Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Israeli Apartheid Thread

14849505153

Posts

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Oh, sorry, I always interpreted ceasefire as, well, when people stop firing weapons at each other. I now know the true definition is only a smaller number of attacks occur. Thanks. [/sarcasm]
    And I thought stopping settlement construction was when people stopped constructing things in settlements. Now, I know that it's only saying you'll stop constructing things in settlements, then blaming the other side for not making genuine progress towards peace.

    And I thought anti-semitism was when you made up things about Jews doing horrific things; now I know that it's when you report things that Israelis actually did.

    And weirdly enough, that's precisely what I said about settlement construction. Israeli isn't trying to stop, they're only going through the motions. You know, if you actually read my posts and all.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    big l wrote: »
    It's not a perfect ceasefire, but consider the situation in Gaza and consider whether Hamas could even enforce a perfect ceasefire if it wanted to. There are always going to be a few wackos out there who can build a fertilizer rocket. I believe that is as much of a reduction in violence as is reasonably possible to expect Hamas to be able to carry out, and that Hamas' effort should be considered legitimate because they were trying as hard as they could, in contrast to Israel, who has not done all that it reasonably could to stop settlement growth. 2 rockets in September and October combined is not exactly endangering the survival of Israel.

    That's part of Israel's point; what's the point in negotiating when the other side is incapable of delivering on its promises? If Hamas cannot stop the violence, why negotiate with them until they can?

    This becomes doubly difficult when it comes to Fatah. Fatah may be even less capable of delivering on its promises than Hamas. That makes concessions by any particular Israeli party politically problematic for it. If the public believes that they made concessions for nothing, then they will be compromised, voted out, and probably replaced by those who are more hard-line.

    So your point is completely correct; unfortunately, it only complicates the path to peace.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    First of all, the rockets launched at Israel were very likely not launched by members of Hamas, but by individuals or small groups. So you are expecting Hamas to have the power of stopping not only the violence it perpetrates, but also perfectly and completely policing the area and preventing any and all acts of violence towards Israel? This is a tall order. The United States isn't capable of policing its citizens to the level you are holding Hamas to. And even were this standard legitimate, Hamas can't meet it because anytime Hamas gets too powerful, Israel blows up some of their stuff. Israel wants a weak Hamas that is incapable of either seriously threatening Israel or completely policing the Gaza Strip.

  • fleggettfleggett Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Y'know, if Hamas really wanted to "get along" with Israel (whatever that might mean in that part of the world), I seriously doubt they would've done THIS.

    They would also release that kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit, after Israel released 20 women prisoners. Instead, Israel just received a proof-of-life videotape and negotiations for a genuine release broke down soon after that.

    Kinda makes you think Hamas never really had intentions of a release at all. That, plus the odd rocket attack and the recent collaborator executions makes it pretty clear they hate Israel to the core.

    I'm not saying both sides haven't committed their share of grievances, but I'm little more willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt over Hamas.

  • DemiurgeDemiurge Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    fleggett wrote: »
    Y'know, if Hamas really wanted to "get along" with Israel (whatever that might mean in that part of the world), I seriously doubt they would've done THIS.

    They would also release that kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit, after Israel released 20 women prisoners. Instead, Israel just received a proof-of-life videotape and negotiations for a genuine release broke down soon after that.

    Kinda makes you think Hamas never really had intentions of a release at all. That, plus the odd rocket attack and the recent collaborator executions makes it pretty clear they hate Israel to the core.

    I'm not saying both sides haven't committed their share of grievances, but I'm little more willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt over Hamas.

    Female prisoners guilty of what exactly? You have to consider the value of an Israeli soldier and just how many innocent people are in Israeli jails.

    DQ0uv.png 5E984.png
  • fleggettfleggett Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Female prisoners guilty of what exactly? You have to consider the value of an Israeli soldier and just how many innocent people are in Israeli jails.
    I don't know the individual cases, but I'm assuming they were guilty of something, or being detained while being investigated of some manner of illicit behavior. Unless you're contending that Israel rounds-up the random woman here and there and throws her in jail just for kicks.

    And the value of an Israeli soldier? I'm afraid to ask what that means. Are you seriously advancing the notion that capturing/kidnapping a soldier who was simply at his post is warranted in any way, shape, or form? He's obviously being used as a bargaining chip. In my eyes, when you start using innocent people as human currency, you lose just about all credibility. It's no better than being a Somali pirate or FARC "freedom fighter".

    And what about those executions? How is that in any way justified when you're, supposedly, trying to make peace with the very people those two were accused of collaborating for? Death to all spies?

  • DemiurgeDemiurge Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    fleggett wrote: »
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Female prisoners guilty of what exactly? You have to consider the value of an Israeli soldier and just how many innocent people are in Israeli jails.
    I don't know the individual cases, but I'm assuming they were guilty of something, or being detained while being investigated of some manner of illicit behavior. Unless you're contending that Israel rounds-up the random woman here and there and throws her in jail just for kicks.

    And the value of an Israeli soldier? I'm afraid to ask what that means. Are you seriously advancing the notion that capturing/kidnapping a soldier who was simply at his post is warranted in any way, shape, or form? He's obviously being used as a bargaining chip. In my eyes, when you start using innocent people as human currency, you lose just about all credibility. It's no better than being a Somali pirate or FARC "freedom fighter".

    And what about those executions? How is that in any way justified when you're, supposedly, trying to make peace with the very people those two were accused of collaborating for? Death to all spies?

    Thats exactly what I'm contending.

    As for the soldier, yes he's abselutely being used as a bargaining chip. One of the very few bargaining chips that Hamas has. Israel detaining hundreds of Palestinians on bogus grounds doesn't really impact us in the west because they're Palestinians and who really gives a shit right? An Israeli soldier on the other hand is a huge issue because its very easy to play into Israeli sympathies. He's a good looking jewish white guy and that makes him a big thing in negotiations. Its a sad fact that Palestinian lives have been devalued but its still fact.

