Jimmy Carter: A Human Rights Crime in Gaza

This site gives a better idea of the deaths on both sides. Most of the figures come from Israeli sources.

Israelis and Palestinians Killed in the Current Violence

The numbers also do not include the sizable number of Palestinians who died as a result of inability to reach medical care due to Israeli road closures, curfews, etc.

The figure for Palestinian deaths is extremely conservative, since it is difficult for B'Tselem to report on deaths in the Palestinian territories. The Palestine Red Crescent Society, internationally respected for its statistical rigor, reports significantly higher numbers of Palestinian deaths. We do not doubt the reliability of their data, and only use B'Tselem's more conservative numbers because they collect data on both populations.

In the past we used the statistics provided by Israel's military for the number of Israelis killed, but they have not updated their statistics page since early in 2006. In addition, there is reason to believe that their numbers may have been somewhat inflated.

And even with all those disclaimers and modifiers it's still over a 4 to 1 ratio, and in fact it's much, much higher.

And even with all those disclaimers and modifiers it's still over a 4 to 1 ratio, and in fact it's much, much higher.

So the fact that Israel has better warning systems and health-care systems to reduce deaths makes the Palestinians more "right"? It would be better if Israel just let injured victims die, to increase your ratio?

A more informative ratio would include injuries. After all, someone who would die in Gaza might survive in Israel. And you might subtract from your ratio the hundreds, if not thousands, of Palestinians who, even during the various Intifadehs, were saved in Israeli hospitals.

isn,

as usual you leap to exactly the wrong conclusion. I didn't say right or wrong, I was talking about deaths. If you have nothing fruitful to say perhaps you could restrain yourself from leaping to (wrong) conclusions concerning my state of mind or attitude.

I didn't say right or wrong, I was talking about deaths.

Why would you mention a ratio of deaths if it didn't support a conclusion of right or wrong to be assigned to one side? Just for fun? I think not. It seems relevant, because it first glance, it seems that Israel is being very harsh on the Palestinians because Israel kills more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis. Which, clearly, supports a judgment in favor of the Palestinians and against Israel.

I mention to point out the inequity of it. That's all. You seem to take it to heart though. Maybe you should look more to your own motivation and not make assumptions about mine.

I'm saying that the inequity of deaths is irrelevant. It's not a complete measure of anything. A true measure of some moral "equity" would take into account, as I mentioned above, healthcare differences between Gaza and Israel, as well as the large number of Gazans who have received free healthcare to prevent their deaths in Israeli hospitals.

as usual you leap to exactly the wrong conclusion. I didn't say right or wrong, I was talking about deaths. If you have nothing fruitful to say perhaps you could restrain yourself from leaping to (wrong) conclusions concerning my state of mind or attitude.

That's pretty cute, Wheel. I guess you forgot how this mini-thread started, let me remind you:

13 Deaths in 7 years?! The way the zionist apologists carry on I would have thought that number would be in the hundreds at least. The number of palestinians killed in retaliation is certainly in the hundreds.

By bringing up "equity" you already shed any claim to objectivity. By using the statistics to make a point about "zionist apologists," you reveal your true colors. Don't pretend to be objective.

Oh, they talk about it, they just deny it means anything. Usually they begin by denying that there is any such thing as Palestinians or Palestine.

initial Jewish invasion of Palestinian lands pre1948,

What are you talking about? It sounds like you think that a vast Jewish army (of 50lb concentration camp survivors and sickly DPs?) invaded Palestine by force, with modern tanks and weapons.

Before 1948, Jews and Muslims lived mostly in peace. The Jews bought land from the Muslims to live on, and improved that land greatly, planting trees and generally making the desert bloom. Some of that land is part of what is now called the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Look up the Gush Etzion complex in the West Bank. It's where most of the "illegal building" in the West Bank is taking place, and the land is about 98% Jewish-owned.

inh you might want to study a bit of history before commenting, the Israelis who stole the Palestinian land were not all from the concentration camps

Following World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine came under the control of the United Kingdom through the Sykes-Picot Agreement and a League of Nations mandate. During the mandatory period, the British made conflicting promises to both populations in the forms of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence and the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and tensions between Arab and Jewish groups in the region erupted into physical violence as in the 1920 Palestine riots, the 1921 Palestine riots, the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine.

