Imagine if Gaza was granted statehood immediately and unilaterally.
Israel just said, yup, you can govern yourselves. They then ended Gazas restrictions on the airports, and sea.
Then what?
Other nations couldnt justifiably send money to them in the form of aid forever because they would have to open up some sort of economy? What would they do? Less then 1% of the area is arable. People there dont have many trades.
Any act of terror by Hamas could legitimately be viewed as a causus-belli, and treated as such.
They dont have anything to mine, or farm and manufacturing is nonexistent.
Think about it, what kind of country could it be?
Other nations couldnt justifiably send money to them in the form of aid forever because they would have to open up some sort of economy? What would they do? Less then 1% of the area is arable. People there dont have many trades.
Any act of terror by Hamas could legitimately be viewed as a causus-belli, and treated as such.
They dont have anything to mine, or farm and manufacturing is nonexistent.
Gaza already is a state. It is of no importance that the Gaza entity is not formally recognized as a state. Gaza has all the attributes of an independent state, apart from and openly hostile towards Israel. This is not a hypothetical situation. There is no Israeli military or governance in Gaza. There is a wall, Israel one one side, Gaza on the other.
You say that if in the future Gaza will become a state then any act of terrorism will be considered casus-belli, and I say that Gaza already is a state, for all practical matters, and there already is continuous casus-belli.
The only problem is that Hamas, despite taking an ass-whooping like no other, and being under external siege (the only limitation on which is self-imposed by Israel in order to prevent humanitarian disaster), just don't get it. They won't surrender and stand down even to save the last Palestinian, let alone to ensure some kind of positive future prospect for Gaza. So the state of war persists.
Israel does not restrict trade or movement inside Gaza, Israel does not even restrict bearing of arms inside Gaza. Israel is simply blockading a hostile entity with which it is in a state of war, it is as simple as that. Israel doesn't care who is bearing arms inside Gaza, it just assumes that anyone bearing arms is a legitimate military target. Israel does not intend to police Gaza and pursue murderers, Israel does not even presume to have jurisdiction in Gaza.
The Gaza entity has clearly demonstrated that they do not seek a peaceful coexistence, and following war did not have the brains to surrender, so this is the consequence. As soon as Hamas surrenders unconditionally this whole situation will be over and Gaza has a chance for a fresh start.
Israel does not restrict trade or movement inside Gaza, Israel does not even restrict bearing of arms inside Gaza. Israel is simply blockading a hostile entity with which it is in a state of war, it is as simple as that. Israel doesn't care who is bearing arms inside Gaza, it just assumes that anyone bearing arms is a legitimate military target. Israel does not intend to police Gaza and pursue murderers, Israel does not even presume to have jurisdiction in Gaza.
The Gaza entity has clearly demonstrated that they do not seek a peaceful coexistence, and following war did not have the brains to surrender, so this is the consequence. As soon as Hamas surrenders unconditionally this whole situation will be over and Gaza has a chance for a fresh start.
As soon as Hamas surrenders unconditionally this whole situation will be over and Gaza has a chance for a fresh start.
If you think there is lack of individual rights in Gaza, why do you blame the Israeli regime for it? Hamas is the authority controlling Gaza these days - if you think Hamas is not providing it's people with enough individual rights, take it up with them. Suppose that you perceive a lack of individual rights in the UK, do you go blaming France for it?
Does "freedom to bear arms" dictate that you should allow or provide arms to your enemy so that he can shoot at you?
Of course they don't, since there is peaceful coexistence between France and the UK. The UK charter does not include a specific agenda to destroy France. UK soldiers are not firing rockets at French cities.If you think there is lack of individual rights in Gaza, why do you blame the Israeli regime for it? Hamas is the authority controlling Gaza these days - if you think Hamas is not providing it's people with enough individual rights, take it up with them. Suppose that you perceive a lack of individual rights in the UK, do you go blaming France for it?
France don't restrict trade and movement between UK and french citizens.
There is no distinction between allowing arms into Gaza and giving them to Hamas - virtually all arms in Gaza end up in Hamas hands therefore it is exactly the same thing.QuoteDoes "freedom to bear arms" dictate that you should allow or provide arms to your enemy so that he can shoot at you?
Do you make no distinction between those two positions?
People in every country in the world murder people with weapons. Why don't aren't you in favor in banning guns in Israel? Wouldn't it stop Israelis getting weapons to use for murders?Since holding a firearm requires skill and responsibility, I am in favor of regulating the distribution of arms to ensure that they will not fall into incapable and irresponsible hands. Similarly I think one should obtain a drivers licence before being allowed by the state to operate an automobile, since this requires proficiency and responsibility, and has the potential to be dangerous if used carelessly.