    DQ0uv.png 5E984.png
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    big l wrote: »
    First of all, the rockets launched at Israel were very likely not launched by members of Hamas, but by individuals or small groups. So you are expecting Hamas to have the power of stopping not only the violence it perpetrates, but also perfectly and completely policing the area and preventing any and all acts of violence towards Israel? This is a tall order. The United States isn't capable of policing its citizens to the level you are holding Hamas to. And even were this standard legitimate, Hamas can't meet it because anytime Hamas gets too powerful, Israel blows up some of their stuff. Israel wants a weak Hamas that is incapable of either seriously threatening Israel or completely policing the Gaza Strip.

    Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. Either Hamas can control its territory and is therefore a useful negotiating partner or it can't control its territory and negotiation is largely meaningless. The United States is very capable of preventing its citizens from launching persistent attacks against the civilian population of neighboring states. When was the last time you saw a crazy American start lobbing rockets into Mexico or Canada? And even if that happened, the US would come down on them like a ton of bricks so any negotiating partner would know that such events would be the exception rather than the rule. The persistent nature of "unlicensed" terror attacks either means that Hamas cannot effectively prevent future attacks or that Hamas has no interest in completely stopping them. Either, it's a no-go for negotiations.

    Israel doesn't blow up Hamas' stuff because they get too powerful; Israel attacked Hamas network of tunnels from Egypt into Gaza because the range of Hamas' rocket attacks started threatening Tel Aviv (and therefore, Israel's link to the global economy). If Hamas had finished consolidating political power without ramping up rocket attacks, Israel wouldn't have attacked. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose in terms of PR (which they do care about). Even now, they know they've only bought some time.

    Israel's left recognizes that they need partners in the West Bank and Gaza that are willing and able to live up to the terms of any future peace agreement. Right now, they don't have that. And until they do, I honestly doubt any peace process is doomed to failure.

    I'll also add that Israel needs a government of its own that is willing to do the same and make significant concessions. The current government does not meet this criterion imho. So I'd say that the status quo is going to reign until the political climate for both sides significantly changes.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2010
    fleggett wrote: »
    And what about those executions? How is that in any way justified when you're, supposedly, trying to make peace with the very people those two were accused of collaborating for? Death to all spies?

    Collaboration, such as it is, is not trying to come to a friendly, open agreement that leads to peace. It's pretty much treason; it's helping the other side to the detriment of your compatriots. Meting out the death penalty for treason isn't exactly unprecedented. That's not to say I'm cool with it, but it's a bit over the top to use that as an example of Palestinian intractability.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Demiurge wrote: »
    fleggett wrote: »
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Female prisoners guilty of what exactly? You have to consider the value of an Israeli soldier and just how many innocent people are in Israeli jails.
    I don't know the individual cases, but I'm assuming they were guilty of something, or being detained while being investigated of some manner of illicit behavior. Unless you're contending that Israel rounds-up the random woman here and there and throws her in jail just for kicks.

    And the value of an Israeli soldier? I'm afraid to ask what that means. Are you seriously advancing the notion that capturing/kidnapping a soldier who was simply at his post is warranted in any way, shape, or form? He's obviously being used as a bargaining chip. In my eyes, when you start using innocent people as human currency, you lose just about all credibility. It's no better than being a Somali pirate or FARC "freedom fighter".

    And what about those executions? How is that in any way justified when you're, supposedly, trying to make peace with the very people those two were accused of collaborating for? Death to all spies?

    Thats exactly what I'm contending.

    As for the soldier, yes he's abselutely being used as a bargaining chip. One of the very few bargaining chips that Hamas has. Israel detaining hundreds of Palestinians on bogus grounds doesn't really impact us in the west because they're Palestinians and who really gives a shit right? An Israeli soldier on the other hand is a huge issue because its very easy to play into Israeli sympathies. He's a good looking jewish white guy and that makes him a big thing in negotiations. Its a sad fact that Palestinian lives have been devalued but its still fact.

    Meh. Israel does detain far too many people, often for doing little more than breaking curfew or other small infractions. This is a significant problem.

    However, Hamas is not asking for only those people back. The most recent request in the Gilad Shalit negotiations involved the release of almost 1,000 prisoners, including over 400 who have direct ties to attacks that claimed Israeli lives. Hell, one of Hamas' leaders has boasted that if they get what they want, they'll start kidnapping children next to see what Israel will give them for a child.

    I don't think the huge disparity in numbers is solely due to Israelis devaluing Palestinian lives (suicide bombing should give you an idea of what terrorists think of the value of Palestinian lives). It also reflects how much Israelis value their own soldiers' lives. There is fierce debate in the Torah, going back thousands of years, about the proper exchange of prisoners. Some rabbis said any price was worth paying to get back prisoners. Others said that exchanges were only ok if you did not pay more than what the prisoners were worth.

    Remember that Israel's army is not a volunteer army. The soldiers are drafted and face consequences if they do not serve. So Gilad Shalit represents far more than one soldier. He is everyone's son, everyone's brother, everyone's boyfriend or husband or uncle or cousin. The Israeli military promises to do everything in its power to get back its soldiers, for good reason. And they are trying to make good on that promise.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • fleggettfleggett Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Demiurge wrote: »
    fleggett wrote: »
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Female prisoners guilty of what exactly? You have to consider the value of an Israeli soldier and just how many innocent people are in Israeli jails.
    I don't know the individual cases, but I'm assuming they were guilty of something, or being detained while being investigated of some manner of illicit behavior. Unless you're contending that Israel rounds-up the random woman here and there and throws her in jail just for kicks.

    And what about those executions? How is that in any way justified when you're, supposedly, trying to make peace with the very people those two were accused of collaborating for? Death to all spies?

    Thats exactly what I'm contending.

    Well, I honestly don't know how to respond to that. To be crystal clear, you're accusing Israel of, essentially, institutionalized and widespread kidnapping of Palestinians?
    As for the soldier, yes he's abselutely being used as a bargaining chip. One of the very few bargaining chips that Hamas has.
    And as I said, once you start using innocent people as human currency, you lose all credibility. You might as well also exonerate those Somali pirates or FARC guerrillas. If Israel is guilty of KNOWINGLY kidnapping people to advance some agenda, okay, you've got yourself a huge case, but that's ONLY if.
    Israel detaining hundreds of Palestinians on bogus grounds doesn't really impact us in the west because they're Palestinians and who really gives a shit right?
    No, of course not. I'm a big fan of every human having an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just so long as they're not hurting the next person. However, a "bogus" ground to you might be really effin' serious to the average beat cop or Israeli counter-terrorism agent.