The British responded to these outbreaks of violence with the Haycraft Commission of Inquiry, the Shaw Report, the Peel Commission of 1936-1937, and the White Paper of 1939. The Peel Commission proposed a failed partition plan, while the White Paper established a quota for Jewish immigration set by the British in the short-term and by the Arab population in the long-term. Both Arab and Jewish groups directed violence against the British, as in the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, the King David Hotel bombing, and the assassinations of Lord Moyne and Count Bernadotte, in order to expel the mandatory government, which was held in contempt by both sides.

This violence and the heavy cost of World War II led Britain to turn the issue of Palestine over to the United Nations. In 1947, the U.N. approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states: one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan, but Palestinian Arab leaders, supported by the Arab League, rejected the plan, and a civil war broke out. Israel quickly gained the upper hand in this intercommunal fighting, and on May 14, 1948 declared its independence. Five Arab League countries (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq), then invaded Palestine, starting the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The war resulted in an Israeli victory, with Israel capturing additional territory beyond the partition borders, but leaving Jerusalem as a divided city; the territory Israel did not capture was taken over by Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan (now Jordan). The war also resulted in the 1948 Palestinian exodus, known to Palestinians as Al-Naqba.

For decades after 1948, Arab governments had refused to recognize Israel and in 1964 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded with the central tenet that Palestine, with its original Mandate borders, is the indivisible homeland of the Arab Palestinian people. In turn, Israel refused to recognize the PLO as a negotiating partner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Basic_historical_outline

jdoyle, you might want to re-read my comment. I was being sarcastic. No vast army of Jews, ever, invaded what was then Mandatory Palestine. The Jews that entered Palestine didn't enter to conquer it, but to live there in peace with the Palestinian Arabs.

Israel's army in 1948 was made up of Israelis who had immigrated to the area years earlier or had even been born in Israel/Palestine. There was no invading army.

Israel's army in 1948 was made up of Israelis who had immigrated to the area years earlier or had even been born in Israel/Palestine. There was no invading army.

They invaded and stole Palestinian land as documented.
They displaced people and stole their homes.

Thanks, jdoyle, for giving proof about a hotly contested "fact" by using wikipedia. I guess we did invade and steal. I guess then my grandmother, who was born in Palestine in the 30s, must also have stolen her land, right? Because no Jews ever settled peacefully in Eretz Israel.

ehad aham

Don't pretend to be objective.

The same could be said for you.

I guess we did invade and steal.

I guess you did.

And why could the same be said of me? Because I'm Israeli? Because I'm Jewish? Or because that makes you feel better about your lack of objectivity?

As for the latter comment, are you trying to imply that I'm not objective because I refer to your generalization sarcastically with one of my own?

I am saying you are not objective because you are pro Israel anti Palestinian, or you would admit the truth of what has happened to them.

I am saying you are not objective because you are pro Israel anti Palestinian, or you would admit the truth of what has happened to them.

But you-- being pro-Palestinian anti Israel, can be objective, because you are...(fill in the blanks).

But wait-- I fell into your trap! You got me talking about people here-- once again-- instead of the subject. Can't you stick to the subject and stop attacking other people?

I am saying you are not objective because you are pro Israel anti Palestinian, or you would admit the truth of what has happened to them.

Where did you get anti-Palestinian? Look around, I admit the truth far more than you, I know the hardships Palestinians live through. The only difference is that I know that it wasn't Israel that caused these hardships. It was Israel that built universities. It was Israel that gave them employment. This bs suffering you love to trumpet happens because they have been used as pawns first by the pan-Arab leadership and now by their very own "representatives."

it wasn't Israel that caused these hardships.

No? Then they must have been magically displaced from their homes.

ehad aham you rant about violations of the C of H when there is none and then go on and actually violate them.
How ironic is that?