I was with you all the way until that last line. Mega fail man. The government is not the solution. Regulating firearm ownership always leads to tyrrany. Check out the Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership at www.jpfo.org , a great organization of gun owning Jews like myself.Of course they don't, since there is peaceful coexistence between France and the UK. The UK charter does not include a specific agenda to destroy France. UK soldiers are not firing rockets at French cities.If you think there is lack of individual rights in Gaza, why do you blame the Israeli regime for it? Hamas is the authority controlling Gaza these days - if you think Hamas is not providing it's people with enough individual rights, take it up with them. Suppose that you perceive a lack of individual rights in the UK, do you go blaming France for it?
France don't restrict trade and movement between UK and french citizens.
You evaded the UK-France example, but take two countries at war - and Gaza is at war with Israel if ever there was war. Take the American attacks on German merchant convoys in WWII. Was that in you opinion an unjustified act of preventing freedom of trade? Or was it a legitimate war effort. I'll bet that in 1939 Germany did its best to seal off any supplies, military or non-military, from reaching the coasts of Britain, was that also an act of "restricting freedom of trade"? Terms such as "freedom of trade" and "freedom to bear arms", refer to a government's internal policy, and you are using them out of context.There is no distinction between allowing arms into Gaza and giving them to Hamas - virtually all arms in Gaza end up in Hamas hands therefore it is exactly the same thing.QuoteDoes "freedom to bear arms" dictate that you should allow or provide arms to your enemy so that he can shoot at you?
Do you make no distinction between those two positions?
In 1993, as part of the Oslo accords, Israel (shorthand for "the Israeli governement", just to make it clear) agreed to give Arafat 10 thousand or so guns, supposedly so that the PA would have the means to stop terrorism and keep law and order. Less than 3 years later those same guns were pointed at Israel. Today, these guns constitute a significant part of Hamas' arsenal. Allowing arms into Gaza strictly equals giving them to Hamas. Would you have advised Churchill to allow arms into Nazi Germany during WWII? After all, not all Germans were Nazis, and some of them might have needed weapons to defend themselves against Nazi tyranny. It is exactly the same thing.People in every country in the world murder people with weapons. Why don't aren't you in favor in banning guns in Israel? Wouldn't it stop Israelis getting weapons to use for murders?Since holding a firearm requires skill and responsibility, I am in favor of regulating the distribution of arms to ensure that they will not fall into incapable and irresponsible hands. Similarly I think one should obtain a drivers licence before being allowed by the state to operate an automobile, since this requires proficiency and responsibility, and has the potential to be dangerous if used carelessly.
Unfortunately this is not possible to do in Gaza right now.
Both fatcat and avshae are correct. They just interpret the situation from different perspectives. In my opinion all this simply underscores the futility of creating a Palestinian state/s.There are no Jews in Palestine, Hamas and Fatah already killed or drove them all out. The Jews live in Israel.
It's unlikely that a Palestinian state that isn't run by terrorists armed and funded by powers hostile toward Israel could last for long, even if it could exist at all.
The only hope for peace is for Israel to reabsorb all Arabs that reside in palestine into their society with full respect for their personal and economic rights. If the Israelis are not up to this task, they face a future of continuous warfare and/or civil war and, ultimately, their doom.
Under normal circumstances, states can get away with ignoring the rights of their subjects, as long as they at least maintain some popular support for these policies with their voters. This won't work in Israel. It will take much more than treating Arabs and Jews as equals to overcome old grievances. Both sides need to be seduced by the opportunities of extreme economic and personal freedom in order to forget their hatreds.
My guess is that the Israelis are not up to the task.( May they prove me wrong.) My advise to any Jew or Arab in palestine is to find some way to get themselves and their families out, before it's too late.
There are no Jews in Palestine, Hamas and Fatah already killed or drove them all out. The Jews live in Israel.
I think that I agree with you though that an economic seduction is the best solution for peace in Gaza. I think that the Gazan people need to look at the West Bank which has finally settled down and is making money and is not fucked with by Israel as much because of the fact that they're not launching rockets at Israel every day.
Hamas needs to learn the lesson that the Israeli people will not put up with their shit. Everytime they launch an RPG into Israel Gaza gets fucked over hard. This is no longer the case in the West Bank though, I believe because they are no longer promoting violence as they are in Gaza, and they are more interested in developing economically.
Since holding a firearm requires skill and responsibility, I am in favor of regulating the distribution of arms to ensure that they will not fall into incapable and irresponsible hands. Similarly I think one should obtain a drivers licence before being allowed by the state to operate an automobile, since this requires proficiency and responsibility, and has the potential to be dangerous if used carelessly.
Unfortunately this is not possible to do in Gaza right now.
If you think there is lack of individual rights in Gaza, why do you blame the Israeli regime for it? Hamas is the authority controlling Gaza these days - if you think Hamas is not providing it's people with enough individual rights, take it up with them. Suppose that you perceive a lack of individual rights in the UK, do you go blaming France for it?
France don't restrict trade and movement between UK and french citizens.
France doesn't bomb smuggling tunnels on all of the UKs borders.
France doesn't periodically shut off electricity being purchased off France power companies.
France doesn't stop millions of dollars of food aid from reaching the UK.
France doesn't periodically bomb residential areas in the UK.
France don't do anything to make me less free as a person in the UK (or at least if they do its so minor I don't even notice).
You evaded the UK-France example,
but take two countries at war - and Gaza is at war with Israel if ever there was war. Take the American attacks on German merchant convoys in WWII. Was that in you opinion an unjustified act of preventing freedom of trade? Or was it a legitimate war effort. I'll bet that in 1939 Germany did its best to seal off any supplies, military or non-military, from reaching the coasts of Britain, was that also an act of "restricting freedom of trade"? Terms such as "freedom of trade" and "freedom to bear arms", refer to a government's internal policy, and you are using them out of context.
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=alex+libman&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 |
If you were to take the GDP of Gaza and subtract the amount that comes in from foreign donations, then every Gazan would be living below the poverty line.
What would they do once they can no longer suck at the teat of the UN?
I think someone else pointed this out when the Palestinians of Gaza prosper they are going to want to hang on to that prosperity. It gives them something to lose. However, currently with all the sanctions and harassment they don't have that much to lose in fighting.
Think about it, what kind of country could it be
QuoteThink about it, what kind of country could it be
A free one.
It greatly depends on if they are allowed to have free trade with other countries wouldn't it? How much foreign aid does Hong Kong receive for example? Does Lebanon receive foreign aid or do they mostly support themselves?
I think someone else pointed this out when the Palestinians of Gaza prosper they are going to want to hang on to that prosperity. It gives them something to lose. However, currently with all the sanctions and harassment they don't have that much to lose in fighting.
Their economy would definitely pick up if the shipping blockade were lifted, but to do trade, you have to make or export something someone wants. What do they do that other people want?
It greatly depends on if they are allowed to have free trade with other countries wouldn't it? How much foreign aid does Hong Kong receive for example? Does Lebanon receive foreign aid or do they mostly support themselves?
I think someone else pointed this out when the Palestinians of Gaza prosper they are going to want to hang on to that prosperity. It gives them something to lose. However, currently with all the sanctions and harassment they don't have that much to lose in fighting.
But no one is going to invest in the infrastructure necessary to build a factoryin a state infested with terrorists who are constantly trying to stir shit up with Israel.only to have Israel bomb the shit out of it.
I am surprised how fast investors went back into Lebanon after they had their infrastructure destroyed by Israel overthe Lebanese unprovoked attack on an Israeli patrol vehicle inside Israel's international borders, in clear defiance of UN resolution 1559.the kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers.
Just for a little comparison IRA kills two British Soldiers and wound 4 others. Do the British blockade Ireland and blow up the Dublin International airport?If you want to compare Northern Ireland to Southern Lebanon, lets compare. Did the UK withdraw from Northern Ireland to a fully-recognized international border? After which, did a terrorist military group inside Ireland, more powerful than the Irish army and taking orders from Iran, amass its forces and build bunkers on the border of mainland England, like Hezbollah? And did the IRA members kidnap the British soldiers and hold them at at unknown place in unknown conditions with no sign of life, in clear violation of intl. laws? Also, does Ireland threaten the security of British civilian towns by routinely firing rockets at them?
"unprovoked" :lol:
The aggression was initiated by the Zionists - most definitely with the imposition of the Israeli state, if not prior. Any actions against that state are a legitimate act of self-defense.
P.S. what is "nefarious plot" is it some kind of new feature of the site, a buffer after every post? I don't like it - Is there some check-box I can check to revert back to the old format?There is an ignore feature.