  • ChopperDaveChopperDave Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    big l wrote: »
    First of all, the rockets launched at Israel were very likely not launched by members of Hamas, but by individuals or small groups. So you are expecting Hamas to have the power of stopping not only the violence it perpetrates, but also perfectly and completely policing the area and preventing any and all acts of violence towards Israel? This is a tall order. The United States isn't capable of policing its citizens to the level you are holding Hamas to. And even were this standard legitimate, Hamas can't meet it because anytime Hamas gets too powerful, Israel blows up some of their stuff. Israel wants a weak Hamas that is incapable of either seriously threatening Israel or completely policing the Gaza Strip.

    I remember reading that every rocket launched during the months of June-October -- of which were were something around the number of 11 -- were claimed by other groups such as the PFLP and Islamic Jihad. A few were in retribution for Israeli assassinations of Palestinian leaders in the West Bank (because as everyone loves to forget, the territories are not disconnected). I also remember that Hamas took measures to stop these independent rocket launches by jailing and otherwise punishing the culprits.

    Not to defend Hamas or anything, but claiming that they didn't do enough to hold up their end of the bargain is bullshit. It's about as convincing to me as the argument that Israeli needed to bomb the living shit out of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure in order to punish the Lebanese populace for "tolerating" the existence of Hezbollah.

    Israel, on the other hand, plainly did not hold up its end of the bargain. Hamas demanded two things: no attacks and increased supply crossings. Israel actually decreased supply crossings in August and October, and the crossings reached a record low in November. And as has already pointed out, it was Israel who broke the ceasefire -- by bombing a tunnel that both Jimmy Carter and internal IDF reports have described as "defensive" and "not an imminent threat."

    Who's the unreliable partner for peace again?

    3DS code: 3007-8077-4055
  • fleggettfleggett Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Collaboration, such as it is, is not trying to come to a friendly, open agreement that leads to peace. It's pretty much treason; it's helping the other side to the detriment of your compatriots. Meting out the death penalty for treason isn't exactly unprecedented. That's not to say I'm cool with it, but it's a bit over the top to use that as an example of Palestinian intractability.
    If I'm a Hatfield and I'm trying to make peace with the McCoys, but I learn that my son has been secretly feeding sensitive intel to the McCoys, sure, I'm going to be extremely angry, but I AM trying to make peace with these people. Executing my son is going to do nothing more than assign a terribly disproportionate punishment to the crime and show the McCoys that I'm really not interested in peace, but "something else" (whatever that might be).

    This isn't a case of the Nazis executing an Allied spy (or vice-versa). These are people who are, presumably, trying to make some semblance of peace. What would've been the better gesture toward that end? Killing these two or the far more humane option of exiling them (probably to Israel)?

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    big l wrote: »
    First of all, the rockets launched at Israel were very likely not launched by members of Hamas, but by individuals or small groups. So you are expecting Hamas to have the power of stopping not only the violence it perpetrates, but also perfectly and completely policing the area and preventing any and all acts of violence towards Israel? This is a tall order. The United States isn't capable of policing its citizens to the level you are holding Hamas to. And even were this standard legitimate, Hamas can't meet it because anytime Hamas gets too powerful, Israel blows up some of their stuff. Israel wants a weak Hamas that is incapable of either seriously threatening Israel or completely policing the Gaza Strip.

    I remember reading that every rocket launched during the months of June-October -- of which were were something around the number of 11 -- were claimed by other groups such as the PFLP and Islamic Jihad. A few were in retribution for Israeli assassinations of Palestinian leaders in the West Bank (because as everyone loves to forget, the territories are not disconnected). I also remember that Hamas took measures to stop these independent rocket launches by jailing and otherwise punishing the culprits.

    Not to defend Hamas or anything, but claiming that they didn't do enough to hold up their end of the bargain is bullshit. It's about as convincing to me as the argument that Israeli needed to bomb the living shit out of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure in order to punish the Lebanese populace for "tolerating" the existence of Hezbollah.

    Israel, on the other hand, plainly did not hold up its end of the bargain. Hamas demanded two things: no attacks and increased supply crossings. Israel actually decreased supply crossings in August and October, and the crossings reached a record low in November. And as has already pointed out, it was Israel who broke the ceasefire -- by bombing a tunnel that both Jimmy Carter and internal IDF reports have described as "defensive" and "not an imminent threat."

    Who's the unreliable partner for peace again?

    Did the agreement cover tunnels? I tend to doubt there was no sort of loophole, as that would be regarded by Israel as a huge problem if Hamas decided to prepare for a wave of attacks. Also, I'd like to see your source for the IDF, as I suspect it was Carter who called it defensive without any sort of briefing on the matter and the IDF that ruled it to not have been an imminent threat after the fact.

    On the execution, this is the pertinent portion:
    In a report released last month, human rights group Amnesty International's Middle East program director Malcolm Smart said legal proceedings that led to death sentences "failed to meet international fair trial standards" and made any resulting executions "especially abhorrent."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ChopperDaveChopperDave Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Did the agreement cover tunnels? I tend to doubt there was no sort of loophole, as that would be regarded by Israel as a huge problem if Hamas decided to prepare for a wave of attacks. Also, I'd like to see your source for the IDF, as I suspect it was Carter who called it defensive without any sort of briefing on the matter and the IDF that ruled it to not have been an imminent threat after the fact.

    My Google-fu is weak on this one, but generally speaking: Jimmy Carter and Hamas were the ones to describe the tunnel as "defensive," while Israeli government and IDF officials described it as a "ticking tunnel" (with a few important dissenters recognizing that it was in no way an imminent threat).

    This Haaretz article will have to suffice:
    Zvi Bar'el wrote:
    Last week's "ticking tunnel," dug ostensibly to facilitate the abduction of Israeli soldiers, was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm's way. It is impossible to claim that those who decided to blow up the tunnel were simply being thoughtless. The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of "controlled entry" into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy - not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground.

