gaza food wilkl run out by midweek

[lord_casek]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200572496382&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

Three days after Defense Minister Ehud Barak ordered the Gaza Strip sealed off to the outside world, defense officials said Sunday that food supplies were running low in Gaza and would dry up by the middle of the week.

 

 

The Palestinians were also facing a major shortage in medicine and medical supplies, the officials said.

By Sunday night, only four Kassam rockets had been fired into Israel, a significant drop in comparison to the more than 160 that pounded the western Negev last week.

Despite the dwindling supplies, however, officials said Gaza was not facing a humanitarian crisis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

remember, it's only bad when it's against the jews. right?

wrong.

 

zionism is evil.

 

 

 

 

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/761c1063530766a7052566a2005b74d1!OpenDocument

[LIVERWURST*]

I agree to a point, but if a province in Canada started shooting missiles at an American city or area, I doubt you'd side with the aggressors.

[lord_casek]

I agree to a point, but if a province in Canada started shooting missiles at an American city or area, I doubt you'd side with the aggressors.

 

and like i said, holocaust is only ok when it's not the jews.

 

p.s.: this is illegal according to the geneva convention.

 

 

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

[Dawood]

I agree to a point, but if a province in Canada started shooting missiles at an American city or area, I doubt you'd side with the aggressors.

 

We have a population of people against a military and another population of people.

It's my inclination to say the ones with tanks and bombs with american backing are the aggressors, not the population that is largely defenseless.

[lord_casek]

We have a population of people against a military and another population of people.

It's my inclination to say the ones with tanks and bombs with american backing are the aggressors, not the population that is largely defenseless.

 

 

damn skippy. if it was military against military, i wouldn't pick and choose a side, but you can't punish a people for what a small fraction if doing. it's not joe average palestinian that's firing rockets.

[lord_casek]

Foreign Office,

November 2nd, 1917.

 

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

 

Yours sincerely

Arthur James Balfour

 

 

 

 

http://story.australiaherald.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/c08dd24cec417021/id/320009/cs/1/

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/295776

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/world/americas/20canada.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

[MAR]

The Balfour Declaration screwed the Jews out of 80% of the land promised to them. The country was split into a jewish state (Israel) and a Arab land (Jordan). (edit: that was The White Paper. The Balfour declaration just said the British wanted to give the land back to the Jews. The wording however was similar to India in which it didn't make a promise of a self governing state even though it was the end result.)

 

 

i see a couple major problems here:

 

1. As stated before, if Texas were to start bombing random parts of the US and was sealed off do you think anyone would complain? No.

 

2. The Palestinians have effectively declared war on Israel with their Jihads and yet Israel allows the Palestinians to work and travel through their country. I dont know any other case in history of this.

 

3. The Palestinians want a homeland but if they cant support themselves for 3 days without the Israelis dont you think thats a bit unrealistic?

 

All and all I'm glad Israel has put its foot down but I'm not really sure how much of an impact this will really have.

[the.crooked]

without of my friends here at school, it is always nice to read your views mar.

 

 

well tempered position.

[MayorMeanBeans]

1. As stated before, if Texas were to start bombing random parts of the US and was sealed off do you think anyone would complain? No.

 

- thats true, but one cannot overlook the complexities of the situation. the palestinian-israeli conflict is more of an intl conflict than a domestic one (because it is between two polities). never before in history has one country been at war with another, while holding the other polity's survival in their hands. in the middle ages, sieges (gaza is besieged, by nature of being cut off) were used to force surrender. but the vast majority have already surrendered (by virtue of there not being a mass uprising which surely would occur in the event of imminent starvation). those who haven't surrendered get what little is there (by way of hamas), leaving them unable to feel the pain of the siege. this siege is problematic in the way that casek said. it fails to reach/hurt the true perpetrators, while hurting everyone (especially the politically marginalized, pacifists etc.), and is prohibited by intl law (not a very persuasive argument against israel, considering intl law has not dissuaded them in the past).

 

A good distinction can be made between how England/Northern Ireland reacted to the IRA, and israel's strategy towards palestinians (in gaza, it is no longer towards a particular political group, but rather the entirety of the people). they responded with intelligence gathering, court prosecutions and targeted assassinations as a last resort. the Catholic communities, though they were certainly brutalized by police forces, they were never severed from their food or heat (the most basic of the basic human rights).