The terrorists [...] |
[...] along with some self-hating Jews such as yourself [...] |
[...] still haven't gotten over the existence of Israel, and still consider the actual existence of Israel a provocation. [...] |
[...] This is the primary reason preventing achievement of peace in the last parts of the region. [...] |
[...] Haven't you read the Elders of Zion? [...] |
Nobody paid for jack shit. [...] |
Imagine if Gaza was granted statehood immediately and unilaterally.
Israel just said, yup, you can govern yourselves. They then ended Gazas restrictions on the airports, and sea.
Then what?
Other nations couldnt justifiably send money to them in the form of aid forever because they would have to open up some sort of economy? What would they do? Less then 1% of the area is arable. People there dont have many trades.
Any act of terror by Hamas could legitimately be viewed as a causus-belli, and treated as such.
They dont have anything to mine, or farm and manufacturing is nonexistent.
Think about it, what kind of country could it be?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14579Stephan Lendman writes his opinions and half-truths out-of-context as if they were facts. In reality, there are about 50% logically false sentences in that article if I had time to go through it with a marker.
Israel's Discriminatory Land Policies
by Stephen Lendman
The word "terrorism" has lost all meaning in your usage.Terrorism has a distinct and quite precise mainstream definition (http://gazaqna.googlepages.com/terrorism). And guess what, Hamas and Hezbollah are prime specimens. Don't know if you noticed, but in your eagerness to condemn Israel you have posted statements here that explicitly support Hezbollah, a terrorist organization.
The imposition of the military regime you call "Israel" is in fact a provocation, and you've never had any rational argument to the contrary. An injustice as well-documented and persistently relevant as Zionism doesn't become any more just as more time passes!This passage could have been taken directly from the Hamas charter.
No justice, no peace! Give me liberty or give me death!Here's liberty for you:
Pray enlighten us which parts of The Elders of Zion are valid, as I stopped after the part of Jewish world domination conspiracy and making Matza out of Christian children's blood.... That said, many point of that text remain valid and relevant to the present day.
Some Palestinians have in fact sold their land under fair and voluntary conditions, while a lot more sold under coercion of imminent violence, and the majority were simply dealt with through blunt government force. Mixing honey with poison does not invalidate the poison!Despite what the Arab propaganda will have you believe, most Arabs simply fled Israel in 1948, of their own free choice, with no coercion or threats of any kind. Although you can always point to isolated incidents, in general those who stayed were treated fairly by the Israeli authorities, and today are much better off than those who chose to flee.
P.S. what is "nefarious plot" is it some kind of new feature of the site, a buffer after every post? I don't like it - Is there some check-box I can check to revert back to the old format?There is an ignore feature.
<------Use the button under the users avatar.
Terrorism has a distinct and quite precise mainstream definition (http://gazaqna.googlepages.com/terrorism). And guess what, Hamas and Hezbollah are prime specimens. Don't know if you noticed, but in your eagerness to condemn Israel you have posted statements here that explicitly support Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. |
This passage could have been taken directly from the Hamas charter. |
Here's liberty for you: |
Pray enlighten us which parts of The Elders of Zion are valid, as I stopped after the part of Jewish world domination conspiracy and making Matza out of Christian children's blood. |
Despite what the Arab propaganda will have you believe, most Arabs simply fled Israel in 1948, of their own free choice, with no coercion or threats of any kind. Although you can always point to isolated incidents, in general those who stayed were treated fairly by the Israeli authorities, and today are much better off than those who chose to flee. |
I believe those who fled did so as they were certain the Jews would carry out revenge in the same manner the Arabs treated the Jews (there is a term in Psychology for that - when you "export" your own trait to somebody else). |
And there was no major violence against the Jews living under Islam prior to Zionism.
Not saying that is not a horrible event. But technically Libman is still correct. Zionism the political movement started in the late 19th century more than 30 years prior to the event you listed. Jews by 1929 had been immigrating for several years purchasing some tracks of land. Land on which the new Jewish owner kicked off the share croppers some of whom had lived and worked the land for generations. Given the time and the history of Jews killing native populations to take land in the past. In that light it could be understood why Palestinian Arabs would believe a rumor that Jews were killing Arabs. In some misguided way these Palestinian Arabs may have sincerely believed they were defending themselves from similar attacks they thought had happened in Jerusalem.
And there was no major violence against the Jews living under Islam prior to Zionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
And there was no major violence against the Jews living under Islam prior to Zionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre