Israel will allow fuel, medicine into Gaza - official

[WildCat]

Which neighbouring state is that?
Israel is responsible for the Palestinians because Israel set things up so that the Palestinians depend on Israel for things like clean water, electricity and access to the rest of the world.

There's an old saying about why you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Apparently this was never learned by the Palestinians.

 

[Nogbad]

Nogbad:


Strongly disagree.

Nogbad again:


Strongly disagree again.

Mildly disagree with your strongly disagree

 

[WildCat]

It is certainly true that 48 and 73 were started by, primarily, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. However, 57 and 67 are much less clear cut and the general view is that that Egypt and Syria were not the aggressors - they were just being very annoying.

"Very annoying"? In the preceding 2 weeks Nasser ordered UN troops out of the buffer zone between Egypt and Israel, blockaded all goods passing through the Straits of Tiran (blocking the Israeli port of Eilat), and formed a defense pact with Jordan and Iraq. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq began to mobilize troops towards Israel, and Syria instigated a series of border clashes.

And oh yeah, the US tried to avoid the war by declaring the Gulf of Aqaba an international waterway, prompting Israel to agree to withold military action. The rest of the world, however, refused to go along with this last-ditch effort to prevent the war.

And all the while, Arab leaders fired up the anti-Israel rhetoric calling for the destruction of Israel.

This is what you call "very annoying"?

 

[Nogbad]

"Very annoying"? In the preceding 2 weeks Nasser ordered UN troops out of the buffer zone between Egypt and Israel, blockaded all goods passing through the Straits of Tiran (blocking the Israeli port of Eilat), and formed a defense pact with Jordan and Iraq. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq began to mobilize troops towards Israel, and Syria instigated a series of border clashes.

And oh yeah, the US tried to avoid the war by declaring the Gulf of Aqaba an international waterway, prompting Israel to agree to withold military action. The rest of the world, however, refused to go along with this last-ditch effort to prevent the war.

And all the while, Arab leaders fired up the anti-Israel rhetoric calling for the destruction of Israel.

This is what you call "very annoying"?

Yes

The Arab states provoked a reaction that resulted in Israel being the aggressor. Egypt had rattled the sabre for years but had never actually taken the plunge. The 1957 conflict was a post colonial shambles which attempted to thwart Egyptian nationalism and reassert colonial control over the Suez and limit Soviet influence in the region. The UN troops were in that buffer zone because of the 1957 Suez crisis when Britain, France and Israel moved against Egypt. It was, as you recall, US pressure that made them withdraw fearing it would spill out into a broader conflict involving the USSR.

The sabre rattling and Egyptian discontent stemmed from that 1957 conflict in addition to the Palestinian issue. The result of the 1967 war was a further loss of territory for the surrounding Arab states. The 1973 conflict was just 67 part deux and the Arabs managed to achieve yet another spectacular defeat and lost yet more territory.

To attempt to dis-engage the four conflicts from one another and, indeed, the issue of who owns what is in my view seriously flawed - indeed why would want to? Yes there are ideologues who have Islamic dreams but they were never main players in the early years - Arafat himself was a relatively secular person and in those days a good number of Palestinians were Christian (there still are a fair number). The ideologues have since taken advantage of the failures and discontent within the Palestinian ranks. Prior to Balfour the Jews made up 10% of Palestine and relations between the two communities were cordial. Even in the 20s when Jewish settlers started to arrive in the region, they were in a position to buy land or businesses and generally fitted in to the local culture with little in the way of conflict over and above that one finds anywhere with an influx of immigrants. It was the vastly increased numbers in the 1930s, robbed of their possessions by the Nazis and of a largely urban European background that tipped the balance. By 1937 things had become decidedly unpleasant. They went downhill from there. Britain, by promising the land to the Jews and the Arabs for separate political reasons during WW1 is not without blame in all this either. But Empires and World Wars are tricky things to run. In both Palestine and Israel a great many on both sides agree that it is all Britain's fault

 

[WildCat]

Yes

The Arab states provoked a reaction that resulted in Israel being the aggressor. Egypt had rattled the sabre for years but had never actually taken the plunge.

Pardon me? They "took the plunge" when they expelled the UN troops and blockaded the waterway, mobilized troops, and created alliances with Jordan and Iraq. this was not something they had done before! In case you haven't noticed, Israel is rather small and as such does not have the luxury of fighting a defensive battle on its own soil, and Egypt was taking a posture that reasonable people could only interpret as a prelude to invasion. And Jordan most definitely attacked Israel first despite Israeli pleas for them to keep out. As did Syria. That's how they lost the West Bank and the Golan Heights respectively. Egypt formed a peace agreement with Israel and got its land back, sans Gaza which they want nothing to do with to this day.

The sabre rattling and Egyptian discontent stemmed from that 1957 conflict in addition to the Palestinian issue. The result of the 1967 war was a further loss of territory for the surrounding Arab states. The 1973 conflict was just 67 part deux and the Arabs managed to achieve yet another spectacular defeat and lost yet more territory.

Yep, you start a war and lose you may very well lose territory along with pride, lives, and treasure. Which is why Syria will never get the Golan Heights back to use as a high-ground base from which to attack Israel again.

To attempt to dis-engage the four conflicts from one another and, indeed, the issue of who owns what is in my view seriously flawed - indeed why would want to? Yes there are ideologues who have Islamic dreams but they were never main players in the early years - Arafat himself was a relatively secular person and in those days a good number of Palestinians were Christian (there still are a fair number). The ideologues have since taken advantage of the failures and discontent within the Palestinian ranks. Prior to Balfour the Jews made up 10% of Palestine and relations between the two communities were cordial. Even in the 20s when Jewish settlers started to arrive in the region, they were in a position to buy land or businesses and generally fitted in to the local culture with little in the way of conflict over and above that one finds anywhere with an influx of immigrants. It was the vastly increased numbers in the 1930s, robbed of their possessions by the Nazis and of a largely urban European background that tipped the balance. By 1937 things had become decidedly unpleasant. They went downhill from there. Britain, by promising the land to the Jews and the Arabs for separate political reasons during WW1 is not without blame in all this either. But Empires and World Wars are tricky things to run. In both Palestine and Israel a great many on both sides agree that it is all Britain's fault

Ancient history. This was an era that saw great upheavals in borders and populations all over the world. The Palestinians are singularly still fighting the wars of that era - which is why they live in squalor and filth under the control of Islamic ideologues they themselves put in power.

Maybe someone should tell them the war is over.

 

[Nogbad]

Ancient history. This was an era that saw great upheavals in borders and populations all over the world. The Palestinians are singularly still fighting the wars of that era - which is why they live in squalor and filth under the control of Islamic ideologues they themselves put in power.

Maybe someone should tell them the war is over.

The sack of Jerusalem in AD70 is ancient history, what happened in living memory is not ancient history. The fold-overs also perpetuate the conflict and the mythologies both sides create to justify their positions. 1948 caused a refugee problem, 1957 was born out of concerns regarding the geo-politics of the region and those refugees. 1967 was in part a result of 1957 and 1973 in turn a result of 1967. 1973 was only 35 years ago.

That said there are realities that the Palestinians cannot escape and likewise there are issues that will not go away for Israel. The Palestinians, or Arabs/Persians generally, cannot wish away the Israeli state. It is not going to happen. Equally, there are 5m Palestinians that will not go away either - indeed their demographic is young and their birthrate high. Sooner or later compromise on both sides is going to have to occur. The only question is how much longer the road is and how rocky is it going to be. Israeli politics is going through a rough patch at the moment and consequently is not in a position to offer much to the table. The Palestinians are split down the middle between moderates and radicals. Politics can sometimes be surprising so one can never say never but there doesn't appear to be much hope on the immediate horizon.

I am a long way from being anti-Israel but unless one recognises that the Palestinians did pretty badly out of WW1 (a war that had nothing to do with them) and that they do have a genuine grievance then one will not get far in determining an honourable settlement. That there are dis-honourable people involved who do not want an honourable settlement is understood. There are those, however, who do want to talk.

 

[WildCat]

There are those, however, who do want to talk.

The problem is we know who can be talked to on the Israeli side, but who in Palestine is capable of forging a peace agreement all the Palestinian factions will agree to? In fact, there is not a single Palestinian political entity I can think of that even recognizes Israel's right to exist. Against that backdrop, what really can be done? There will always be Palestinian factions that will fight on, and the Palestinian Authority will not be able to do a thing about it.

In Israel, there will certainly be radical minority factions opposed, but they will have to accept a peace agreement because they can and will be reined in by the state of Israel if they decide to fight.

 

[The Fool]

You forgot the part where Germans elected a government that vowed to destroy the US in your "what if" scenario, and then proceeded to try to do just that. In which case, yes, the war would have been fought all over again.