2. The Palestinians have effectively declared war on Israel with their Jihads and yet Israel allows the Palestinians to work and travel through their country. I dont know any other case in history of this.

 

- i hope you don't mean to say that israel is beneficial as a state apparatus towards the palestinian people as a whole. i don't know specifics, but aren't ALL palestinians prohibited from using the settlement roads (which are in much better condition than other roads, and would surely facilitate economic development, something which you fault them for below). furthermore, regardless of the past (in which both sides are guilty of various things), the fact that gaza hasn't erupted in response to the siege implies that though IJ and Hamas have 'declared jihad', their constituents haven't followed. so i find it difficult to rationalize current policies regarding the totality of the policies towards israel's enemies.

 

i am presuming that the current israeli policy's rationale is, "because the palestinians haven't stopped hamas, ij etc, therefore they must support them." such sentiments are buttressed by the hamas election, which israel completely misanalyzed imo. my take on that election is that the people who provided the most health care and social safety nets (hamas) won, not because they were the most anti-israeli.

3. The Palestinians want a homeland but if they cant support themselves for 3 days without the Israelis dont you think thats a bit unrealistic?

 

-this is just flat wrong. palestinians trade with a number of regional areas, and israel cut off that trade. yes palestine is currently economically unviable, but this is in the context of a state that has no effective institutions, no access to viable trade routes between gaza and the west bank (though they exist). furthermore, you have to account for the palestinian diaspora, which alone ensures the survival of palestine (this is similar to much of the third world). when israel shuts down electricity and the borders, how are remittances to enter the country?

 

furthermore, i find it problematic for you to say that the palestinian aspirations are unrealistic, given the intl community's willingness for palestine to be a state. the money is surely there. where would israel be without the intl community (my point is that 'unviabilities can disappear' very easily with the whims of the intl community). moreover, regarding the economic character of a future palestinian state, the palestinian diaspora is becoming better and better educated. if palestine were to inherit the education of the diaspora, it would be in prime condition to become a finance/service center (esp considering its relations with the middle east, and gaza's outlet to the mediterranean).

 

yes, the won't be able to farm food for its survival, but that is the case with much of europe. you say that that is a reason for it not to be a state. however, the reason behind that is the blockade which prevented food to enter, regardless of the financial context of those going hungry, and does not suggest viability. famine during wartime is not surprising.

 

------

 

i know i wrote a lot, probably way more than you're willing to get into. but saying stuff along the lines of, "canada wouldn't care if quebec got shut down cuz it was raining qassams on toronto and ottawa" is misleading because it implies a degree of institutional stability that simply does no exist in the anarchy and chaos of gaza, and all of palestine for that matter.

[MayorMeanBeans]

additionally, everyone was screwed by colonialists locked in ww1, so saying that the jews were screwed by the unfulfillment of the balfour declaration is insufficient:

 

rich europeans are mad that sykes picot never came about.

 

Arabs are pissed at the failed implementation of the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence (which had equal weight because neither one was a signed treaty between states).

 

to say that any of these agreements hold more weight than another is wrong, because it is presupposed by the notion that any of these states/actors had any right to divide up the middle east (ie, your accepting the legitimacy of imperialism to justify land rights on the basis of the balfour declaration).

 

imagine what the middle east would look like today if referendums were held throughout post-ottoman empire (1918) regarding what the decomposed empire would be composed of? would israel exist?

 

i believe that israel deserves to be a state so i don't want what im saying to be misconstrued, but its amazing that though biblical claims to israel that are centuries old, political claims/non-religious claims (claims that are only of 'this world') are less than one hundred years old.

[Decyferon]

I can't really get too involved in discussions like this because the israeli state in my opinion is one of the worst terrorist regimes in the world, they have no right to the land that they have and it is only due to the backing of the western world, particularly America which means they get away with what they do.

Its things like this that make me kind of understand the reasoning behind fundamentalism (I'm white I'm not about to strap anything to my body and organised religion is wrong anyway doesn't matter which faith) but you see this shit happen and the world stands by and what? after a while give the israeli government a slap on the wrist.

And people wonder why there is such a rise in anti-semitism.

[lord_casek]

ZIONISM IS RACISM

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/761c1063530766a7052566a2005b74d1!OpenDocument

[Juan Fuentes]

of course is racism.

they consider themselves a race, from God, and infinite times better than others, in fact, other races are half human for them(babylonian talmud).

 

you cant deal with them. sucks though, i would like to, but they are made like that.

[Dawood]

I see you lurking, Mar.

[MAR]

I really appreciate the fact that you put time in to your argument as apposed to the few who are just spewing hate about how Israel is a Nazi regime or that Zionism is racism. When i read that it just frustrates me to the point where I dont care to respond.

 

So let me take a moment to afford you the same respect.

 

- thats true, but one cannot overlook the complexities of the situation. the palestinian-israeli conflict is more of an intl conflict than a domestic one (because it is between two polities). never before in history has one country been at war with another, while holding the other polity's survival in their hands. in the middle ages, sieges (gaza is besieged, by nature of being cut off) were used to force surrender. but the vast majority have already surrendered (by virtue of there not being a mass uprising which surely would occur in the event of imminent starvation). those who haven't surrendered get what little is there (by way of hamas), leaving them unable to feel the pain of the siege. this siege is problematic in the way that casek said. it fails to reach/hurt the true perpetrators, while hurting everyone (especially the politically marginalized, pacifists etc.), and is prohibited by intl law (not a very persuasive argument against israel, considering intl law has not dissuaded them in the past).

 

To start, the international laws have been made with little mind paid to Israel. In their opinion since 1945, when they were attacked by all their neighbors and some (7 countries in total), the Arab population has given up their say into the government by openly showing that they would not allow Jews, had the tables been turned, to have a say in their government. Frankly , I dont believe that the Arab nations would have allowed any Jews to remain alive/live in the state of Israel.

 

Undoubtedly, there will always be someone who suffers because of their leader's decisions. Hamas and Fatah both remain powerful in both Gaza and the West Bank and the PA who is supposed to be stopping them is sympathetic, in as so much that recently two PA officers murdered two off duty soldiers who were hiking last week.

 

Am I disappointed that it has come to this? Yes.

 

Am I surprised? Definitely not.

 

A good distinction can be made between how England/Northern Ireland reacted to the IRA, and israel's strategy towards palestinians (in gaza, it is no longer towards a particular political group, but rather the entirety of the people). they responded with intelligence gathering, court prosecutions and targeted assassinations as a last resort. the Catholic communities, though they were certainly brutalized by police forces, they were never severed from their food or heat (the most basic of the basic human rights).

I heard the comparison between Israel and Ireland and even though I don't think they match up I do think that it is the closest example I know of. The most outstanding difference though is the land was never split up and there was never wars. That alone creates distrust and animosity on both sides that eclipses Ireland.

 

Another major point is that Israel has tried to make and made concessions in the past with little positive result. Its hard for them to feel like giving away more land or freeing criminals will make a difference. They've resorted to spanking since coddling didn't work.

 

- i hope you don't mean to say that israel is beneficial as a state apparatus towards the palestinian people as a whole. i don't know specifics, but aren't ALL palestinians prohibited from using the settlement roads (which are in much better condition than other roads, and would surely facilitate economic development, something which you fault them for below). furthermore, regardless of the past (in which both sides are guilty of various things), the fact that gaza hasn't erupted in response to the siege implies that though IJ and Hamas have 'declared jihad', their constituents haven't followed. so i find it difficult to rationalize current policies regarding the totality of the policies towards israel's enemies.

Irregardless of whether or not Israel is beneficial or not to the Palestinians, if they even derive 1% of growth using anything from a country they don't even recognize, it is hypocritical.

 

I have to admit I feel bad for the Palestinian citizen. They receive per capita the largest amount of aid from America, Israel, and the rest of the world and yet they barely see any of it. The politicians running the country have stolen and squandered most of it and I feel like Israeli/Arab sentiment would be better if they were living more comfortably.

 

i am presuming that the current israeli policy's rationale is, "because the palestinians haven't stopped hamas, ij etc, therefore they must support them." such sentiments are buttressed by the hamas election, which israel completely misanalyzed imo. my take on that election is that the people who provided the most health care and social safety nets (hamas) won, not because they were the most anti-israeli.