    In short, the Israelis knew about the tunnel for months, knew that they could provide simple countermeasures on their side if it was indeed intended for kidnappings, knew that attacking it would lead to retaliation and an end to the ceasefire, and attacked it anyway.

    This is pretty par for the course for IDF behavior from what I've read in history: break ceasefires, bait retaliations, respond with massive "defensive" operations and say "he started it!"

    3DS code: 3007-8077-4055
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. Either Hamas can control its territory and is therefore a useful negotiating partner or it can't control its territory and negotiation is largely meaningless. The United States is very capable of preventing its citizens from launching persistent attacks against the civilian population of neighboring states. When was the last time you saw a crazy American start lobbing rockets into Mexico or Canada? And even if that happened, the US would come down on them like a ton of bricks so any negotiating partner would know that such events would be the exception rather than the rule. The persistent nature of "unlicensed" terror attacks either means that Hamas cannot effectively prevent future attacks or that Hamas has no interest in completely stopping them. Either, it's a no-go for negotiations.

    Israel doesn't blow up Hamas' stuff because they get too powerful; Israel attacked Hamas network of tunnels from Egypt into Gaza because the range of Hamas' rocket attacks started threatening Tel Aviv (and therefore, Israel's link to the global economy). If Hamas had finished consolidating political power without ramping up rocket attacks, Israel wouldn't have attacked. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose in terms of PR (which they do care about). Even now, they know they've only bought some time.

    Israel's left recognizes that they need partners in the West Bank and Gaza that are willing and able to live up to the terms of any future peace agreement. Right now, they don't have that. And until they do, I honestly doubt any peace process is doomed to failure.

    I'll also add that Israel needs a government of its own that is willing to do the same and make significant concessions. The current government does not meet this criterion imho. So I'd say that the status quo is going to reign until the political climate for both sides significantly changes.

    Personally, I don't think Hamas is a valid partner for peace. It's power amounts to nothing more then an insurgency group with a good degree of control over a particular territory, and sub-par weaponry. It does not have the means or ability to enforce it's will fully even in that small territory.

    Yet it's done more to control terrorism then Israel has done to control settlement growth. This is not an opinion, there are actual recorded long periods where Hamas has been able to curb terrorism. It's doing this right now. There is not a single instance in the history of this conflict where Israel has done ANYTHING to stop it's ongoing colonialism. This does not mean that Hamas is "good" or "peaceful", but the fact is, a terrorist organization has been more willing and able to to stop it's harmful activities then Israel has.

    And honestly, if Israel didn't keep on with it's ongoing colonialism and exploitation of the Palestinians, Hamas would not have ramped up it's rocket attacks. You can't say that it's okay for one side to respond to other's horrific actions but not for the other. Doing that just leads us all the way to 1948.
    fleggett wrote: »
    As for the soldier, yes he's abselutely being used as a bargaining chip. One of the very few bargaining chips that Hamas has.
    And as I said, once you start using innocent people as human currency, you lose all credibility. You might as well also exonerate those Somali pirates or FARC guerrillas. If Israel is guilty of KNOWINGLY kidnapping people to advance some agenda, okay, you've got yourself a huge case, but that's ONLY if.

    A question to you. Have you ever head of an organization called "Mossad"?

    Because kidnapping innocent people (as in civilians) is what they pretty much do when there is nothing good coming out of TV that day. When they really want to advance some agenda they start assassinating and car bombing people, etc. shooting innocent Norwegian waiters.

    And since when kidnapping soldiers from the opposing force isn't a valid military tactic? I was in the recon corps, they taught us the valid way to smash them in the head with the butt of your gun. There isn't literally an army in the world that hasn't executed an operation intended to capture opposing enemy combatants at least once.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways.
    Unfortunately we explained this to you 50 pages or so ago.

    It is not a legitimate argument to say "X is not a partner for peace because they don't have agency" if that organization doesn't have agency because you keep blowing them up.

    its as if a man walks into an establishment looking for a job. He introduces himself to the HR department where he is swiftly hit in the back with a baseball bat. The HR manager then says "I am sorry, we only hire healthy people here, and Jesus, look at your back; you can't lift boxes with that kind of injury."

    If Israel wants a partner for peace in the region they're going to have to stop blowing up people who try to achieve that and well...
    In short, the Israelis knew about the tunnel for months, knew that they could provide simple countermeasures on their side if it was indeed intended for kidnappings, knew that attacking it would lead to retaliation and an end to the ceasefire, and attacked it anyway.

    This is pretty par for the course for IDF behavior from what I've read in history: break ceasefires, bait retaliations, respond with massive "defensive" operations and say "he started it!"

    Israel doesn't want a partner for peace.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Israel could also work with more moderate factions like the current version Fatah instead of exersizing such a crushing degree of control over the West Bank that Fatah amounts to nothing more then a lame duck organization with no real power.

    Honestly, this is no more a struggle between two states. For 50 years Palestinians have been under the complete control of Israel. Most of their generations have been Israeli subjects for all of their life. This is a struggle between a country and a part of their population wanting independence. And like every such movement Palestinians have insurgency groups and "governments" who however hold no true power in their day to day lives. It's almost like a civil war except that they have never been unified in the past under a single state.

    It's another of the endless reasons why I think two-state solution is becoming more and more impossible. Wait 20-30 years and there isn't a single Palestinian alive in the West Bank or Gaza who hasn't been an Israeli subject for all their lives.

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Aaahhahahahaha. I knew this was coming but it's still funny to see it in writing.
    Hamas is accused of being moderate
    Hard-liners in the Gaza Strip say the militant group has become too soft on Israel now that it’s running a government and dealing with foreign officials.

    Reporting from Gaza City
    Hamas, the Palestinian faction viewed by many in the West as a nest of terrorists and Islamic hard-liners, is battling a curious new epithet: moderate.

    Fifteen months after a punishing Israeli offensive failed to dislodge Hamas from power in the Gaza Strip, rival resistance groups and some former supporters say the organization has become too political, too secular and too soft.

