[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Funny but I read reports about hamas launching rockets all the time. I must not be part of the great liberal media conspiracy though.

Derby, just think. When was the last time you heard a rocket attack on CBC News World or CTV Newsnet? Sure they might be buried in one small link on the CBC's webpage, but it never made news like Israel's counter attack.

That being said, since the near daily rocket attacks from Gaza to Israel were never reported on the television news, these airstrikes seem to be preemptive, when its clearly not the case.

$1:

If you were paying attention you'll note that the constant cycle of violence is what I was attempting to address by using peacekeepers before to usual cries of "the military isn't a peacekeeping force".

If I was paying attention? No offense, the link of Israeli atrocities you provided was bullshit and it clearly shows you went for the first link google provided without actually reading the article.

The violence will not be addressed by UN "peacekeepers" since 1) Israel won't allow a military force from an international organization that actively condemns Israel if somebody forgets to flush a toilet. 2) There is no peace. 3) There have been cases in which UN vehicles and bases were used as cover for terrorist rocket strikes. 4) There is no peace to keep.

$1:

The entire idea is to provide a benign force that will keep hamas (or any other group for that matter) from launching attacks into israel.

So you're considering a peace making force? Like when NATO started bombing the Serbs? How exactly are they going to keep Hamas from launching rockets when UN rules of engagement are horribly bad?

$1:

A force that will provide security to both sides and allowing palestinians to rebuild their society and actually build things that they have a vested interest in not seeing destroyed mere days after construction.

You know, they had a great chance to rebuild after Israel pulled out from Gaza. No settlers, no military forces...how did that turn out? Right, Hamas was elected, rocket attacks began, and the two nations surrounding Gaza closed their borders.

$1:

Its not about assigning blame to one side and carrying out revenge attacks which just renew the whole cycle of violence. Its about helping people get past the hate and hopefully brining up a whole generation of people who think like that.

Revenge attacks? Okay, let's think about what you're saying here. Those Hamas rocket attacks were revenge for...? The Israeli occupation of Gaza ended. Israel might have closed its borders with Gaza, but any state has that right to close its borders. The fact Egypt did the same thing should tell you something about that.

The fact is. Israel has pandered to these groups for quite a long time. Massive aid, for example. Providing electricity. Having work programs for Palestinians that has backfired more than once (look up the bullldozer attack as an example). If you cannot realize who is at fault here, then the solution will never be found. You need to FIND the problem before you can solve it.

Edit: One small typo corrected.

[CommanderSock]

martin14 martin14:

ok, thanks.
I've never thought a one state would work for one minute,
you even gave reasons in another thread.
Racism, religous divide, language, the huge demographic change,
economic divisons,
Israel losing its "Jewish" state idea, in fact the Jews
would become a minority if all the Palestinians came back..

not to mention the unbeleivable arguments over who owned what land 60
years ago.. just makes it all a complete non starter for me.

Yes, the whole idea of a Jewish state has always been murky. Is Israel a democracy, or is it a Jewish state? It cannot really be both because democracy dilutes religion. This is a topic that many academics and journalists are bringing up. Will Israel destroy itself by merging with Palestine? It cannot run an apartheid system indefinitely. It has to choose between giving the Palestinians their own land/country and letting them govern it themselves (something they are not allowed to do now), or accepting them as Israeli citizens and allowing them to be involved in politics, effectively ending what is "the jewish state". This is a matter of great debate. The moderates from both sides would probably accept a one state solution. But the hardcore Islamists and Orthodox Jews will have none of it.

And the racism could be absolutely devastating. There will be extreme amounts of racism and animosity for people's that have disliked or outright hated each other since the war in the 60s. It could take another 100 years before the racism subsides. And will the Palestinians be 2nd class citizens? Will political parties be formed based on religious ideology like they have in Lebanon? The prospect of a civil war is also dangerously realistic. It's doubtful there will be equal status, at least objectively speaking.

[CommanderSock]

commanderkai commanderkai:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Funny but I read reports about hamas launching rockets all the time. I must not be part of the great liberal media conspiracy though.

Derby, just think. When was the last time you heard a rocket attack on CBC News World or CTV Newsnet? Sure they might be buried in one small link on the CBC's webpage, but it never made news like Israel's counter attack.

That being said, since the near daily rocket attacks from Gaza to Israel were never reported on the television news, these airstrikes seem to be preemptive, when its clearly not the case.

$1:

If you were paying attention you'll note that the constant cycle of violence is what I was attempting to address by using peacekeepers before to usual cries of "the military isn't a peacekeeping force".