I agree 100%.

 

-this is just flat wrong. palestinians trade with a number of regional areas, and israel cut off that trade. yes palestine is currently economically unviable, but this is in the context of a state that has no effective institutions, no access to viable trade routes between gaza and the west bank (though they exist). furthermore, you have to account for the palestinian diaspora, which alone ensures the survival of palestine (this is similar to much of the third world). when israel shuts down electricity and the borders, how are remittances to enter the country?

And yet the surrounding Arab countries don't provide aid for them. Frankly they want little to do with the Palestinians. Ironically, in the Arab world they are viewed as a nuisance and in most countries are treated worse then in Israel.

 

furthermore, i find it problematic for you to say that the palestinian aspirations are unrealistic, given the intl community's willingness for palestine to be a state. the money is surely there. where would israel be without the intl community (my point is that 'unviabilities can disappear' very easily with the whims of the intl community). moreover, regarding the economic character of a future palestinian state, the palestinian diaspora is becoming better and better educated. if palestine were to inherit the education of the diaspora, it would be in prime condition to become a finance/service center (esp considering its relations with the middle east, and gaza's outlet to the mediterranean).

 

yes, the won't be able to farm food for its survival, but that is the case with much of europe. you say that that is a reason for it not to be a state. however, the reason behind that is the blockade which prevented food to enter, regardless of the financial context of those going hungry, and does not suggest viability. famine during wartime is not surprising.

The money is already there, its just been mismanaged. The international community sees this as a pet project and if Israel were to concede to them I feel the UN and friends would get bored. I also think that the Arab countries would see a Palestinian state as a signal to attack Israel again, although I can't be certain. I can however say that it would increase terror attacks on Israel since there would be a easy route for weapons transport from Hamas controlled countries, such as Syria.

 

I am pleased to hear that the education's better but I am saddened by the fact that a doctrine of hate is still being taught in school and on television. I think only when that disappears can we rely on the future to be more trustworthy, even so I feel it is only appropriate to judge people when you meet them, not as a group. I really only takes one person to make a change.

 

i know i wrote a lot, probably way more than you're willing to get into. but saying stuff along the lines of, "canada wouldn't care if quebec got shut down cuz it was raining qassams on toronto and ottawa" is misleading because it implies a degree of institutional stability that simply does no exist in the anarchy and chaos of gaza, and all of palestine for that matter.

I think the instability should be less cause for protest since its almost commonplace.

 

Again, I appreciate your post and look forward to continuing our discussion.

[Dawood]

I feel like Israeli/Arab sentiment would be better if they were living more comfortably.

 

I definitely agree with this. In most violent situations across the world , you'll find poverty and discontent being at the forefront of it.

 

I feel it is only appropriate to judge people when you meet them, not as a group. I really only takes one person to make a change.

 

 

This is fair, and it's how we should judge one another. Unfortunately, politicians and leaders in todays world are generally not keeping the general publics best interest in mind.

[MAR]

Yeah everyone wants to be the hero of the Middle East. I do think that Abbas and Olmert are starting to see eye to eye, I hope that means something.

[MayorMeanBeans]

I heard the comparison between Israel and Ireland and even though I don't think they match up I do think that it is the closest example I know of. The most outstanding difference though is the land was never split up and there was never wars. That alone creates distrust and animosity on both sides that eclipses Ireland.

 

definitely the fact that there were never any wars makes a huge difference. but again, i have to say that the english not repressing the entire community also made a big difference, because when israel has collective actions, a consequence (unintended i hope) of such action is that there becomes a perception that 'we' are feeling this pain together, this gives a potential inroad for islamic jihad and hamas to step in to 'remind' why we are struggling etc. this is a major problem for counter-terrorist operations that actually resemble counter-insurgency operations (draining the water, etc), because they force civilians to choose sides. this is not a good move, because terrorism is usually resorted to exactly because of a lack of popular support.

 

Another major point is that Israel has tried to make and made concessions in the past with little positive result. Its hard for them to feel like giving away more land or freeing criminals will make a difference. They've resorted to spanking since coddling didn't work.

 

both sides have made concessions, and both sides have made many mistakes.