I tried numerous times to point out that Israel didn't kick out every single Arab from their homes

Who said every single one? However they did kick out a lot and even a handful is too many.

The Jews were displaced from all of Europe several times over.

So that justifies their doing the same to the Palestinians? Wow

So that justifies their doing the same to the Palestinians? Wow

Palestinians massacred Jews and kicked them out of their homes too. What happened in 1948 was equal on both sides.

What was different was what happened after May 1948. The Jews, that is, the Israelis, built up their country. They got foreign investment, built factories and technological infrastructure, and built a respectable democratic government. They even were able to absorb large waves of poor immigrants from the Arab world (kicked out from Morocco, or Iraq or Yemen, mind you) and from Russia.

However, the Palestinians, at least, those who had left Israel for whatever reason, sat around and complained. Did they build infrastructure? No. Did they try to win foreign sympathy to build their land? No, they angered their host governments and got kicked out (Black September). The Palestinians plight is largely due to their own failure to act after 1948. Proper action then, or as I mentioned, even now, would get them out of their hole pretty fast.

Djehuty, as I said in the deleted post, I couldn't care less. But there's a threshold of bull@!$%# with which I will put up and he was testing the waters.

. The Jews, that is, the Israelis, built up their country. They got foreign investment, built factories and technological infrastructure, and built a respectable democratic government.

I am not saying they didn't , but they did it off land stolen from the Palestinians.

More on stolen Palestinian lands:

The most salient feature of military government was restriction of movement. Article 125 of the Defense (Emergency) Regulations empowered military governors to declare any specified area "offlimits " to those having no written authorization. The area was then declared a security zone and thus closed to Israeli Arabs who lacked written permission either from the army chief of staff or the minister of defense. Under these provisions, 93 out of 104 Arab villages in Israel were constituted as closed areas out of which no one could move without a military permit. In these areas, official acts of military governors were, with rare exceptions, not subject to review by the civil courts. Individuals could be arrested and imprisoned on unspecified charges, and private property was subject to search and seizure without warrant. Furthermore, the physical expulsion of individuals or groups from the state was not subject to review by the civil courts.

Another land expropriation measure evolved from the Defense (Emergency) Regulations, which were passed in 1949 and renewed annually until 1972 when the legislation was allowed to lapse. Under this law, the Ministry of Defense could, subject to approval by an appropriate committee of the Knesset, create security zones in all or part of what was designated as the "protected zone," an area that included lands adjacent to Israel's borders and other specified areas. According to Sabri Jiryis, an Arab political economist who based his work exclusively on Israeli government sources, the defense minister used this law to categorize "almost half of Galilee, all of the Triangle, an area near the Gaza Strip, and another along the Jerusalem-Jaffa railway line near Batir as security zones." A clause of the law provided that permanent as well as temporary residents could be required to leave the zone and that the individual expelled had four days within which to appeal the eviction notice to an appeals committee. The decisions of these committees were not subject to review or appeal by a civil court.

Yet another measure enacted by the Knesset in 1949 was the Emergency Regulations (Cultivation of Waste Lands) Ordinance. One use of this law was to transfer to kibbutzim or other Jewish settlements land in the security zones that was lying fallow because the owner of the land or other property was not allowed to enter the zone as a result of national security legislation. The 1949 law provided that such land transfers were valid only for a period of two years and eleven months, but subsequent amending legislation extended the validity of the transfers for the duration of the state of emergency.

Another common procedure was for the military government to seize up to 40 percent of the land in a given region--the maximum allowed for national security reasons--and to transfer the land to a new kibbutz or moshav. Between 1948 and 1953, about 370 new Jewish settlements were built, and an estimated 350 of the settlements were established on what was termed abandoned Arab property.

http://countrystudies.us/israel/23.htm

To the Israeli Arabs, one of the more devastating aspects of the loss of their property was their knowledge that the loss was legally irreversible. The early Zionist settlers--particularly those of the Second Aliyah--adopted a rigid policy that land purchased or in any way acquired by a Jewish organization or individual could never again be sold, leased, or rented to a nonJew . The policy went so far as to preclude the use of non-Jewish labor on the land. This policy was carried over into the new state. At independence the State of Israel succeeded to the "state lands" of the British Mandate Authority, which had "inherited" the lands held by the government of the Ottoman Empire. The Jewish National Fund was the operating and controlling agency of the Land Development Authority and ensured that land once held by Jews-- either individually or by the "sovereign state of the Jewish people"--did not revert to non-Jews. This denied Israel's nonJewish , mostly Arab, population access to about 95 percent of the land.

http://countrystudies.us/israel/23.htm

I am not saying they didn't , but they did it off land stolen from the Palestinians.