If I was paying attention? No offense, the link of Israeli atrocities you provided was bullshit and it clearly shows you went for the first link google provided without actually reading the article.

The violence will not be addressed by UN "peacekeepers" since 1) Israel won't allow a military force from an international organization that actively condemns Israel if somebody forgets to flush a toilet. 2) There is no peace. 3) There have been cases in which UN vehicles and bases were used as cover for terrorist rocket strikes. 4) There is no peace to keep.

$1:

The entire idea is to provide a benign force that will keep hamas (or any other group for that matter) from launching attacks into israel.

So you're considering a peace making force? Like when NATO started bombing the Serbs? How exactly are they going to keep Hamas from launching rockets when UN rules of engagement are horribly bad?

$1:

A force that will provide security to both sides and allowing palestinians to rebuild their society and actually build things that they have a vested interest in not seeing destroyed mere days after construction.

You know, they had a great chance to rebuild after Israel pulled out from Gaza. No settlers, no military forces...how did that turn out? Right, Hamas was elected, rocket attacks began, and the two nations surrounding Gaza closed their borders.

$1:

Its not about assigning blame to one side and carrying out revenge attacks which just renew the whole cycle of violence. Its about helping people get past the hate and hopefully brining up a whole generation of people who think like that.

Revenge attacks? Okay, let's think about what you're saying here. Those Hamas rocket attacks were revenge for...? The Israeli occupation of Gaza ended. Israel might have closed its borders with Gaza, but any state has that right to close its borders. The fact Egypt did the same thing should tell you something about that.

The fact is. Israel has pandered to these groups for quite a long time. Massive aid, for example. Providing electricity. Having work programs for Palestinians that has backfired more than once (look up the bullldozer attack as an example). If you cannot realize who is at fault here, then the solution will never be found. You need to FIND the problem before you can solve it.

Edit: One small typo corrected.

CK, you fail to understand that Palestine cannot rebuild anything; it is not an independent country. Israel has annexed the land, and the Palestinians cannot build anything without Israelis approving the zoning permits. It is similar to Natives in Canada, if a Chief and his tribe decided to build a power plant, or a Hospital, or a small suburb, or anything for that matter in hypothetically say Newmarket or Aurora, they would need approval by the Ontario, municipal and possible Federal governments. The same applies for Palestinians, it is not simply a matter of "rebuilding" when they don't have legal right under the Israeli government stature to build on the land.

On the other hand Israel continues to build Jewish settlements in Gaza and the WB. This is a very sticky point and its complexities are immense.

[Blahgzilla]

$1:

And the racism could be absolutely devastating. There will be extreme amounts of racism and animosity for people's that have disliked or outright hated each other since the war in the 60s. It could take another 100 years before the racism subsides. And will the Palestinians be 2nd class citizens? Will political parties be formed based on religious ideology like they have in Lebanon? The prospect of a civil war is also dangerously realistic. It's doubtful there will be equal status, at least objectively speaking.

This pre-dates the 1960's. It started to draw international attention in 1949 after Israel was founded, and prior to that, Palestinians and Zionists were locked in a terrorist conflict that was pretty much the doings of the British.

[EyeBrock]

Palestinians cannot build anything without Israeli zoning permits? Really?

The PA can build what they want. As CK said, they had the opportunity to rebuild in Gaza during the truce but all they did was the same old shite they have been doing for ever, trying to eradicate Israel.

You would have us believe that nothing can get built in Gaza without Israeli say so? Next you'll be telling us the rocket attacks from Gaza need Israeli planning permission.

[martin14]

uhh, guys you are both somewhat right..

Its true that Gaza has been unoccupied for a while,
there was even talk to try to turn Gaza into some kind of Monaco..
those ideas have been hijacked by terrorists.

In the West Bank, Israel still controls most
of what happens there..

[Wada]

What sort of restitution did the gypsies get? and why do we never hear them complain ?

[commanderkai]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

CK, you fail to understand that Palestine cannot rebuild anything; it is not an independent country. Israel has annexed the land, and the Palestinians cannot build anything without Israelis approving the zoning permits. It is similar to Natives in Canada, if a Chief and his tribe decided to build a power plant, or a Hospital, or a small suburb, or anything for that matter in hypothetically say Newmarket or Aurora, they would need approval by the Ontario, municipal and possible Federal governments. The same applies for Palestinians, it is not simply a matter of "rebuilding" when they don't have legal right under the Israeli government stature to build on the land.

I know they're not an independent country but they haven't been annexed either. Israel occupies the territory.

I would like to know where you learned about this "permit system" that you mentioned. It'd be an interesting read, and I can't exactly refute what I haven't learned.

$1:

On the other hand Israel continues to build Jewish settlements in Gaza and the WB. This is a very sticky point and its complexities are immense.

Okay, I'm just focusing on the Gaza Strip. There ARE no settlements left in Gaza. None. The complexities are immense, but settlements in Gaza is not one of them

[martin14]

Wada Wada:

What sort of restitution did the gypsies get? and why do we never hear them complain ?

None, and you don't hear them because most of them were buried in
Communism for the previous 60 years, and now no one wants to hear.

Lets please try to stay on something close to being on topic.

[Gunnair]

Gunnair Gunnair:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Gunnair Gunnair:

How would propose that? The Sudanese military and Janjaweed have the power, and they make life hell for the tribes who are not, and they aren't likely keen to release that power. So, unless you take it from them, things won't change much.

What's your plan?

Not to bring yet more violence ito the region.

We don't just up and invade because thats just using the military in exactly the same way as those we oppose.

What's your plan?

DerbyX

$1:

You want me to come up with a detailed point by point plan to end all violence in the region in a few minutes.

Nope. But so far you've only suggested we don't pick sides and bring more violence to the regionm which as a matter of fact, is what the international community is essentially doing. Does that mean we're on track?

$1:

Again, I'll reiterate that simply seding in the troops to target and attack one side won't do anything but simply bring yet more violence into the region.

So what is the alternative?

$1:

We simply can't stop every war or conflict on the planet. This is a sudan civil war where hundreads of thousands of civilians are being killed.

Our wars did the same thing.

Would I be misinterpreting this to mean you'd prefer we did nothing - let them sort it out amongst themselves as we did?

$1:

Given that it was famine and drought that was the proverbial match in fireworks factory I think a large scale program sending food and water to anybody who wants it might help. Make both sides know we aren't their to attack anybody but are there trying to bring famine relief for both sides is a neccessary first step.

Agreed. Now, how do you make the Sudanese government, and the Janjaweed militia share with the non-Arab populations? Othewise, aren't we just giving the one powerful side lots supplies?

[CommanderSock]

commanderkai commanderkai:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

CK, you fail to understand that Palestine cannot rebuild anything; it is not an independent country. Israel has annexed the land, and the Palestinians cannot build anything without Israelis approving the zoning permits. It is similar to Natives in Canada, if a Chief and his tribe decided to build a power plant, or a Hospital, or a small suburb, or anything for that matter in hypothetically say Newmarket or Aurora, they would need approval by the Ontario, municipal and possible Federal governments. The same applies for Palestinians, it is not simply a matter of "rebuilding" when they don't have legal right under the Israeli government stature to build on the land.

I know they're not an independent country but they haven't been annexed either. Israel occupies the territory.

I would like to know where you learned about this "permit system" that you mentioned. It'd be an interesting read, and I can't exactly refute what I haven't learned.

$1:

On the other hand Israel continues to build Jewish settlements in Gaza and the WB. This is a very sticky point and its complexities are immense.

Okay, I'm just focusing on the Gaza Strip. There ARE no settlements left in Gaza. None. The complexities are immense, but settlements in Gaza is not one of them

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ju ... iddleeast2

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/910763.html

$1:

Palestinians cannot build anything without Israeli zoning permits? Really?

The PA can build what they want. As CK said, they had the opportunity to rebuild in Gaza during the truce but all they did was the same old shite they have been doing for ever, trying to eradicate Israel.

You would have us believe that nothing can get built in Gaza without Israeli say so? Next you'll be telling us the rocket attacks from Gaza need Israeli planning permission.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/1ce874 ... enDocument (construction permits and Zoning in the PA areas- World Bank Report)

Israel has final say on how arab land is used. Period. This creates uncertainty and no investor wants to invest on land that may be taken away for building a Jewish settlement without notice and without compensation. I'm not an apologist for Hamas, what they are doing is wrong. But Israel's land grab plays a huge part in why Palestine is so underdeveloped.

Is this not what R Mugabe does? Takes land and gives it to his own people?

[CommanderSock]

Whether the news sources say 290 dead, or 1 dead, imagine this poem by Harold Pinter who passed away on Dec 24, 2008.

$1:

"Where was the dead body found?
Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?

Who was the dead body?

Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?

Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?

Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?

What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?