 

Irregardless of whether or not Israel is beneficial or not to the Palestinians, if they even derive 1% of growth using anything from a country they don't even recognize, it is hypocritical.

 

you can call it hypocritical, and i won't challenge that, but i would offer a more appropriate word of humiliation. i could never imagine having to choose between my children starving, or giving up everything that my ancestry had ever owned (which of course, palestinians believe). when survival is at stake, its no longer a matter of hypocrisy but instead a matter of necessity.

 

I have to admit I feel bad for the Palestinian citizen. They receive per capita the largest amount of aid from America, Israel, and the rest of the world and yet they barely see any of it. The politicians running the country have stolen and squandered most of it and I feel like Israeli/Arab sentiment would be better if they were living more comfortably.

 

this is definitely true. and it leaves one wondering why israel would resort to food and fuel shortages as a way of inducing submission, given that in the end any solution will be diplomatic and civilian driven, not a military victory. at this point, beating palestinians over the head again and again does not serve the purpose of connecting means to ends (a key condition in most officers' handbooks in militaries). it almost reminds me of the 'wars' between drug dealers and policemen in the favelas of brazil. the police constantly go in and fuck some shit up, possibly get themselves killed, and the drug dealers are often douche bags themselves.

 

And yet the surrounding Arab countries don't provide aid for them. Frankly they want little to do with the Palestinians. Ironically, in the Arab world they are viewed as a nuisance and in most countries are treated worse then in Israel.

 

i think its pretty safe to say that the palestinian problem is a major nuisance for the middle east, and whether or not they want to admit it, most leaders wished they would go away. the palestinians 1. are a constant reminder that the Arab world fucked up three times (ouch); 2. continues to remind them that they stand no chance; 3. has allowed many countries to ignore their own problems (hurting the poor and marginalized in those countries), because the leaders are able to use israel as a way of distracting people from their own problems (see Sadat). and 4, most importantly, the palestinian problem leads to other countries themselves getting fucked up. hezballah kidnaps four soldiers, and israel claps back with a 1,000 kill shock and awe campaign over neighborhoods that included housing. ouch. (although, as far as i know this reprisal is pretty unprecedented at a ratio of 250:1, IF the soldiers turn up dead and we're not even sure that much).

 

however, i would argue that a big reason why palestinians are treated so poorly is because they have no state. every country knows they can do whatever the fuck they want to palestinians, because where else are they gonna go? i've never been to the middle east, but all my friends who've been tell me that the palestinians get all the shit jobs.

 

I can however say that it would increase terror attacks on Israel since there would be a easy route for weapons transport from Hamas controlled countries, such as Syria.

 

terror for terror's sake? if there's an agreement that is acceptable to most, there maybe attacks, but palestinians would never want to go back to the days of un flour and electric cuts. my point (backed up by survey after survey) is that the vast majority of palestinians want peace, and though nutjobs such as ij well continue, its not clear to me what good it does continuing to address palestinians and extremists as one.

 

I am pleased to hear that the education's better but I am saddened by the fact that a doctrine of hate is still being taught in school and on television. I think only when that disappears can we rely on the future to be more trustworthy, even so I feel it is only appropriate to judge people when you meet them, not as a group. I really only takes one person to make a change.

 

i was talking about education in the diaspora. hundreds of thousands of palestinians have grown up in american, european schools. many have gone on to college. virtually all are better off than those left behind. imo gaza/west bank/israel would be a great financial center, a la dubai except with a connect to the meditarranean and europe and onwards, considering its proximity to the wealth nearby, intl connections established by the diaspora and israel (considering it has never been able to establish a regional economy), and an intl willingness to flood investment to 'make palestine its pet project'. sounds like a take off to me.

 

and i agree with you with the school and tv, its messed up.

 

i was surprised you were willing to write back, most send me a youtube or infowars link, and tell me im a dumbass.

[MAR]

I like having conversations on the state of Israel (no pun intended). In truth I feel our outlooks are similar irregardless of how different they seem.

 

*just assume that where I havent commented I agree with you or have nothing to say on the matter.

 

definitely the fact that there were never any wars makes a huge difference. but again, i have to say that the english not repressing the entire community also made a big difference, because when israel has collective actions, a consequence (unintended i hope) of such action is that there becomes a perception that 'we' are feeling this pain together, this gives a potential inroad for islamic jihad and hamas to step in to 'remind' why we are struggling etc. this is a major problem for counter-terrorist operations that actually resemble counter-insurgency operations (draining the water, etc), because they force civilians to choose sides. this is not a good move, because terrorism is usually resorted to exactly because of a lack of popular support.

By the time Israel resorted to fighting the Palestinians with embargoes, cutting power and water i feel most Palestinians had chose a side.

 

This may seem rude but I view the Israeli/Palestinian situation as a teen pregnancy. Israel was formed and all of a sudden there was this issue to deal with, one they hadn't planned on. While an abortion may have been an option at the time it didnt seem humane. So now Israel has this child they don't want, who's a troublemaker. Adoption failed. So she's raising the child on her own. The kid wont be good for candy, so they tried spanking, spanking isn't working so they are trying to buy the kid an apartment but he cant support himself yet. So they get allowance. Why give a kid allowance when he's stealing your TV? Yeah, it may be that he needs food or he's resentful of the fact that he cant have your house, but still.

 

I don't really have a solution. I find it hard to feel that bad for the people who 50yrs ago tried to kill my family and hasn't made much, if any, improvement.

 

you can call it hypocritical, and i won't challenge that, but i would offer a more appropriate word of humiliation. i could never imagine having to choose between my children starving, or giving up everything that my ancestry had ever owned (which of course, palestinians believe). when survival is at stake, its no longer a matter of hypocrisy but instead a matter of necessity.

It still leave one thinking, "how can a scream and yell about how much they hate someone and how much they want their own things when if they got their way everything would collapse?"

 

this is definitely true. and it leaves one wondering why israel would resort to food and fuel shortages as a way of inducing submission, given that in the end any solution will be diplomatic and civilian driven, not a military victory. at this point, beating palestinians over the head again and again does not serve the purpose of connecting means to ends (a key condition in most officers' handbooks in militaries). it almost reminds me of the 'wars' between drug dealers and policemen in the favelas of brazil. the police constantly go in and fuck some shit up, possibly get themselves killed, and the drug dealers are often douche bags themselves.

Well there is another side to the blockades. Cutting of peoples supplies should also make them think, "What did we do to make people want to do this?" Perhaps it is still too early to make someone question themselves. Even so, since peace talks often lead no where can you offer a more realistic solution; keeping both sides views in mind, of course.

 

terror for terror's sake? if there's an agreement that is acceptable to most, there maybe attacks, but palestinians would never want to go back to the days of un flour and electric cuts. my point (backed up by survey after survey) is that the vast majority of palestinians want peace, and though nutjobs such as ij well continue, its not clear to me what good it does continuing to address palestinians and extremists as one.

well it depends who takes over. If Hamas were to win control then yes attacks would continue and perhaps increase. If some internal uprising occurs and the Palestinians take control of their own country then yes I do believe they would stop or at the very least, decrease drastically.

 

i was surprised you were willing to write back, most send me a youtube or infowars link, and tell me im a dumbass.

I cant help it, it seems only fair.

[lord_casek]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7204029.stm

[MayorMeanBeans]

^casek i was juuust about to post that article.

 

this is about the worst thing that could have happened, because now it looks like the militants are 'protecting' gazans from israelis.

 

MAR i'm going to respond to your thing later today, i've been really busy yesterday and today.

[John Galt]

I really want to see what Isreal's response to the breach in the Gaza wall is going to be. I tend think Egypt's policy of essentially turning a blind eye to the border crossings will not be looked kindly on by the Israeli government...

[MAR]

I cant say I blame them...I have no idea what Israels response will be but this is a very dangerous time.

 

edit: looks like the egyptians got fed up and are taking care of it.

[MayorMeanBeans]

yeah i have to say that politically this was a great move by hamas. test israel until the boiling point, blow up the crossing with egypt, knowing full well that the intl pressure on egypt would be far too great for them to turn back palestinians.

 

now it's an issue of humanitarian significance, not of israel's agenda (the fact that daily missiles randomly hit people's backyards, houses, cars, jobs etc, making it very hard to live).

 

in any event, the siege has ended. i can't imagine israel saying shit either, it absolves them of responsibility of what was turning out to be a pr disaster.