    "People in the street say Hamas has changed," said Abu Ahmed, spokesman for the military wing of Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian armed group in Gaza that complained recently that Hamas had arrested four of its militants as they tried to attack Israeli soldiers near the border. "They're paying a price for that. People need to know that Hamas is still committed to the resistance."

    As it struggles with tensions between its political and military wings, Hamas faces the classic juggling act of an armed resistance group that suddenly finds itself running a government rather than fighting to overthrow one. Some see a window for the West to reach out to Hamas moderates. But as it follows political and military paths at the same time, critics say Hamas is doing neither one particularly well.

    To many in the U.S. and Israel, Hamas is hardly moderate. The group still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and vows it will never give up violence as a tool against Israel's occupation. The U.S. and Israel still label it a terrorist organization for its past use of suicide bombers.

    But people in Gaza note that Hamas hasn't fired rockets at Israel since January 2009 and has pressured other armed groups to follow suit. In January, Hamas shocked other resistance groups by issuing, for the first time, a written order that said rocket attacks were against the "Palestinian national interest" and threatening to arrest anyone caught in the act.

    Instead of attacking Israel, Palestinian hard-liners said, Hamas has been fighting its own people: Islamic extremists in Gaza, including some disaffected Hamas members who pledge allegiance to Al Qaeda and accuse Hamas of selling out.

    So far, the extremist groups, which on the Web accuse Hamas of being infidels and criminals, have been small and easily crushed by Hamas. But they are blamed for a string of recent bomb attacks in Gaza, some targeting Hamas security members' homes, offices and cars.

    An early sign of Hamas' predicament came in August, when the leader of the so-called Army of God's Helpers declared Gaza an "Islamic emirate" under his control. Hamas fighters killed him and about two dozen others in a fiery clash. This month, a new group announced it would exact revenge for that battle, saying it had organized 200 fighters to confront Hamas.

    Jamil Mizher, leadership secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in Gaza, said his group opposed the extremists' agenda, but said Hamas has only itself to blame for their emergence.

    "Suddenly Hamas moved to a political path," Mizher said. "They used to support the resistance. Now, they fight against the resistance. So there is some kind of split in their ideas that has created an opening for these kinds of groups."

    He said Hamas' main concern now appeared to be avoiding another clash with Israel that might threaten its survival. Israel has said it would hold Hamas, which took over control of Gaza in 2007, accountable for any rocket attacks, even those by other groups.

    "It's unacceptable and dangerous for Hamas to put new restrictions on our right to oppose the occupation," Mizher said, adding that his group will continue to fire rockets. "They are just trying to protect their own heads."

    In what many here saw as a Hamas attempt to counter such criticism, Hamas claimed responsibility last month for killing two Israeli soldiers who were ambushed after crossing into Gaza. But according to Israeli and Islamic Jihad officials, Islamic Jihad conducted the operation and Hamas stayed largely in the background.

    Some viewed Hamas' execution last week of two suspected Israeli collaborators as an attempt by the group to demonstrate it still has a tight-fisted control over the strip.

    At the same time, Hamas has courted officials from the U.S., Russia and Europe over the last year, seeking a relaxation of Western restrictions on humanitarian aid in Gaza. Hamas leaders have signaled a willingness to negotiate a long-term truce with Israel.

    Robert Pastor, a Carter Center senior advisor who met with Hamas officials in Gaza this year, said the Obama administration and Israel should do more to encourage Hamas' political engagement.

    "The real tragedy is that we've had relative peace for the past year and no progress at all on negotiations," he said. "Hamas is in this halfway world, with one foot in the arena of militancy and violence. With every day, it becomes harder for them to restrain the acts of violence from the other groups and, eventually, from themselves."

    Critics dismiss Hamas' political overtures as camouflage, saying the group remains as violent as ever. The shift into politics reflects pragmatism, not moderation, they say, noting that Hamas still receives financial support and orders from Iran, has reassembled a vast stockpile of rockets capable of reaching Tel Aviv and has been accused of torturing and executing its enemies.

    Israeli analysts see the recent pause in Hamas attacks as a result of Israel's offensive in Gaza, which killed about 1,400 Palestinians and destroyed thousands of homes.

    "It shows that the deterrence policy is working," said Kobi Marom, a former Israeli army commander who now works as a security consultant.

    For their part, Hamas officials insist there has been no shift in strategy.

    "Hamas hasn't changed," spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said. "We are not more moderate. We've been moderate from the beginning. But because of the American arrogance, the international community does not hear us correctly."

    But on the streets of Gaza, where half the people are unemployed and more than 70% rely on international aid to survive, there's a growing frustration.

    Skeptics say Hamas has little to show for its political overtures. Israel and Egypt continue to impose tight restrictions on the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza. Only a fraction of $4 billion in pledged international assistance has been distributed because Western governments won't deal with Hamas until it recognizes Israel and renounces violence.

    Many Gazans see little hope of resuming normal lives.

    "If you look at all the suffering and destruction, I don't think Hamas would win an election again," Nidal Abed Rabo, 25, said. Two years ago, Rabo ran a cosmetics store. Now, he sells falafel from a street stand.

    "If you choose to be a government, you have to deal with the international community," he said. "Hamas can't do that. They can't be fighters and ministers at the same time."

    http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/topofthetimes/world/la-fg-gaza-hamas-20100423,0,6101754.story

    There is no greater way to destroy the spirit of la Resistance then for it to actually attempt governing, especially in this situation. PLO turned moderate, split into different parties, of which Fatah turned moderate, suddenly Hamas was the bad boy in the arena, now that they have been whipped into shape by constant blockades and bombing, I guess Islamic Jihad is next. Waiting for the inevitable civil war between Hamas and Islamic Jihad where Gaza City is halved.

    I was going to say that in 20 years we won't be hearing anything about Hamas, but hell, they rose to prominence only in 2006. Give it five years and it's Islamic Jihad we are all hearing about.

    See, this situation is pretty funny here. A Palestinian political party can either be moderate and become yet another lame duck excuse of a government with no power and be hated by it's people because of it's inefficiency, or a terrorist organization who gains the smallest grain of power through violence and threats and be hated by the world because they are a fucking terrorist organization. There is no middle ground.

    It's either relations with the outer world or relations with your own people. A government can't function if it has to choose between the two. The terrorist groups who founded Israel were lucky in that they didn't have to choose between the two.

    Seriously, how much proof do people need that he current Israeli approach won't result into nothing but ever-continuing cycle of yet new radical groups rising up from the Palestinians? If you don't give the moderates (PLO, Fatah, and I guess in a short while Hamas) anything when they stop their violence, then people have no incentive to vote them once they become moderates. They only see that they gain things by violence (no settlers in Gaza) but when they lay down their weapons the situation stagnates or gets worse. When this happens over and over and over again, what do you think an largely uneducated and fundamentalist populace is going to think?

    I mean don't get me wrong, Hamas has totally dug their own grave here, you can't exactly call for the death of Israel and then expect the more insane radicals to back down when you say "sry guys, just joking". You reap what you sow. But maybe if Israel showed in turn that when you turn moderate you actually get something in return, Gazans wouldn't be so quick to buy a gravestone and turn to the next Muhammed Jihad Superstar who shows up. Because right now, only thing that Palestinians have learned that violence is the only thing capable of removing settlements.

  • FremanFreman Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Man, I like some of Hamas's early work but they went and sold out.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dark that is an interesting article and you followed it up by a bunch of ignorant junk. Please try and be better. Hamas did not "dig their own grave here" and they don't have problems governing because of the people won't support them because they wont attack Israel.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Dark that is an interesting article and you followed it up by a bunch of ignorant junk. Please try and be better. Hamas did not "dig their own grave here" and they don't have problems governing because of the people won't support them because they wont attack Israel.

    Look, it all follows the same pattern. Violence is the only way a Palestinian government can get anything to the Palestinians. Through violence they can actually drive settlers away from their land. Fatah turned into governing authority from a resistance movement, but due to the restrictions placed by Israel they actually couldn't govern anything and fell into corruption and ineffectiveness. Come in Hamas, who won nearly everywhere they ran because they didn't play by Israel's rules and could actually get shit done.

    And Hamas did dig their own grave here. They sided with some really fucking crazy people, armed them, supported the attacks and now they say "no, you can't do that". It's cool that they are changing now but it doesn't mean they are blameless from the past. It's not like other groups or countries don't do the same - I remember U.S. funding Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War, or the Mujahideen in the Soviet War in Afghanistan. You do things like that, you have a tendency to create your own monsters that you have to deal in the future.

    The fact that no Palestinian "government" can efficiently govern after stopping violence - that is an issue directly the fault of the Israeli government. They hit them with the stick over and over again to get them stop the violence, but when they lay down their arms there are no carrots coming. So some other group will take up the mantle of the previous one - and have the popular support of the people because they can get things done. Rinse and repeat. It's a pretty clear strategy of Israel, because this way they always have someone to blame.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Looks like progress!

    Long story short, Israel is freezing settlement in East Jerusalem, the only place settlements haven't been frozen already, Netanyahu has disavowed knowledge of the settlements that were approved when Biden was in the area (unlikely, as this is too closely tied to internal and international politics for the approval department to not be briefing his hourly, but still a good sign), and already approved settlement expansion is being stonewalled. This is all in an area Israel insists will be incorporated into Israel as a condition of any peace agreement.

    Of course, this probably won't last long due to his need to pander to his base, so the long term hope is limited to some sort of pay-go rule, where settlements must release as much land as they plan on moving into, keeping the area fixed.; Even better would be defining settlement footprints, so that settlers can move in in any numbers they want provided they're willing to replace stand-alone homes with dense tenements and condos.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Israel doesn't want any Palestinians in "their" country...which wasn't really their country to begin with.

    Jews were treated poorly by Germans. Now Palestinians are treated poorly by Jews. Isn't there some hypocrisy here?

  • ChopperDaveChopperDave Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »

    This is good news. Though Netanyahu seems to insist that this freeze is a temporary measure, this move makes it clear that both he and Obama recognize that Israel's disputed annexation of East Jerusalem can't just be ignored in any future negotiation process with the Palestinians. A very good sign, because one of the things that sunk the Camp David process was the willingness from all parties to "temporarily" drop the issue of East Jerusalem (which the Palestinian hoi polloi were not happy with).

    I'm not holding my breath for a renewed peace process, especially with Israel's recent posturing towards Syria and Iran. Still, between this and Hamas's cessation of rocketfire, things seems to be looking up...

    3DS code: 3007-8077-4055
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »

    This is good news. Though Netanyahu seems to insist that this freeze is a temporary measure, this move makes it clear that both he and Obama recognize that Israel's disputed annexation of East Jerusalem can't just be ignored in any future negotiation process with the Palestinians. A very good sign, because one of the things that sunk the Camp David process was the willingness from all parties to "temporarily" drop the issue of East Jerusalem (which the Palestinian hoi polloi were not happy with).

    I'm not holding my breath for a renewed peace process, especially with Israel's recent posturing towards Syria and Iran. Still, between this and Hamas's cessation of rocketfire, things seems to be looking up...

    The Syria one makes sense, though. If a foreign militia (not military, Hezbollah, while a party in Lebanese politics, is not a government entity, so its militants are as legitimate as the militias the "Tea Party" is setting up) that has long been known to be backed by a country suddenly acquires advanced weapons from that country, it can and should be interpreted as a hostile act by that country.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »

    This is good news. Though Netanyahu seems to insist that this freeze is a temporary measure, this move makes it clear that both he and Obama recognize that Israel's disputed annexation of East Jerusalem can't just be ignored in any future negotiation process with the Palestinians. A very good sign, because one of the things that sunk the Camp David process was the willingness from all parties to "temporarily" drop the issue of East Jerusalem (which the Palestinian hoi polloi were not happy with).

    I'm not holding my breath for a renewed peace process, especially with Israel's recent posturing towards Syria and Iran. Still, between this and Hamas's cessation of rocketfire, things seems to be looking up...

    Agreed. My expectations are tempered but at least there's some reason to be hopeful (if only until the next stupid thing happens).

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    This is good news. Though Netanyahu seems to insist that this freeze is a temporary measure, this move makes it clear that both he and Obama recognize that Israel's disputed annexation of East Jerusalem can't just be ignored in any future negotiation process with the Palestinians. A very good sign, because one of the things that sunk the Camp David process was the willingness from all parties to "temporarily" drop the issue of East Jerusalem (which the Palestinian hoi polloi were not happy with).

    I'm not holding my breath for a renewed peace process, especially with Israel's recent posturing towards Syria and Iran. Still, between this and Hamas's cessation of rocketfire, things seems to be looking up...

    The Syria one makes sense, though. If a foreign militia (not military, Hezbollah, while a party in Lebanese politics, is not a government entity, so its militants are as legitimate as the militias the "Tea Party" is setting up) that has long been known to be backed by a country suddenly acquires advanced weapons from that country, it can and should be interpreted as a hostile act by that country.

    Hezbollah's legitimacy as an armed force was guanteered by the Lebanese Cabinet in 2008. If you really want to make a militia comparison you could compare it to Basij in Iran. Separate from the Armed Forces but nonetheless allowed and supported by the country. It's a legitimate part of the Lebanese government and it has just as much right to make arms deals with Syria as IDF has with United States. A comparison to the Tea Party is intellectually dishonest as the U.S. government is in no way affliated with it.

    Anyway, the whole settlement thing is good. It seems that U.S. actually held it's position here. I take it as a very positive sign.

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1165987.html
    The Knesset may withdraw parliamentary immunity from six lawmakers who traveled to Libya to meet the country's leader Moammar Gadhafi, the chairman of the chamber's House Committee Yariv Levin said on Wednesday.

    "Knesset immunity is not a license to inflict continual damage on the state and make a mockery of parliament and the public," Levin said.

    Levin said the Knesset's House Committee would debate at the earliest opportunity a measure to strip the members of their immunity, proposed by Michael Ben-Ari, an member for the rightist National Union party.


    Gadhafi on Friday received an Arab-Israeli delegation including MKs Mohammed Barakeh, Ahmed Tibi, Talab al-Sana and Afu Aghbaria in his tent near the town of Serit, where he hosted the recent Arab League summit.

    "What we have here is an historic opportunity to abolish once and for all the immunity and rights of Knesset members who hate Israel and denigrate the state," Ben-Ari said.

    Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin criticized the motion, which described the MKs who visited Libya as traitors.

    But the speaker confirmed on Wednesday that he would forward Ban-Ari's request to the House Committee and authorize a debate on the issue after it emerged that parliamentary regulations left him powerless to oppose the measure.

    All six members who traveled to Libya said they would boycott the discussion.

    In response to Ben-Ari's motion, Tibi said: "This is a bizarre and crazy debate in keeping with the atmosphere of persecution that emerges here time and again."

    He added: "We will continue to preserve cultural and national ties with the Arab world, which is our natural constituency in our struggle for equality."

    Don't think it will go anywhere under the current situation, but I agree with the bolded.

    And hey, remember the whole Hamas thing?
    Hamas detains Palestinian activists who warned of revolt in Gaza

    Security forces of the Islamist group Hamas detained Palestinian political activists overnight for distributing leaflets urging them to ease up on the people of Gaza or face a possibly explosive revolt.

    An official of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) told Reuters several members were arrested late on Tuesday and set free on Wednesday.

    The PFLP leaflets were the strongest public criticism yet of Hamas, which seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 and has been clamping down on any behavior it sees as un-Islamic, while recently levying new taxes on the 1.5 million inhabitants.


    "People are under huge pressure but they are also afraid to express themselves and we took the responsibility to voice their concerns," PFLP official Jamil Mezher told Reuters.

    The leaflet warned Hamas to beware increasing pressure on the people in a way that could "push the community to rebel against these practices and even to explode in the faces of those responsible."

    It urged the territory's Islamist rulers to stop violating freedoms, oppressing political opponents and imposing taxes on small businesses in the enclave, whose borders with Israel and Egypt are tightly controlled.

    The price of a pack of cigarettes, most of which are smuggled in via tunnels from Egypt, has been raised to cover a NIS 3 (80 cent) tax which goes to Hamas.

    Another group, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), urged peaceful protests against Hamas taxes.

    "The DFLP condemns the increase of taxes and fees ... which have led to an unprecedented rise in prices amid deteriorating economic and social conditions," it said. "We call for popular action and peace protests to stop these measures."

    Israel invaded Gaza in a three-week offensive 16 months ago to force an end to rocket fire by Hamas and other groups aimed at towns in southern Israel. But the border remains tense and violent incidents involving troops and militants are frequent.

    Local traders say the group is trying to patch up its depleted finances and calculate this tax will yield it about $6 million per month.

    The PFLP also noted a new Hamas move to take over uninhabited housing and offer it to their members.

    Economists say half the people are jobless in Gaza, which subsists on United Nations aid. They cannot leave the enclave.

    PFLP leaders said they had urged Hamas in a face-to-face meeting recently to ease up.

    The Hamas administration denied it had imposed any new tax and said it had only "activated a tiny section of the taxation system."

    Mezher said the PFLP had plenty of testimony to the contrary from ordinary people. Many government employees said they had not yet been paid for the month of March.

    Hamas Islamists are allied with Iran and refuse to recognize Israel, unlike their arch rivals in the Fatah movement, which is dominant in the West Bank and open to a peace treaty that would create a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

    Prospects of the two groups reconciling to heal the split in Palestinian ranks are seen as remote.

    Hamas seems to be getting as greedy and corrupt as Fatah before it. It's so much easier to be the revolutionaries then the establishment. The pattern is already showing. One step forward, two steps backwards. Though it would be pretty cool if DFLP could gain some support in Gaza. Doubtful though, since Hamas has the primary armed strenght inside the enclave and it's not like they would be giving up their power in the name of democracy or anything.

    I hope that something comes out of the discussions between Abbas and Netanyahu.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The government has to tax in order to have revenues to work?

    Say it aint so!

    wbBv3fj.png
  • QliphothQliphoth Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Hamas has killed a lot of Fatah members in Gaza. I don't think Fatah will be able to consolidate any changes of Palestinian political will because anyone who could has presumably been executed/imprisoned already.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    The government has to tax in order to have revenues to work?

    Say it aint so!

    Namely, it has to tax, but because Israel keeps blockading Gaza, it has to excessively tax people whose main income is basically United Nations support money. Half of whom are currently unemployed. To govern a "nation" the size of Grenada with twenty times the population and half the GDP. So obviously, to get any reasonable amount of money whatsoever they have to screw over what basically is a refugee group. And to do that they have to do some nasty things.

    And people wonder why Palestinians have a difficulty forming a government that doesn't regress into terrorism or corruption. Maybe because those are the only options available to them that laws of politics, economy and nature allow them.

  • QliphothQliphoth Registered User
    edited April 2010
    On the blockade note, what is stopping Hamas from negotiating an end to the Egypt side blockade?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Qliphoth wrote: »
    On the blockade note, what is stopping Hamas from negotiating an end to the Egypt side blockade?

    Hamas = allied with Muslim Brotherhood

    Muslim Brotherhood = HATED by the Mubarak administration. As in the administration sees it as it's biggest threat.

    Plus, Israel would flip it's shit. Egypt doesn't care about the Palestinians. At least not more then it cares about just not making Israel flip it's shit. Days of Six Day War and so on are over, don't forget that it was the first Arab country to recognize Israel. Hamas has nothing to bring to the negotiation table.

  • QliphothQliphoth Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Yeah I thought it would be something to do with another Islamic militia group.

    Though they do have things to bring to the table. Significant trade would go on and there would be plenty of money to be made on the Egyptian side as the Gazan economy improves and they became able to buy huge amounts of goods that they couldn't get elsewhere.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • MalaysianShrewMalaysianShrew Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Qliphoth wrote: »
    Yeah I thought it would be something to do with another Islamic militia group.

    Though they do have things to bring to the table. Significant trade would go on and there would be plenty of money to be made on the Egyptian side as the Gazan economy improves and they became able to buy huge amounts of goods that they couldn't get elsewhere.

    I think the Gazan economy is so bad that the only thing Egypt would gain is more refugees.

    Never trust a big butt and a smile.
  • QliphothQliphoth Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Qliphoth wrote: »
    Yeah I thought it would be something to do with another Islamic militia group.

    Though they do have things to bring to the table. Significant trade would go on and there would be plenty of money to be made on the Egyptian side as the Gazan economy improves and they became able to buy huge amounts of goods that they couldn't get elsewhere.

    I think the Gazan economy is so bad that the only thing Egypt would gain is more refugees.

    They can open it to trade only (obviously people would need to transport the goods) and police it heavily to stop anyone unauthorised getting in or out. They could easily open a small section and not have any more people getting out than are able to already.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Following the Six-Day War, Israel closed down Gaza's port and consequently, the city lost its fishing income. There were previous Palestinian and international attempts to construct a major port in Gaza for the benefit of the planned State of Palestine, but objections from Israel prevented such attempts. The major agricultural products are strawberries, citrus, dates, olives, flowers, and various vegetables. Pollution and massive population pressure on water have reduced the productive capacity of the surrounding farms, however.

    According to a recent report by OXFAM, unemployment in Gaza is close to 40% and is set to rise to 50%. The private sector which generates 53% of all jobs in Gaza has been devastated, businesses have been bankrupted and 75,000 out of 110,000 workers are now without a jobs. In 2008, 95% of Gaza's industrial operations were suspended due to lack of access inputs for production and the inability to export what is produced. In June 2005, there were 3,900 factories in Gaza employing 35,000 people, but by December 2007, there were just 195 remaining, employing only 1,700 people. The construction industry was paralyzed with tens of thousands of laborers out of work. The agriculture sector has also been damaged severely and nearly 40,000 workers who depend on cash crops now have no income.

    Gaza's economic conditions have been stagnant in the long-term and most development indicators are in decline. Food prices have risen during the blockade, with wheat flour going up 34%, rice up 21%, and baby powder up 30%. The number of Gazans who live in absolute poverty has increased sharply, with 80% relying on humanitarian aid in 2008 compared to 63% in 2006. In 2007, households spent an average of 62% of their total income on food, compared to 37% in 2004. In less than a decade, the number of families depending on UNRWA food aid has increased ten-fold.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza#Economy

    Maybe some of the poor Sinai farmers might somehow benefit from the trade, but workforce is really the only think Gazans can offer Egypt, and they don't exactly have a deficiency of young, mostly uneducated poor workforce (They have millions of Sudanese refugees already pouring over the border). Gaza pretty much just a glorified Palestinian refugee camp these days, one among many others.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee_camps

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    The government has to tax in order to have revenues to work?

    Say it aint so!

    Namely, it has to tax, but because Israel keeps blockading Gaza, it has to excessively tax people whose main income is basically United Nations support money. Half of whom are currently unemployed. To govern a "nation" the size of Grenada with twenty times the population and half the GDP. So obviously, to get any reasonable amount of money whatsoever they have to screw over what basically is a refugee group. And to do that they have to do some nasty things.

    And people wonder why Palestinians have a difficulty forming a government that doesn't regress into terrorism or corruption. Maybe because those are the only options available to them that laws of politics, economy and nature allow them.

    I fail to see how the tax on cigarettes is excessive and onerous and how this makes them regress into terrorism or corruption.

    Or maybe i really just don't understand what you have been trying to say

    wbBv3fj.png
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Basically, taxing anything from refugees is excessive. Imagine that you are barely scraping buy, go collect your meager amount of aid from the UNRWA so you can get at least some food (because the prize of food has gone up) and then you have to pay up on top of that to the Hamas. Also, the raised taxes on businessess contribute on raised prices, and raised prices once again make it harder to get what you need. Half of Gazans recieve no income whatsoever.

    Obviously monetary policies alone aren't the primary thing that makes Hamas corrupt, their refusal to let Gazans participate in the next election and oppress all it's political opponents is that too. They abolished any pretense of democracy as soon as they came to power. But the need for increased taxation and opposition from the people follows the same pattern as what happened to Fatah.

Sign In or Register to comment.