Did you wash the dead body
Did you close both its eyes
Did you bury the body
Did you leave it abandoned
Did you kiss the dead body"

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

But Israel's land grab plays a huge part in why Palestine is so underdeveloped.

read a little history and you'll find out that it wasn't a land grab. The Jewish settlers bought marginal land from arab landowners, beginning in the late 1800s, and developed it. They drained malarial swamps and turned them into fields and orchards.

That being said. I'm wondering if Mahmoud Abbas will use this chance to reassert Fatah control over the Gaza strip with PA troops? Rather than IDF forces launching a ground operation, why don't they just transport PA militia and police into Gaza and provide necessary air support.

[commanderkai]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ju ... iddleeast2

The first article discusses small tracts of land, and not the entire West Bank. If Israel didn't have a No-Man-Land, they would be fools. Of course, how they built the security fence in where the land is restricted is questionable, but this does not show any widespread use of permits by the Israeli government for the Palestinian territory.

$1:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/910763.html

So they're annexing small chunks for Israel? Does not show how they would control all of the West Bank through building permits. I don't see where it says the Palestinians in Jericho or Bethlehem cannot build what they want with local authorities, which is PA.

$1:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/1ce874ab1832a53e852570bb006dfaf6/5fb13fcb4c7724ad852574eb0056beaa!OpenDocument (construction permits and Zoning in the PA areas- World Bank Report)

I'm actually reading the document, but let's see what I found.

In the Oslo Accords, there were three designations of land. Areas A (urban), B (rural), and C (anything else, specifically the deserts and wastelands)

Now, the Palestinian Land Authority (henceforth called PLA, as in the article) has full control over A and over B, but since the PLA has been inefficient and rather slow at both registering and processing, permits are basically slow to a halt for private citizens wanting to do things to their lands.
Evidence:

"In the meantime, land administration and registration within the PA controlled areas has been slow and lacking in institutional capacity and resources. The Palestinian Land Authority (PLA), the mandated institution responsible for all aspects of land administration has only been formed in the last few years and has yet to build sufficient capacity to effectively manage public land resources and provide efficient land registration and administration services to the public. An inventory of public lands in Areas A and B, which are under PLA authority, is not yet available. Systematic registration has only just begun and is expected to take decades to complete unless significantly more resources are provided*. Meanwhile, the legislative framework has yet to be reformed to deal with improved registration, reorganization of the PLA, and more transparent public land allocation and management."

Israel has control of C. C, as stated in the article, is basically barren, with little population or infrastructure except for Israeli settlements that have predominately been built in the area. Yes, the article states that there is issues with the IDF (who controls the area) with granting permits. But since this area is sparsely population except by herders and other low intensity farmers, the PLA would be EVEN slower to administrate the region.

$1:

Israel has final say on how arab land is used. Period.

Although your third article actually supports this claim, it is not as complete control as you believe. The majority of populated Palestinian territories are controlled by the PLA in the West Bank, and only areas where there are settlements, Area C, is controlled by the IDF. Now, Area C might be the largest portion of land in the territory, but the land has been grossly underpopulated and underutilized, and it has been that way long before Israel arrives to occupy those areas.

$1:

This creates uncertainty and no investor wants to invest on land that may be taken away for building a Jewish settlement without notice and without compensation.

Somebody is reading way too much into the articles posted. The first one isn't for any settlement, but for the barrier fence that Israel is constructing. The second mentions a possible settlement, but the land that is proposed to be annex isn't worried as much about taking the land, but the barrier the annexed land would create within the West Bank.

$1:

I'm not an apologist for Hamas, what they are doing is wrong. But Israel's land grab plays a huge part in why Palestine is so underdeveloped.

Really, I believe the huge part is from the lack of investors due to major terrorist organizations actively using property for their own purposes. Why would I, as an investor, want to build a shopping mall in an area that would be commandeered by terrorists to launch rockets from the food court? The third article mentions a drop in GDP after 2000, and if I remember correctly, the Second Intifada started in 2001.

$1:

Is this not what R Mugabe does? Takes land and gives it to his own people?

No, one was dealing with redistribution of land within a nation, this deals with two different states or regions, since Israel never "annexed" the Palestinian territories.

[EyeBrock]

CK, you should also mention the anti-Israeli bias that "The Guardian" is well know for. The whole Jenin 'massacre' that turned out to be faked, was brought to us courtesy of the Guardian.


Both the BBC and The Guardian had to issue public apologies for the blatant untruths and PA propaganda they promoted. I have been at the sharp end of irresponsible reporting by both media outlets.

They are still well known in the UK for a percieved anti-Israeli bias. Hardly a rock solid 'source' to prove a point on a thread.