Fought all over again?How? By blockading the civilian population? Come on wildcat, would it have been acceptable to blockade the civilial population due to the geurilla warfare from the hold outs? See....my guess is that you will not be able to bring yourself to find any situation where blockading of civilians is acceptable....unless.....they are palestinians and its done by israelis.

And the Soviets did in fact blockade West Berlin after WWII (from June 1948 until May 1949), necessitating the Berlin Airlift. And no one in Berlin was even shooting at the Soviets! I have no idea whether or not the world's leftists protested the Soviet blockade.

let me get this straight....you are supportive of the berlin blockade? Once again, can you sort of force yourself to make a decision? was the berlin blockade acceptable? Do you support of condemn it? Forget about clutching at diversions about "leftists" and what you think they think.

 

[WildCat]

Fought all over again?How? By blockading the civilian population? Come on wildcat, would it have been acceptable to blockade the civilial population due to the geurilla warfare from the hold outs? See....my guess is that you will not be able to bring yourself to find any situation where blockading of civilians is acceptable....unless.....they are palestinians and its done by israelis.

Blockading has been a part of warfare for thousands of years. The Palestinians elected a governemnt that is dedicated to war against Israel, and for good measure forced out all opposition parties. And then they expect Israel to provide them fuel and electric? Frankly, at this point Israel owes them nothing. Zip, nada, squat. They want war, live with the conequences. War has them living in the filth and squalor becoming of such a fine group of people. At this point, they can sue for peace or raise their children to become suicide bombers. Guess what they are choosing?

let me get this straight....you are supportive of the berlin blockade?

Absolutely not! You must have a reading comprehension problem, or are deliberately constructing a strawman. Or maybe you've just had a snoot full. Either way, not my problem.

 

[The Fool]

Blockading has been a part of warfare for thousands of years. The Palestinians elected a governemnt that is dedicated to war against Israel, and for good measure forced out all opposition parties. And then they expect Israel to provide them fuel and electric? Frankly, at this point Israel owes them nothing. Zip, nada, squat. They want war, live with the conequences. War has them living in the filth and squalor becoming of such a fine group of people. At this point, they can sue for peace or raise their children to become suicide bombers. Guess what they are choosing?

Searched through this chant but still can't find anything resembling an answer to the question. Just the usual spin....like they "expect" Israel to provide them with fuel and electricity....can you list the alternate sources that Israel allows.....Egypt? Fuel tankers from other countries delivered to the coast? Non of those are allowed by Israel. Israel prevents palestinians sourcing from any other source. You are once again chanting spin. Palestinians are dependent of Israeli fuel and electricity because Israel says so....

But anyway....enough of the diversions. Would it have been acceptable to blockade the civilian population in the example I gave? Come on wildcat, you can do it......have a go at an answer rather than chanting back a grab back of cliches...

Absolutely not! You must have a reading comprehension problem, or are deliberately constructing a strawman. Or maybe you've just had a snoot full. Either way, not my problem.

so it looks like the impression I have that you only support civilian blockades when the civilians are Palestinians is looking firmer?

 

[webfusion]

TF, missing some crucial info:

...can you list the alternate (electricty) sources that Israel allows.....Egypt?

Yes.

10% of the power needs of gaza are supplied by lines from Egypt.
30% is locally generated (and at last report, the power plant is running at capacity, with diesel fuel that Israel trucked in, despite not being paid for it -- it should be recalled that the Palestinian Authority routinely fails to pay Israel millions of $$$ owed for fuel supplies. The European Union has been stepping-in and covering that debt.)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3413767,00.html
(note date on article)

Israel actually never disrupted the power grid during the current crisis. HAMAS purposely stopped their generators as a form of protest (despite their fuel depot still having diesel).

Palestinians are dependent of Israeli fuel and electricity because Israel says so....

No. The Palestinian Authorty has open-market contracts with Paz and Dor Energy corporations. Nobody forces them to buy from Israeli sources, AFAIK. Do you have anything to back up your claim that Israel "says so" and requires the PA to sign contracts with Israeli firms, instead of say, Turkish or Jordanian or Lebanese or Egyptian suppliers? I would be curious to see what evidence you have of this coercion.

 

[webfusion]

Nogbad throws out a random statistic:

Equally, there are 5m Palestinians that will not go away either...

11m.

 

[Bud Fox]

It's a famous picture of Israeli children writing messages on bombs which were to dropped on Lebanon. You, no doubt, think that the war was just. But, either way, the picture shows children writing messages on bombs.

That still misses the contex.

The words translate roughly to, "Nasrallah, from Israel and and Danielle", i.e., the message is aimed specifically at Hezbollah's leader. And they are located in Kiryat Shmona, which was repeatedly shelled by Hezbollah.

I don't justify kids writing on bombs, but the picture is presented basically as propaganda with little regard for the fact that explanation goes well beyond kids simply being taught to hate.

 

[yairhol]

Hey, this has been tried here before....you could open every post with it and its not going to add to your authority. When I want to patronise someone I prefer to just call them "son" I don't remember it ever achieving anything except probably make me look like a prat.....


So if you say you should be able to check anyone thats what I assume you mean....However, if you say you should check everyone what am I to assume. Hmmmmm, he said he thinks everyone should be checked so obviously he means everyone need not be checked?



I asked you why you stayed in the occupied territories after 67, this is your response.

you didn't start the 67 war? you certainly fired the first shots didn't you....but I know....I know....you had no choice, the provocation was unbearable. Someone would have attacked you if you had not attacked first. And you won....yes you won.
Yairhol, I know that you could stay but I asked why....you certainly didn't have to, nabody at the time could stop you. So why did you stay? Is your answer really going to be because we could.

So this prat wants to let you know that talking populism is just that but does not have a real holding in reality.
Now, why did we stay in those territories? Well I can think of an excellent reason, the same as was in Lebanon and the same as was with Sinai and Egypt: to get a security distance between Israel and its enemies. In lebanon it was to get distance from the Hizbolah Katyusha bomb firings at Israeli's northern cities, in Sinai it was to get a good distance from the Egyptian forces and with the territories we're talking about here the distance was from Jordan.
Couldn't you have thought about these legitimate reasons yourself?

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't justify kids writing on bombs, but the picture is presented basically as propaganda with little regard for the fact that explanation goes well beyond kids simply being taught to hate.

That cuts both ways, doesn't it?

 

[Kopji]

Watching the results of the latest Gaza strategy with some interest.

What would be the dynamic if the care, feeding, and security of Gaza were left to the Egyptians instead of Israel? Would on-the-ground Egyptian troops be better equipped to prevent rocket attacks on Israel? Would Egypt ever want that kind of responsibility?

On the comment by gumboot, the conflict seems more similar to civil war than between two countries. Could Israel really do 'what it wants' without harming itself? It does not seem so.

Although not completely analogous, the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians seems somewhat similar to that of the US and some Native American tribes in the 1800's. What the Palestinians REALLY lack is good leadership, and a way to integrate with Israel via commerce and industry. Israel has attempted to address those needs in the past, but I have to agree that there is so much hatred between the two sides that I can't see anything good in the future.

So anyway, the events of the past week make me wonder about Egypt. I doubt there is much love between Mubarak and Hamas, but if Egypt knew that they 'owned' the problem, could they?

 

[Kopji]

A small clarification. My pov would be that a major difference between Palestinian and Native American tribal warfare is that many of the NA tribes had exceptional leaders. As bad as things seemed to get, I doubt there would have been many survivors without leaders who were more interested in the welfare of their people than themselves and their own power or agenda.

 

[webfusion]

a_u_p asks:

That cuts both ways, doesn't it?

No. It doesn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZEGsnWZKh8

Let me relate an anecdote here, just indulge me...

I have relatives in Haifa, and when visiting them, I make a point of stopping by at Beit Hagefen. It's not a well-known destination for visitors to the city, to be sure. I like to go there because of the calm atmosphere and the people who run the place. Haifa is a city where arabs and jews are living together, and represents, in my opinion, a typical example of what Israel is all about. You get on a bus, and the bus driver could be arab or jew. Nobody gives it a second thought. You go into a shop or restaurant, where the proprietor could be jew or arab, and nobody cares.
You get a ticket from a cop, and he/she could be arab or jew, it's not important.


The palestininans in Haifa don't demonize the jews, and the jews don't demonize the arabs.
Beit Hagefen epitomizes that. Which is why I make a point to visit when I'm in town.

 

[FireGarden]

I just had to smile at this gem:

Dude, do you have a map handy? Here, let me assist you with a basic geography lesson:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/gaza_strip_may_2005.jpg
(LINK TO GOOGLE-EARTH PHOTO)

If there's something in that map which contradicts what I said, then you'll have to point it out. What is the map supposed to show me?

 

[FireGarden]

The palestininans in Haifa don't demonize the jews, and the jews don't demonize the arabs.
Beit Hagefen epitomizes that. Which is why I make a point to visit when I'm in town.

The one-state solution would look the same.