[M_I]

 

i see a couple major problems here:

 

2. The Palestinians have effectively declared war on Israel with their Jihads and yet Israel allows the Palestinians to work and travel through their country. I dont know any other case in history of this.

 

3. The Palestinians want a homeland but if they cant support themselves for 3 days without the Israelis dont you think thats a bit unrealistic?

 

All and all I'm glad Israel has put its foot down but I'm not really sure how much of an impact this will really have.

 

hmm.....

 

2. ISRAEL NEEDS THE PALESTINIAN WORKFORCE TO SUPPORT THEIR ECONOMY...dont get it twisted...its not like Israel is doing the Palestinians a favor or something....

 

3. ITS VERY REALISTIC. Israel controls most of the Fresh water in the area, plus they have better and more advanced hospitals, facilities, etc.

 

and this is not a good look for Israel....they are just giving the Palestinian people one more reason to side with Extremists.....and then they are terribly surprised when suicide bombers blow up cafes........

 

Isnt this exactly what the Nazis did with east and west germany?

 

the funny thing is, there will be no western aid.

 

this conflict sucks, but its not even close to being over if these nations cant see eye to eye....Israel knows it not only has political power over palestine, but also controls most of the natural resources. Why do they feel the need to go to such measures? yes launching rockets and suicide bombs are bad, but how else can they retaliate....not to mention the tanks and bulldozers that encroach and plow Palestinian homes and land.

 

food for thought.

 

Good arguments Menino and Mar...its getting prettty heated in here

[MAR]

hmm.....

 

2. ISRAEL NEEDS THE PALESTINIAN WORKFORCE TO SUPPORT THEIR ECONOMY...dont get it twisted...its not like Israel is doing the Palestinians a favor or something....

 

3. ITS VERY REALISTIC. Israel controls most of the Fresh water in the area, plus they have better and more advanced hospitals, facilities, etc.

 

and this is not a good look for Israel....they are just giving the Palestinian people one more reason to side with Extremists.....and then they are terribly surprised when suicide bombers blow up cafes........

 

I don't think violence is the answer...although mediating doesnt seem to work.

 

2.Not true anymore. Yes Israels biggest mistake was to employ the Palestinians, but they are correcting it, not necessarily in the best of ways but still. There is a large Asian workforce now.

 

3.I think you missed the point. If they were to have a country of their own Israel wouldn't be obligated to give them anything. You can cry, jump up and down and scream about the atrocities but the fact remains if you cant support yourself you are no where near having a country of your own.

[CACashRefund]

 

I have to admit I feel bad for the Palestinian citizen. They receive per capita the largest amount of aid from America, Israel, and the rest of the world and yet they barely see any of it. The politicians running the country have stolen and squandered most of it and I feel like Israeli/Arab sentiment would be better if they were living more comfortably.

 

Hamas, who is currently in charge of aforementioned gaza, for the most part do not squander the money the receive. Alot of it goes to help needy palestinians. They run organizations that help out palestinians with food, clothing, education among other things.

 

Fatah and the palestinian authority who are supported by the us and israel, are a different story.

 

They live in luxury and in gated mansions while the rest of the palestinians can barely make ends meet.

 

When Hamas took over gaza they opened up the compounds of these people to show the world the shit that they were up to. Even yasser arafat was embezzling money to overseas accounts

[MAR]

Hamas, who is currently in charge of aforementioned gaza, for the most part do not squander the money the receive. Alot of it goes to help needy palestinians. They run organizations that help out palestinians with food, clothing, education among other things.

 

While Hamas provides humanitarian aid for the Palestinians their goals seems more like bribery then actual aid. "Lend us the lives of your children and we'll give you food and education." They are hostile, and their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. They care little about anyone but themselves. They are responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths both Jewish and Arab, and preach hatred in the schools that they built to educate. They don't want peace they want all Jews and opposition dead. Hamas rejects the traditional peaceful views of Islam with gross misinterpretations to further their cause. They are radical, two faced, forked tongued, hate mongers.

 

There is nothing they have done that is motivates me to even attempt to see them in a positive light.

 

:hatred:

[CACashRefund]

THATS BECAUSE YOURE A ZIONIST

[MAR]

:rolleyes: