Discrimination
See also: Anti-Arabism in Israel

While formally equal according to Israeli law, a number of official sources acknowledge that Arab citizens of Israel experience discrimination in many aspects of life. Israeli High Court Justice (Ret.) Theodor Or wrote in The Report by the State Commission of Inquiry into the Events of October 2000:

The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Although the Jewish majority’s awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted, both within the Arab sector and outside it, and by official assessments, as a chief cause of agitation.<188>

The Or Commission report also claims that activities by Islamic organizations may be using religious pretenses to further political aims. The commission describes such actions as a factor in 'inflaming' the Muslim population in Israel against the authorities, and cites the al-Sarafand mosque episode, with Muslims' attempts to restore the mosque and Jewish attempts to stop them, as an example of the 'shifting of dynamics' of the relationship between Muslims and the Israeli authorities.

According to the 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Israeli government had done "little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens."<178>

The 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices<178> notes that:

"Approximately 93 percent of land in the country was public domain, including that owned by the state and some 12.5 percent owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). All public land by law may only be leased, not sold. The JNF's statutes prohibit the sale or lease of land to non-Jews. In October, civil rights groups petitioned the High Court of Justice claiming that a bid announcement by the Israel Land Administration (ILA) involving JNF land was discriminatory in that it banned Arabs from bidding."
"Israeli-Arab advocacy organizations have challenged the Government's policy of demolishing illegal buildings in the Arab sector, and claimed that the Government was more restrictive in issuing building permits in Arab communities than in Jewish communities, thereby not accommodating natural growth."
"In June, the Supreme Court ruled that omitting Arab towns from specific government social and economic plans is discriminatory. This judgment builds on previous assessments of disadvantages suffered by Arab Israelis."
"Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged as discriminatory the 1996 "Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel," which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab towns."
"Israeli Arabs were not required to perform mandatory military service and, in practice, only a small percentage of Israeli Arabs served in the military. Those who did not serve in the army had less access than other citizens to social and economic benefits for which military service was a prerequisite or an advantage, such as housing, new-household subsidies, and employment, especially government or security-related industrial employment. The Ivri Committee on National Service has issued official recommendations to the Government that Israel Arabs not be compelled to perform national or "civic" service, but be afforded an opportunity to perform such service".
"According to a 2003 Haifa University study, a tendency existed to impose heavier prison terms to Arab citizens than to Jewish citizens. Human rights advocates claimed that Arab citizens were more likely to be convicted of murder and to have been denied bail."
"The Orr Commission of Inquiry's report <...> stated that the 'Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,' that the Government 'did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner.' As a result, 'serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"
The 2007 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices<189> notes that:

"According to a 2005 study at Hebrew University, three times more money was invested in education of Jewish children as in Arab children."
Human Rights Watch has charged that cuts in veteran benefits and child allowances based on parents' military service discriminate against Arab children: "The cuts will also affect the children of Jewish ultra-orthodox parents who do not serve in the military, but they are eligible for extra subsidies, including educational supplements, not available to Palestinian Arab children."<190>

According to The Guardian, in 2006 just 5% of civil servants were Arabs, many of them hired to deal with other Arabs, despite the fact that Arab citizens of Israel comprise 20% of the population.<172>

Although the Bedouin infant mortality rate is still the highest in Israel, and one of the highest in the developed world, The Guardian reports that in the 2002 budget, Israel's health ministry allocated Arab communities less than 0.6% of its budget for healthcare facility development.<172>

Property ownership and housing

The Israel Land Administration, which administers 93% of the land in Israel (including the land owned by the Jewish National Fund), refuses to lease land to non-Jewish foreign nationals, which includes Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who have identity cards but are not citizens of Israel. When ILA land is "bought" in Israel it is actually leased to the "owner" for a period of 49 years. According to Article 19 of the ILA lease, foreign nationals are excluded from leasing ILA land, and in practice foreigners may just show that they qualify as Jewish under the Law of Return.<191>

Israeli law also discriminates between Jews and Arabs regarding rights to recover property owned before the dislocations created by the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.<11> The 1950 Absentees Property Law stipulated that any property within post-war Israel which was owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who had merely been abroad or in area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property. Palestinians who fled or were expelled from their homes by Jewish or Israeli forces, before and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but remained within the borders of what would become Israel, that is, those currently known as Arab citizens of Israel, are deemed present absentees by the legislation. Present absentees are regarded as absent by the Israeli government because they left their homes, even if they did not intend to leave them for more than a few days, and even if they did so involuntarily.<192>

Following the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel occupied the West Bank, from where it annexed East Jerusalem, Israel then passed in 1970 the Law and Administration Arrangements Law allowing for Jews who had lost property in East Jerusalem and the West Bank during the 1948 war to reclaim it.<12> Palestinian residents of Jerusalem (absentees) in the same positions, and Arab Israelis (present absentees), who owned property in West Jerusalem or other areas within the state of Israel, and lost it as a result of the 1948 war, cannot recover their properties. Israeli legislation, therefore, allows Jews to recover their land, but not Arabs.<13>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Discrimination

[Jefferson23]

89. As defined by you, nationalism equates with land ownership and

is far more important than other factors, such as civil rights. Who are you suggesting holds this belief,
Israel? Your use of the term nationalistic is puzzling to me. Your last statement pelsar, post for me if you will. what exactly you believe
I ignored and who is this, "if someone says something..."? If you're suggesting I ignore others, substantiate your claim please.

Also, regarding the link you posted, see, under external pressure Israel eased up on the blockade and the economy moved in a
positive direction. * The move comes amid international pressure on Israel, following its raid on aid ships bound for Gaza last month. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10338199)

The reason I posted for you info. from Sara Roy, dated 2005 is because you had suggested Israel vacating Gaza was something to
be seen as a great opportunity for the Palestinians. I provided for you documentation that clearly indicates that from its inception this would be impossible for them to achieve by its very design...no coincidence.

Regarding Hamas, the blockade was implemented by Israel before they came into power, so again, tracing the history of Israeli
policy, there are no acts of good faith, no meaningful movement for peace. Again I state to you, the consequences of oppressing
people should shock no one.

Nationalism: The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of a nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual's membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.

It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states — whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty. While many states are nations in some sense, there are many nations which are not fully sovereign states. As an example, the Native American Iroquois constitute a nation but not a state, since they do not possess the requisite political authority over their internal or external affairs. If the members of the Iroquois nation were to strive to form a sovereign state in the effort to preserve their identity as a people, they would be exhibiting a state-focused nationalism.

Nationalism has long been ignored as a topic in political philosophy, written off as a relic from bygone times. It came into the focus of philosophical debate two decades ago, in the nineties, partly in consequence of rather spectacular and troubling nationalist clashes, such as those in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet republics. The surge of nationalism usually presents a morally ambivalent, and for this reason often fascinating, picture. “National awakening” and struggles for political independence are often both heroic and inhumanly cruel; the formation of a recognizably national state often responds to deep popular sentiment, but can and does sometimes bring in its wake inhuman consequences, including violent expulsion and “cleansing” of non-nationals, all the way to organized mass murder. The moral debate on nationalism reflects a deep moral tension between solidarity with oppressed national groups on the one hand and the repulsion people feel in the face of crimes perpetrated in the name of nationalism on the other. Moreover, the issue of nationalism points to the wider domain of problems, having to do with the treatment of ethnic and cultural differences within democratic polity, which are arguably among the most pressing problems of contemporary political theory.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

[pelsar]

90. back to gaza...

so if i understand your claim...israel leaving gaza destroying settlements, removing settlers...gave the Palestinians ZERO options or opportunities for a better life/control their own society and they had no choice but to continue trying to kill israelis....but now with israeli 'boots" gone, they did manage to find further resources to build, import and shoot additional home made, military grade missiles and anti tank missiles.


but nothing to improve their own civil society? correct?

money and resources for additional military equipment but nothing for their own citizens?...and obviously israel made them choose that, because the Palestinians are not capable of making other decisions.....

I believe that is a good summary of your opinion of the gaza withdrawal and its aftermath....

[Jefferson23]

91. I presented for you indisputable evidence regarding the

conditions of Gaza as of 2005. If you believe these obstacles are illegitimate and the Palestinians should have been able
to thrive regardless, we strongly disagree.

I will add here you have presented nothing to support otherwise. The link you did offer only supports what has been said
before, with external international pressure, when Israel eased the blockade, the economy slightly improved.

When people are suppressed to the degree they are in Gaza, the consequences which erupt from that can and
have and will continue to be dire..that is human nature. Unless the United States decides to pressure Israel
on a meaningful and serious level, there is little hope left for peace imho.

[pelsar]

92. no you have avoided economics 101....and the question

econ 101..the first lesson, is all places have a limit on their resources, and they get to choose guns or butter.

in you opinion

do/did the Palestinians have a choice in using their resources for guns or butter? or are they not capable of making such decisions for whatever the reason? (as you seem to say....)


question number two:
do the Palestinians have any obligation morally toward israel in terms of their actions?

___________

i realize both questions and their answers cross the threshold of PC...but then i have a very low opinion of discussions that remain within the framework of PC. You'll note that i am not interested in polls, reports, essays, etc from other people, the questions are directed toward you and your opinion, and i also realize that if you actually answer, you may be "ostracized" for leaving the PC framework and answering directly and honestly......

[Jefferson23]

93. Choices are voluntary within given frameworks. The severe limitations

placed on the Palestinians in Gaza was deliberate, by design they were set up to fail. The reactions are a culmination of voluntary choices
stemming from human nature; for every action there is a reaction..nothing shocking the reaction is sometimes violent.

There are added variables, a corrupt PA results in Hamas etc. I am presenting to you what fundamentally happens
when people have little to no recourse, this is not suggesting the choices are wise or admirable.

A brutal occupation where the broker for peace, in this case the United States, has failed miserably
leaving only desperation for the Palestinians to cope with in their daily struggle to survive.

I have no idea why you think you need to preface this conversation with PC references, I have held back nothing about
my opinion of the situation. That you are not interested in the reports I have presented to you is certainly your choice.

I am happy to read anything you may like to present to the contrary.

[pelsar]

94. you've contradicted youself.. (typical of your posts)

you are saying:
when people have little to no recourse... -------i.e. they have no choice


The reactions are a culmination of voluntary choices ------- i.e. they do have choice

so which is it?

_________________


and you skipped question 2:
do they have any moral obligations toward israel
(that is the PC part you skipped). I believe your answer is no, from your posts, but its very very not pc to say that clearly, since it justifies suicide bombers)

____



plllllleassee...leave the BS out of your post (its takes away from a serious discussion)
Palestinians to cope with in their daily struggle to survive

they are hardly having a daily struggle to survive, there is no starvation etc....if so, they're blogs would be full of starving kids, etc

[Jefferson23]

95. Don't put words I did not say pelsar, do that again and this conversation

is over.

"The reactions are a culmination of voluntary choices
stemming from human nature; for every action there is a reaction..nothing shocking the reaction is sometimes violent."



"I am presenting to you what fundamentally happens
when people have little to no recourse, this is not suggesting the choices are wise or admirable."


A moral obligation to Israel? Everyone has a moral obligation to mankind.

When people have little to no recourse, don't be surprised at the reaction pelsar, I believe I was very clear on that.


Your last statement: "plllllleassee...leave the BS out of your post (its takes away from a serious discussion)
Palestinians to cope with in their daily struggle to survive

they are hardly having a daily struggle to survive, there is no starvation etc....if so, they're blogs would be full of starving kids, etc."

You are free to post anything to negate the evidence I posted for you, otherwise dismissing it as you have leaves your
opinion without merit. For the record, you said "starving", not me...the reports are dire enough pelsar..no need
to exaggerate and I have not done so.

[pelsar]

96. its called clarification..

while you try to make your statements vague and non committal..i live in a world of commitment and decisions that result in specific consequences:

A moral obligation to Israel? Everyone has a moral obligation to mankind.

i asked about israel..not mankind and i asked about their society, not the individual.....do the Palestinians have any obligation in terms of their actions toward israel?...i think you said yes, but since you didnt, i dont know? Perhaps you don't want to write it out?

______________

so as not to put words in your mouth.i understand that you are clearly stating that the Palestinians given their limited choices actually have and make choices of where to put their limited resources....again you keep things in very general vague terms....a concept i do not understand, so i am guessing a bit that its a yes. (if its no...then just write it).


___________

no you did not write starving, your wrote daily struggle (I made the assumption)....would you clarify?....is it because of hamas inept and theocratic rule, the lack of employment? is there a lack of food (they did export to egypt during the crises there)

is this part of their daily struggle (nothing new, its just that the source is interesting)
http://palestinenote.com/blogs/blogs/archive/2011/04/09/hamas-islamic-jihad-reckless-and-stupid.aspx
It failed to attend to the daily needs of people from clean water, decent infrastructure that end the seepage of raw sewage every where contaminating the underground water, to improving quality of schools and health services. Instead it ran a police state intruding into the rights and privacy of people at all levels.

[Jefferson23]

97. In your opinion pelsar my answers are non committal. You don't

accept/agree with them is one thing, quite another to classify them as non-committal.

Are you suggesting all of us do not have a moral obligation to each other?

My response to you remains the same, everyone has a moral obligation to each other,
nothing vague about the concept and I have not excluded the Palestinians. I think you may be confusing reasons as excuses.

I will add we do not rely on people/nations to do what is morally right, we rely on laws from
within our respective country and international laws as well.

I already posted for you the conditions of Gaza, the link you listed is not dismissed but
understand there is a great deal of documentation which supports that from the onset, Gaza
was set up to fail..by design...prior to Hamas.

Hamas has committed on many levels, indefensible acts, yet in no way would Gaza have become a
thriving community regardless. You previously told me that you are not interested in reports, this
is your choice, but one that places you without verifiable information.

If you like, you can read Sara Roy's work in Gaza, it is quite extensive. The constant struggle
to survive, that is what I meant, yes. The hardships are enormous, and after OCL, such devastation
and the recovery is slow at best. The World Food Program director for the Gaza Strip
has stated after the assault the strategic economic areas hit were those that Gaza depends on to relieve
its dependency on aid that were wiped out.

The Palestinians did not export foods for money to the Egyptians,it was offered for those Egyptians
without, during the revolution..in solidarity.

Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6F2DF1FFB49D51AD852576C100537C1F

I believe I have answered your questions pelsar.

[pelsar]

98. how about an application?

i dont have to agree with your answers...that is obvious..but in order to understand your point of view...and further understand you conclusions it would be nice to have a simple clear answer as i understand it instead of a vague answer you can use to justify excusing the Palestinians for their actions:

so lets try a real world scenario:


if you believe that the Palestinian leadership does not have the basic ability to make political decisions, do not have the ability to decide where to put their resources (guns or butter), then you easily come to the conclusion that as total incompetents (my interpretation), they can only do what israel, the UN, egypt and the EU tell them to do....

as you put it: gaza was set up to fail, and they couldnt do anything about it.....the perfect victim. Is that your opinion?
____

if you believe that they do have the ability as a society to make decisions, to decide where to put their resources, then the 'planned failure" of gaza is a farce. The Palestinian leadership, acting intelligently via smart political moves with the UN, europe, US, israel and Egypt, could increase their trade, there by increasing their GNP and making their lives better.

the obvious example is that with political pressure on israel, exports increased and like magic their GNP increased (Egypt in the meantime has said no)....its all politics.
_______________________

so which scenario is true...or perhaps in your world view "more true, closer to the truth as you see it?"

____

and here we are in agreement:
I will add we do not rely on people/nations to do what is morally right, we rely on laws from
within our respective country and international laws as well.

whew!!! so we can remove the concept of "good intentions"...that concept does not exist with country relationships.

[Jefferson23]

99. I have given imo, clear responses pelsar and you are free to make

of them what you will. Your request for further clarification at this point in this conversation
has become fruitless. I am not going to reinvent an answer for you.

As far as your comment that we can remove the concept of good intentions, we do not agree. You see, sole
reliance on them is not what nations do, but that in no way suggests acts of good faith should not be implemented.
The relationship can exist, it also can be extended in the form of diplomacy, but not a good idea if you still want what you want
no matter what...that would be Israeli government policy at work...the West Bank for their state.


Resolution adopted by the General Assembly



64/19. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6F2DF1FFB49D51AD852576C100537C1F

[pelsar]

100. and so it ends...every time....here

i live in a world or real actions and real consequences...the virtual world here is based on wishful thinking, fantasy, illusions and ideology.

every time i attempt to apply a view here within the conflict, that is where the conversation stops.....the reasons are variations on the "i've already explain that".....or as you wrote: further clarification is fruitless. etc.

I shall explain what you refuse to hear:
israel left gaza, and life isn't perfect so everybody doesnt get their fantasy of how israel should have left...that has no place in intl relations: the PA/Hamas decided it was in their best interest and continues to be in their best interest to try to kill israelis almost daily. Those strategic decisions were theirs and theirs alone-those decisions have consequences.

Us israelis see the Palestinians as real people with the ability to make real decisions and be responsible for those decisions....others believe the Palestinians are victims and as such are incapable of making responsible decisions and if they do decide something, because they are incapable of making their own responsible decisions its not their fault... (your viewpoint).

that is the basic difference...we see them as real people, with real capabilities.....you see them as a less than that......

(btw, when their gnp goes up and increases....you'll have to make some excuse for that just as you need one for the increased gnp in the westbank....the I/P conflict is like that, actions on the ground tend to prove false all those nice written reports that so many believe as proof of something or another-but again, like the religious, changing events on ground change little whos ideology is not based on the real changing events)




____________________

[Jefferson23]

101. I did explain myself pelsar, you may not appreciate my answers and

that's fine. I can assure you they are not built on wishful thinking, illusions nor ideology.
I have listed many times information I use to form an opinion..I have yet to read what you base yours on.

It is your opinion I see the Palestinians as not real people, with real capabilities. That would be a false
interpretation of what I have expressed to you. The obstacles they would need to overcome are enormous
for ANY human being in such an environment, contrary to your claims. Reports and their credibility can be inconvenient but they do spell out the likely outcome, they do spell out the objectives of Israeli government policy.


Your concluding remarks: "(btw, when their gnp goes up and increases....you'll have to make some excuse for that just as you need one for the increased gnp in the westbank....the I/P conflict is like that, actions on the ground tend to prove false all those nice written reports that so many believe as proof of something or another-but again, like the religious, changing events on ground change little who's ideology is not based on the real changing events)"

I had already commented on your link about the change in their economy, which was a result of international pressure
to ease the blockade. Not difficult to see the correlation bringing some small relief unless but unless you know of
rebuilding and resources restored that I don't know about in Gaza since OCL, they are still living in a horrific situation.

Actions on the ground prove reports false? You seem, and correct me if I'm wrong, speaking about credibility. I believe
it is fair to say we do not share the same confidence on this subject regarding sources.

*on edit for clarity.

[pelsar]

104. ooops...its those damn facts again

well another report just came out from the red cross, that says "no humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip"....didn't you say there was? (are they credible?)
the change in the gnp is not just israel easing the blockade its also egypt doing it as well and that gazas are now exporting to egypt....

Get this, the tunnels are now bringing goods out of Gaza into Egypt
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/10/the-gaza-tunnels-arent-just-for-importing.html

So what is the obvious conclusion?
that the gazas in fact are not impotent, can affect change (with help from their friends) no matter what the evil sinister israeli plan was for gazas failure. (as per your posts)

next step?...perhaps increasing the importation of concrete from egypt to eliminate the next problem

---------------------------------------------------
We dont differ in credability of sources we differ in the concept of reaching a conclusion: i use sources that simply show actions and can then draw my own conclusions from those actions. You prefer reports that give you the conclusion you like, while ignoring the actual actions on the ground.

that is our difference. i make my own conclusions, you just repeat what others have written that fit your ideology.
_______________________


In gaza we have some interesting things happening...all of which negate "your conclusions" and show that the Palestinians have their own voice, make decisions, irreguardless of what israel, the US or egypt wants.

they are not always very wise, but they are theirs never the less....

For instance: what if instead of shooting kassams, they expanded their israeli imports, before it was curtailed..and then exported local or israeli goods to egypt as they are doing now?
Obviously if they are doing it now, they could have done it earlier..maybe they should make a decision and stop trying to kill israelis?...the consequences might be interesting, but its their decision to make and nobody elses as it might destroy that evil israeli plan for gazans failure (hey didnt the arab states have the same plan for israel in 48?...didnt that fail as well?).

i doubt you'll find a report about that....its just the obvious conclusion from the events on the ground

[azurnoir]

105. Thanks for the link here is an excerpt

It’s unclear to me who is ordering those goods, it could be the large number of Palestinians living on the Egyptian side who might be feeling nostalgic for Gaza foods. I know that the prices of apples in Egypt are at least 4 times the prices in Gaza and the same goes for a pair of jeans as the textile industry is heavily protected in Egypt. On the other hand fish from the Egyptian shores is cheaper and more abundant than available in Gaza. This makes me thinks this is simply an underground trade between two regions. While there is little benefit from this trade to the Palestinians consumer in Gaza, the tunnel operators have built a lifestyle that requires such innovation.

But as of now it seems the most popular item the Gazan export to Gaza scrap metal, aluminum and cooper. Thanks to the Israeli offensive of last year, there are hundreds of demolished in Gaza with that comes a great deal of scrap metal. They smuggle those metals to Egyptian Rafah and then those metals get sent to Egyptian factories in Hilwan and Aswan recycle those metals and bring them back to life.

This not a really exporting in the sense as the Palestinians do not produce these things they are sending to Egypt but rather arbitrage and taking advantage of the higher tariff on imported apple in Egypt. Another popular item is hide, animal hide is popular in Egypt and there are plenty of uses for it. Since Palestinians have little use for it, they do not mind send it to Egypt. The same goes for live ducks, a very popular commodity in the Egyptian diet where people of Gaza prefer chicken. the one bizarre item Egyptian demand is Israeli made yogurt. I am not sure why would Egyptian demand such good. Yes, Israeli made yogurt is really good, but it could be not poplar with Egyptians and rather demanded by the thousands of Palestinians living in Egypt. I mean in the US the homeland of the Coca Cola, they still import Mexican bottled coke for nostalgia value.

Needless to say Palestinians tunnel smugglers still smuggle cement, tiles and tobacco. But as one tunnel operator said it, we are now not as busy as we were, we are doing a third of the business we used to do. But most popular smuggle items that people of Gaza bring in from Egypt are olive oil, gravel stones, goats and sheep just in time for the Eid.

[Jefferson23]

114. You can go back and read what I said and what I posted about

Gaza if you like to check for accuracy about what was said etc.

Your facts, I believe you are referring to this OP although you did not post a link to it:

Red Cross official: Gaza isn't experiencing a humanitarian crisis

Same OP, * "Despite the easing of the closure and the partial lifting of export bans in the wake of the flotilla incident, continued restrictions on the movement of people and difficulties in importing building materials hampered sustainable economic recovery and dashed any hope of leading a normal and dignified life," the Red Cross official was quoted as saying.

..dashed any hope of leading a normal and dignified life"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/red-cross-official-gaza-isn-t-experiencing-a-humanitarian-crisis-1.357268

I think anyone who wishes to understand the conditions in Gaza can learn about it and draw their own conclusions from
a slew of sources that continually state the same.

According to you we don't disagree about the credibility of sources, but their conclusions...maybe pelsar,
but I doubt it. We have a strong disagreement about what you believe you negated about Gaza..your own source did not give the
assistance you seem to believe it holds.


Again, bringing goods from Gaza into Egypt...what I posted for you earlier is accurate, they got food out to the Egyptians
in solidarity for their revolution. What do you think this link you posted does to negate that?? Your link:

This not a really exporting in the sense as the Palestinians do not produce these things they are sending to Egypt but rather arbitrage and taking advantage of the higher tariff on imported apple in Egypt. Another popular item is hide, animal hide is popular in Egypt and there are plenty of uses for it. Since Palestinians have little use for it, they do not mind send it to Egypt. The same goes for live ducks, a very popular commodity in the Egyptian diet where people of Gaza prefer chicken. the one bizarre item Egyptian demand is Israeli made yogurt. I am not sure why would Egyptian demand such good. Yes, Israeli made yogurt is really good, but it could be not poplar with Egyptians and rather demanded by the thousands of Palestinians living in Egypt. I mean in the US the homeland of the Coca Cola, they still import Mexican bottled coke for nostalgia value.

Needless to say Palestinians tunnel smugglers still smuggle cement, tiles and tobacco. But as one tunnel operator said it, we are now not as busy as we were, we are doing a third of the business we used to do. But most popular smuggle items that people of Gaza bring in from Egypt are olive oil, gravel stones, goats and sheep just in time for the Eid. (end)

Your "what if" scenario. Israel's objectives about Gaza and the West bank have been confirmed by those past and present who GOVERN Israel; you can't be trying to say they were all misquoted. I am not going to repeat a listing of the sources with quotes I gave
you much earlier in this thread. I never said the Palestinians do not hold responsibility for their decisions, I think you
continue to misunderstand the distinction between what is likely to happen when human beings are severely oppressed. I'm not going
to repeat over and over again what those conditions are for you.

And we're done here pelsar, I have afforded you the courtesy of not telling you what you believe nor have I characterized your
opinion with cheap shots. Regardless of me asking for the same in return, you insist on bullshit like this:

"You prefer reports that give you the conclusion you like, while ignoring the actual actions on the ground. that is our difference. i make my own conclusions, you just repeat what others have written that fit your ideology." (end)

The conclusions I like?

Bye pelsar.

[JackRiddler]

112. What business do the settlers have on seized land that doesn't belong to them?

There is an easier way to end their vulnerability than by building a wall (and then asking the US for the next $3 billion hand-out). And that's to vacate the land they have stolen from the Palestinians. Amazing.

[ellenrr]

102. true, but it is honest to call a devil a devil

not all Israelis are devils but those that are should be so named.
Jeff Halper for ex Ilan Pappe for ex - there certainly are Israelis who are good human beings.

[shira]

103. But Halper and Pappe are devils.

They're part of the Totalitarian (Stalinist) Left, for one nightmare state (after full RoR) with Hamas in charge and all the blood, gore, and human rights violations that would ensue. Jews would be ethnically cleansed at best, but most likely butchered under a Hamas regime. Palestinians would still be treated like shit under Hamas but the totalitarian left doesn't care about that.

It's obscene to call these hateful warmongers good human beings.

Those who incite hatred vs. Israel are not for peace.

======

Ben Dror Yemini vs. Halper...
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/no_mr_halper_whoever_incites_against_israel_does_not_want_peace

Because among Muslims and Arabs there are many, even if it is not a majority, who want peace and are willing to make some painful concessions. Even the Saudi Initiative, which has become Arab, is a step in the right direction, assuming that you take the right of return out of it, of course.

And what do people like Halper do? They make those who refuse stronger. They preach to them not to make any compromises. They make the struggle hotter. They make Hamas stronger. According to Halper, the Arab Initiative is another plot. A plea for Israel to join the tyrants’ camp. This preaching of Halper’s, I will say it again, is documented and recorded.

His denial is a lie. Halper is not convincing the Arabs to insist on peace. It’s the other way around. He convinces them to insist on refusing. Between the Palestinian Authority of Abu-Mazen and Hamas of Mashaal and Haniya, Halper is decisively determining that he is on Hamas’ side.

Even Hamas have not justified the rockets by claiming that it is against any peace plan, which settles the Palestinians in Bantustans, but this is what Halper claims. More Hamas than Hamas. Hamas says that its goal is to destroy Israel and harm the Jews. Halper, of course, does not listen.

Some members of the “Peace camp” – not all of them, of course – will be remembered eternally in disgrace as those who convinced the Arab side to stick with refusal. The Palestinians in the refugee camps will continue to rot. Jews will continue to be murdered. This is happening also because of those who provoke strife from the likes of Jeff Halper. History will never forgive them.

Pappe is no better.

[azurnoir]

106. OMG the Totalitarian (Stalinist) Left !!!!!!

ya just can't make this stuff up is that yet an one of your many sub-divisions of what most would simply call Liberals? I have a question who would try to splinter and subdivide a group in such a manner

[shira]

107. Nothing new. Liberals like Bernard-Henri Levy have written about it.

Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism
http://www.amazon.com/Left-Dark-Times-Against-Barbarism/dp/140006435X

=========

All this is related...

Where the Far-Left Joins the Far-Right
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/features-march-10-where-the-far-left-joins-the-far-right-nick-cohen-western-guilt

Why Are Rich White "Left-Wingers" Megaphones For The Third-World Far Right?
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-are-rich-white-left-wingers.html

Terry Glavin: Canada In Palestine, fascists on campus.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/23/terry-glavine-canada-in-palestine-fascists-on-campus/

[azurnoir]

108. yes we know shira criticism of Israel (occupation) is rooted in antisemitism

or at least say supporters of said occupation and colonization of the West Bank and politely siege of Gaza who are at their best when claiming to 'not' support the occupation whilst vilifying those who oppose it
we all know that colonization and such is such a liberal tradition or so says the liberal Democracy of Israel headed by Netanyahu and Lieberman

[shira]

109. None of those sources say criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

You should read the last 3 and share your thoughts.

[azurnoir]

110. Let's start with Bernard-Henri Levy

Why didn’t I vote for Sarkozy?

Why was I so profoundly convinced, then, that it was literally impossible for me to vote for that man?

First of all, some of the reasons concerned things I knew about him, things that many voters would soon discover.

A kind of feverishness that seemed incompatible with the job.

http://www.amazon.com/Left-Dark-Times-Against-Barbarism/dp/product-description/0812974727/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

BHL is a so called modern day philosopher so 'enamored of self' his material is rendered to be something a hair above Peter Griffins musing on his navel
Now on to Terry Glavin

Why Are Rich White "Left-Wingers" Megaphones For The Third-World Far Right?


The pattern repeats itself today in The Guardian, which everyone in the English-speaking world is expected to apprehend as a clarion of proper left-wing analysis. Simon Tisdall writes: "Pakistan was already under the American hammer before the WikiLeaks crisis blew. But leaked US diplomatic cables published by the Guardian show the extraordinary extent to which Pakistan is in danger of becoming a mere satrapy of imperial Washington. The US assault on Pakistani sovereignty, which is how these developments are widely viewed in the country, is multipronged. . ."

Well, no, not unless "widely viewed" is meant as a euphemism for the Guardian view - the "left-wing" view of rich white people, which now precisely echoes and accurately reflects the lumpen view incited by right-wing Pakistani chauvinists.

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-are-rich-white-left-wingers.html

Terry Glavin: Canada In Palestine, fascists on campus.

It would probably come as a surprise to most people to learn that Canada deserves credit for being one of the world’s leading financial contributors to the cause of Palestinian freedom and a functioning Palestinian state. You’d never know it from reading the newspapers or all the posters on campus, but the sinister Zionist bogeyman otherwise known as Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to have arranged for more money and aid to find its way to the oppressed and downtrodden people of Gaza than all the George Galloway fundraisers, “Viva Palestina” crusades and Gaza Flotilla spectacles combined, by several orders of magnitude.

Between 1993 and 2007, Canada spent roughly $400 million in the West Bank and Gaza, and in 2007 Canada committed another $300 million to be spent over five years. Harper’s wicked Ziocon Hegemonists have built on this Canadian tradition and have provided significant amounts of humanitarian aid (worth several millions of dollars) over the past year or so, alone, specifically to the people of Gaza. Canada is just wrapping up a $12 million, five-year project to help Gazans cope with the economic losses due to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, for instance.

Prime Minister Harper has actually gone much farther then his predecessors. Last year, Ottawa caught a great deal of flack for deciding to break with the tradition of scatter-gun aid disbursements to concentrate 80 percent of bilateral resources in 20 “countries of focus.” Much of the criticism may have been deserved, but one of those countries – in fact the only “country of focus” identified in North Africa and the Middle East – is the country Ottawa calls “West Bank and Gaza,” otherwise known as Palestine

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/23/terry-glavine-canada-in-palestine-fascists-on-campus/

what more is there to say except when these people are talking about the "lefts antisemitism" it is about Israel

[shira]

115. BHL and Glavin are both liberals who criticize Israel, are against settlements/occupation...

...but are not like the fascist Left which demonizes and incites hatred vs. Israel and Israelis (Jews).

Big difference.

I've explained before the difference between Amos Oz and Gideon Levy. One is a liberal critic of Israel while the other demonizes and incites hatred. I would never associate Amos Oz with the fascist Left as I would Gideon Levy.

[Jefferson23]

116. Just so anyone reading this can decide for themselves Cohen's credibility on just about anything.

I'll get to your other links, later.

Where the Far-Left Joins the Far Right, Nick Cohen:

snip* Cohen is regarded by his supporters as belonging to the intellectual tradition of radical writers such as George Orwell<4> and Albert Camus. Formerly a strong critic of American foreign policy, declaring it was "Right to be anti-American" early in 2002,<5> in November that year he announced his support for the invasion of Iraq and denounced the left for, as he saw it, "anti-Americanism"<5> and failing to address Islamist ideology. "The left... has swerved to the right," he wrote.<6>

Snip* He is an advisory board member of Just Journalism, an independent organisation that argues the British media is too critical of Israel, and needs to be more balanced. He supported Operation Cast Lead, writing in The Jewish Chronicle that "it was clear to me that when Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel it had declared war and had to accept the consequences. I would not have thought that five years ago."<14><15> He also argued: "British Jews are living through a very dangerous period. They are the only ethnic minority whose slaughter official society will excuse."<14><15> He also says that whenever he hears the argument that there is a Jewish lobby influencing US foreign policy, "I bang the table and batter its proponents remorselessly."<16>

Snip* He also suggests in his book What's Left that the supposed prioritisation of single mothers for council housing "provides a perverse incentive for single motherhood" and says that "the liberal professionals of the welfare state were aggravating the poverty and racism they said they opposed". A 1996 study by the Economic and Social Research Council found no evidence of this; moreover, the obligation of local authorities to prioritise housing for applicants with children ended in 1993.<32>

Snip* Cohen writes that "The left... has swerved to the right - to the far right, in fact - and is actively supporting theocrats and fascists: the oppressors of racial minorities, secularists, women, gays and trade unionists.".<49>

Cohen praised the book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg, which argues that fascism is a liberal-left phenomenon, with Franklin Roosevelt's "fascist New Deal" at its core. Cohen wrote that liberals "are the inheritors of ideas that began in the fascist movement. Goldberg certainly leaves them little left to be proud of." Cohen argues that environmentalists are part of a "pagan movement, whose mystic tropes are repeated by new age healers, vegetarians and greens."<50> He also says "environmental politics are a middle class obsession with no appeal in the slums."<51> He argues that the "noxious fumes of eco-extremism" are "a threat", Al Gore is a "hypocrite", and that criticisms of the conservative National Review magazine, which claims global warming isn't happening, show there is a "lunatic fringe" that will discredit attempts to deal with pollution.<52>

Snip* In September 2008, Cohen in a book review in the conservative Frontpage Magazine described David Horowitz, the reviewed book's co-author and FrontPage's editor-in-chief, as a "patriot first and foremost"<53> and said that he provided "ample evidence" that the American left had committed treason by giving comfort to the enemy in a time of war. However Cohen argued that the book's criticism of American liberalism did 'not go far enough'. He describes Amnesty International as an "evil corporation"<54> and says many of Britain's problems are due to "the idiot left."<55>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Cohen#cite_note-6

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Not saying that at all...

It is a matter of national sovereignty. There is no requirement for any one nation to allow the citizens of another nation to cross its territory. However it is normally done in course of international relations.

In the specific, since this PA and Hamas both are by charter dedicated to the destruction of Israel, there is no incentive for Israel to make that kind of accommodation and in some cases good reasons not to.

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. no the PA is not dedicated by charter to the destruction of Israel - don't be ridiculous

Furthermore, both Ramallah and East Jerusalem as well as the territory in between are in Occupied Palestinian Territory. Thus there would be no need to cross Israeli Territory to go from Ramallah to East Jerusalem

BTW: here is the link to the Constitution of the Palestinian Authority:

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

.

[Shaktimaan]

31. I really don't think so.

Nobody thinks that the ONLY reason a Palestinian would want to travel between East Jerusalem and Ramallah would be to kill people. That's absurd. Obviously the vast majority of people who wish to transit between those two cities are doing so for work or to visit relatives or for something equally innocuous.

They refuse to accept that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are decent, ordinary human beings like anyone else.
This is all part of the refusal to recognize the humanity of Palestinians and other Arabs.

You constantly make this assumption about those of us who defend the wall's construction as a method dedicated to saving lives. Just as it seems obvious to me that most Palestinians plan on traveling for personal, non-violent reasons so it MUST be obvious to you that a very small percentage of them DO travel to commit terrorism. It MUST be equally obvious to you that the wall has been extremely effective in curbing terrorism against Israelis living in Jerusalem.

Turning this into a platform to make accusations of racism from does little to advance any of your arguments, and I'll tell you why. By assuming that Israeli's only motivation for creating the barrier and checkpoints is racism and an inability to recognize that the Palestinians are even human you demonstrate an inability to view the conflict from an Israeli position. You reinforce the most rabid, right-wing assessments of how the world views Israelis. It must certainly simplify the stickier issues of this conflict for you, I'll give you that. By insisting that Israelis MUST be refusing to acknowledge the Palestinians humanity you are guilty of doing the same thing yourself. By casting such outlandish aspersions without any evidence you deny the humanity of the Israelis themselves. Calling "racism" is merely an attempt to demonize those who you disagree with, as opposed to taking a legitimate look at the problems they face, or consider their available, practical solutions.

No one thinks that every Palestinian wants to go to Jerusalem to kill people. But we do think that SOME of them do. And since that is the reality it might be helpful if you start there in offering constructive criticism. Pretending that no threat exists merely serves to widen the gap between Israeli's perception of events versus their Western critics version.

[King_David]

40. Great Post

[LeftishBrit]

33. I disagree here

I don't think they're thinking that the ONLY reason is to kill people. They are concerned that a few people may use the opportunity to kill people. And for this reason, are prepared to subject lots of people to restrictions.

One may disagree with this view and think that the dangers are not at a level to justify this degree of restriction of civil liberties. After all, a lot more Israelis get killed in road accidents than by terrorists; they could reduce the death toll among Israelis quite a bit by banning cars in most areas, or by draconian punishments for people convicted of traffic offences, but it's unlikely that they would choose to do so - showing that people will not do *everything* possible to prevent deaths.

But it is not a question of not regarding Palestinians as 'human'. It's a question of regarding them as enemies who wish Israelis harm, or at least as standing a chance of being enemies who wish Israelis harm. Which is not the same as not being 'human'. To say 'Israelis think Palestinians aren't human' is a similar sort of demonizing statement to 'All Palestinians want to kill Israelis'. Oversimplifying Israeli (or Palestinian) attitudes will not help to solve the problem.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. Israel is within its rights to build a barrier on Israeli land - not on Palestinian land

Just as your neighbor is within his rights to build a fence around his property - but he is not allowed to build a fence that cuts through your property and dissects it up and make the coming and going from you house difficult or impossible.

I know a Palestinian Christian woman from Bethlehem whose family had owned the same olive groves for centuries. The Wall has now dissected the family's ancient olive groves from them and affectively confiscated it. This is just one of thousands of cases of peoples lives being greatly harmed by the construction of this wall - not on Israeli land - but on Palestinian land. This is not simply a matter of the inconvenience of having to wait patiently at check points. It's a matter of peoples' livelihoods and family life being severely damaged and perhaps ruined.

Again, if Israel feels a need to build a wall or your neighbor feels a need to build a fence - fine - but let them do it on their own land.

[LeftishBrit]

35. I agree with the main points of this - it's more the attribution of motives that I was arguing about

[JackRiddler]

111. You think using false terms can change the reality of an occupation?

The territory you are claiming belongs to the Palestinians and is under illegal occupation by Israel.

[Lithos]

4. Very good news

Very encouraging!

[Mosby]

10. Ramallah would make a great capitol of Palestine.

[King_David]

23. Agreed , seems to be heading in that direction nt

[shaayecanaan]

27. Tel Aviv would make a fantastic capital of Israel...

and its not "capitol", by the way.

[King_David]

85. The difference is that Israel already has a Capital

= Jerusalem.

The Palistinians one day will need one (or two)

Hence the Suggestion of Ramallah (and Probably Gaza City too.).