As I said earlier, and cited infromation regarding, Palestinians stole land from the Jews too, like in Kfar Etzion. Non-Palestinian Arabs also stole land and capital from Jews. And also, much of the land in Palestine was state-owned land. Since Israel was the state, it was Israeli-owned land. It's really very hypocritical to condemn Jews stealing Muslims' land when the reverse happened to the same, if not greater scale.

Djehuty, I'm not saying the Palestinians are wholly at fault for their own situation. The Israelis haven't treated them well in the past and Israeli policy towards Palestinians right now is without doubt flawed. I firmly believe, however, that the current conflict is, at its roots, economic, as shown by the fact that Jews, Muslims, Christians and Druze can live together peacefully in Israel when each has a decent job. Therefore, the final solution (doh!) is economic.

However, economic reform in the Palestinian territories cannot occur in what is essentially a warzone. As the past forty years have shown is that trying to impose peace in the area simply doesn't work. The peace must come from the inside, when Palestinians realize that blowing @!$%# up is going to help them far less than working towards economic development.

Non-Palestinian Arabs also stole land and capital from Jews.

How does that justify stealing Palestinian lands?

And also, much of the land in Palestine was state-owned land. Since Israel was the state, it was Israeli-owned land.

LOL So they steal the land declare themselves the legitimate government, then justify stealing the land after the fact.

Djehuty:
Isn't it the Palestinians' responsibility to purge the people within their own ranks that are preventing humanitarian aid from getting to them?

How does that justify stealing Palestinian lands?

On an individual level, it doesn't. On the ethnic-group level, however, there is some reciprocity, and it is wholly unjust to condemn Israel for "stealing land" when in fact every other country in the region engaged in the same tactics at the same time for the same reason. (Only difference? Many Israelis are white and "look like us" and are therefore more blameworthy.) However, I have never seen a proposal to reset everything back to 1947, and indeed, such a proposal would be irresponsible.

The point of mentioning that Jews had their land "stolen" too is that the Israelis did something productive with their "stolen" land, while the Arabs, in general, didn't. Yemen, Iraq, Morocco and Egypt aren't terribly well-off. At least some of that wealth differential is due to better management in the 1940s and 50s through today.

It could never happen that all land ownership was reset to its 1947 status. Therefore, you could either dispossess all the Israelis, (hint: not happening) or deal with the situation on the ground now instead of complaining about history. As I've said before, thinking into the future would solve everybody's problems, and I think the Israeli establishment is far more willing to do that than the Palestinian/Arab establishment. That needs to change. (The P/A mindset, not the Israeli one, of course)

On an individual level, it doesn't.

Correct.

On an individual level, it doesn't. On the ethnic-group level, however, there is some reciprocity,

The Israelis kicked people out og their homes, and took their lands. There can be no justification for that.

It could never happen that all land ownership was reset to its 1947 status. Therefore, you could either dispossess all the Israelis, (hint: not happening) or deal with the situation on the ground now instead of complaining about history.

Rewriting history will not work either; some restitution or at least equal rights are owed the Palestinians whose landfs got stolen.

As I've said before, thinking into the future would solve everybody's problems, and I think the Israeli establishment is far more willing to do that

You have absolutely no evidence to prove this and in fact history has shown the Israelis keep stealing more and more Palestinian lands.

You have absolutely no evidence to prove this and in fact history has shown the Israelis keep stealing more and more Palestinian lands.

Actually you are mistaken. The most recent land transfer? Remember all those settlements in Gaza (You know-- the one that were supposedly a "permanent obstacle to peace"?) Well-- the Israelisleft Gaza-- wthe setttlements were destroyed-- and all land that the Israelis had has been left for the Palis. Not a Jew left in all of Gaza!

Rewriting history will not work either; some restitution or at least equal rights are owed the Palestinians whose landfs got stolen.

Then you need equal restitution for the Jews who were kicked out of Arab lands. Acknowledge this, please.

You have absolutely no evidence to prove this

You don't think that forgetting old issues and trying to make a better life for everyone would solve the problem? Or you don't think that the Israeli establishment, which is democratic, which has withdrawn from Gaza and acknowledged that there will be an independent Palestinian state in this generation, is more likely to be open-minded towards that kind of solution than a government that refuses to recognize its opponent's continued existence.

Then you need equal restitution for the Jews who were kicked out of Arab lands

entirely separate thing and you know it. Don't try to change the subject. The jews will have to take that up with the arabs.

entirely separate thing and you know it.

You noticed the red herring argument too.

Wheel:

entirely separate thing and you know it. Don't try to change the subject. The jews will have to take that up with the arabs.

No, not an entirely separate thing. It's one part of the entire situation. All the Arabs support the Palestinians and most encourage them to fight the Jews as well as paying suicide bombers money, etc. If we're going to discuss the dispossession of Arab land by Jews then we should also be discussing the dispossession of Jewish land by Arabs. Ask any Arab in the Middle East and over 90% will say they identify with the Palestinians and their "struggle." They indict themselves as part of the issue by siding with the Palestinians. The Palis won't have their account settled over the Levant until the Jews have their's settled over the numerous Arab countries that did the same to them.

All the Arabs support the Palestinians and most encourage them to fight the Jews as well as paying suicide bombers money, etc. .........Ask any Arab in the Middle East and over 90% will say they identify with the Palestinians and their "struggle."

You better hope that's not true. If the Palestinians ever get that kind of support Israel will be long gone.

Dennis:
Don't you think that the 1948, 1967 and 1973 conflicts show that the Arab countries stick together on Israel? All of those wars included either troop contingents, logistical support or money from all the big Middle East players against Israel. Only within the last 30 years have Egypt and Jordan peeled away from this coalition to destroy Israel. Also, this seems to be what the "man on the street" says in Arab countries except for the most liberal citizens.

entirely separate thing and you know it. Don't try to change the subject. The jews will have to take that up with the arabs.

Are you @!$%#ing kidding me? You want to talk about Palestinian Arabs being dispossessed by Israelis and going to various Arab nations, but you want to ignore Jews being dispossessed by various Arab nations and going to Israel at the exact time for the exact same reasons? That's not only intellectually dishonest but showing the very same bias you often accuse me of: ignoring the history that doesn't fit the theory of history I endorse. You would do well to address the entire topic, instead of filtering out what doesn't fit your "white man oppresses the brown man" paradign. (The fact that actual Mizrahi Jews are "brown" is irrelevant, their power is based in "white" Ashkenazim.)

isn,

You have some really nasty habits. You put words in other peoples mouths and make unwarranted assumptions. You also make ad hom attacks when your position is weak. You need to work on that.

The subject at hand is Israel taking land from the palestinians. If Israel wants land from other arabs, they'll have to take it up with other arabs.

isn,

You have some really nasty habits. You put words in other peoples mouths and make unwarranted assumptions. You also make ad hom attacks when your position is weak. You need to work on that.

If Israel wants land from other arabs, they'll have to take it up with other arabs.

Don't even play polite with me, Wheel. You write: "You have some really nasty habits" and then you chastise me for ad hominem attacks? Get off your @!$%#ing high horse.

If Israel wants land from other arabs, they'll have to take it up with other arabs.

You can't isolate a subject like that. The Arabs move as a bloc, (with the recent exceptions of Egypt, Jordan, and to some extent Qatar) so the widespread actions taken by that bloc are clearly applicable. Israel acted against that Arab bloc by "stealing" Arab land in Israel in 1948. But, in 1948, the Arab bloc acted against Jews who moved to Israel, thus Israelis, in 1948 by "stealing" their land.

When an action is undertaken by one party, quid pro quo action by the other party, and more response by the first party cannot each by taken separately. Those actions do not exist in a vacuum, but rather as responses to other actions. The whole thing must be taken as a whole.

Here's an analogy, not to the Israeli/Arab problem, but rather to the single-action/whole-series-of-actions problem above: I bump you, you hit me, I knife you, you shoot me. Are you guilty of first-degree murder for shooting me? Of course not, because your guilt is less because we were in a fight. Likewise, the situation of property in the Middle East must be taken as a whole.

You can hardly pretend that Iraqi Jews who were kicked out of Baghdad wouldn't feel justified in taking abandoned (either temporarily or permanently) Arab land in Israel or dispossessing Arabs in the heat of battle, or that Iraqi soldiers who had fought in Israel/Palestine wouldn't feel justified in dispossessing Baghdadi Jews when they had just seen their Arab brother dispossessed in Palestine.

Wheel:
As he said before, call him Jeremy or insert_name_here or i_n_h or inh... but please stop calling him isn. That would be like me persistently calling you Well throughout a discussion instead of Wheel.

As he said before, call him Jeremy or insert_name_here or i_n_h or inh... but please stop calling him isn. That would be like me persistently calling you Well throughout a discussion instead of Wheel.

Yeah.

Djehuty:
Could you ask everyone (specifically Wheel) to accurately address inh? I know from experience that it is rather grating on one's nerves when your debate opponent doesn't have the respect to address you by your name.

Fine, Djehuty, it's your column, but could you also ask Mr. Wheel to kindly quit calling me "isn" as I've asked before, as well as to avoid writing being inflammatory by saying "You have some really nasty habits," etc.

I meant no disrespect to your name, it was late and I was tired. Your opinion on the other hand deserves no respect from me and gets none. You can't seem to make a valid point but you can cuss in every reply. I'm not impressed by your childish display of temper either.

I can't make a valid point, eh? What's this?

You can't isolate a subject like that. The Arabs move as a bloc, (with the recent exceptions of Egypt, Jordan, and to some extent Qatar) so the widespread actions taken by that bloc are clearly applicable. Israel acted against that Arab bloc by "stealing" Arab land in Israel in 1948. But, in 1948, the Arab bloc acted against Jews who moved to Israel, thus Israelis, in 1948 by "stealing" their land.

When an action is undertaken by one party, quid pro quo action by the other party, and more response by the first party cannot each by taken separately. Those actions do not exist in a vacuum, but rather as responses to other actions. The whole thing must be taken as a whole.

Here's an analogy, not to the Israeli/Arab problem, but rather to the single-action/whole-series-of-actions problem above: I bump you, you hit me, I knife you, you shoot me. Are you guilty of first-degree murder for shooting me? Of course not, because your guilt is less because we were in a fight. Likewise, the situation of property in the Middle East must be taken as a whole.

You can hardly pretend that Iraqi Jews who were kicked out of Baghdad wouldn't feel justified in taking abandoned (either temporarily or permanently) Arab land in Israel or dispossessing Arabs in the heat of battle, or that Iraqi soldiers who had fought in Israel/Palestine wouldn't feel justified in dispossessing Baghdadi Jews when they had just seen their Arab brother dispossessed in Palestine.

Ah yeah, it's something you dismiss as invalid. Address the valid points I make, if you want any respect. Dismissing something as not "the subject at hand" is useless unless you can say why it's irrelevant. I've shown why I think the whole situation must be taken into account, why do you think it shouldn't be?

Because when they do, Israel gets angry and threatens to relinquish all ties to the Gaza strip.

Egypt is a large but poor nation. 40% of it's population live in poverty. There have been food riots in Egypt recently. They could not absorb so many more poor people. And, as Dennis pointed out, Israel will do everything they can to prevent any such event or to make sure it fails.

Egypt is also not in a position to supply resources to Gaza.. food, water, electricity.

Egypt is also not in a position to supply resources to Gaza.. food, water, electricity.

Pretty soon, Israel won't be either. Gazans, surely with the tacit approval of Hamas, just blew up a fuel depot on the Gaza/Israel border. Now, what incentive does Israel have to rebuild that depot?

The world is witnessing a terrible human rights crime in Gaza, where a million and a half human beings are being imprisoned with almost no access to the outside world by sea, air, or land. An entire population is being brutally punished.

I have never understood why Egypt does not just open its border to Gaza.

Can someone please explain it to me?

Yes. In fact, while some of us here on Newsvine may feel that we are experts-- I think the best explanation comes from an Egyptian General (ret'd)-- this short clip clears up a lot of misconceptions

Egypt is also not in a position to supply resources to Gaza.. food, water, electricity.

The Israeli occupation of Gaza only began in 1967. (And ended recently-- I think it was about 1 1/2 ago so so?).

Dennis-- without googling it-- do you know-- what was the status of Gaza immediately before Israel occupied it in 1967?

I have the impression that Israel puts pressure on Egypt to keep the border closed to prevent arms being smuggled in (link) but that Egypt is also worried about a flood of refugees into its territory.

Israel is the occupying power and has humanitarian obligations. How much these are mitigated by the rather limited sovereignty it allows the Palestinian authority I'm not sure.

First of all-- Israel did indeed occupy Gaza-- but recently pulled out. Completely. Remeber all those settlements in Gaza---- that were supposedly a "permanent obstacle to peace"? People went on and on about how there could never be peace because of them. Well-- they are no more! Occupation? There's not a single Jew left in all of Gaza!

But Egypt is also worried about something else (see the link to the video I posted-- it makes it quite clear). Or-- for the "band-width cahallenged"-- here's but a small part of the story.P.S I would not go back to Egypt because at this point I don't think its safe-- but if you ever do-- that area (Luxor) is not to be missed! (IMO much more interesting than the Pyramids).

Sorry for the digression, Back to topic-- the key thing here is-- who carried out the attack on Luxor-- as well as several other acts of terrorism in Egypt...

Israel is the occupying power

It was-- but is no longer. See Exodus from Gaza and "Unsettled"

The only thing I can conclude from these answers is that Arab rulers are nothing more than worthless pieces of @!$%#.

Would Jews expect their enemies to provide for their brethren?

That's quite a generalization! And-- there are 20 or so Arab countries...
However, it is true that, despite some of their great oil wealth, they have not provided much for their Palestiniasn brethren-- much less than the west. This is due in large part because they need to keep the Palestinians poor and suffering-- its a great propaganda ploy. (Their own people are, in many case, quite miserable-- Arab rulers fear thesanger of the populace will be turned against them-- so they channel it towards Israel instead. If the Palestinians weren't suffering-- then Israel couldn't be made to appear so evil-- and the people might start noticing what how their own rulers are treating them! This is an ancient ploy-- many incompetant rulers have done it throughout history)

Thats not only a blatant violation of the CoH in the form of a character attack on krish, but also a disgusting revelation of your own inability to accept the fact that anyone who is pro-Israel might also be right and knowledgeable about the topic.

Only in your own mind; the rest of us think you are so pro Israel you refuse to see the facts as they are.

If someone wanted to indulge in personal attacks, they could also accuse you of being so anti-Israel that you refuse to see the facts. But-- what's the point of calling out specific people here? Attacking specific people, in addition to being a violation of the COH...also gets us away from discussing the topic. So-- let's return to the topic...please :-)

refuting Krishna's comments is hardly a violation of C of H, and how many times have you responded directly to another poster, just like you are doing here?

jdoyle, the comment I responded to was not a refutation. It was a one line attack on Krishna based on your perception of his "lack of expertise."

djehuty, he said two things. And connected they imply that you can't be pro-Israel and see the "truth." Telling someone they are only an expert in their own mind is a "blatant violation of the CoH."

jdoyle, the comment I responded to was not a refutation. It was a one line attack on Krishna based on your perception of his "lack of expertise."

That's your own opinion.

camel_prodder

I have never understood why Egypt does not just open its border to Gaza.

Because most of the other Arab states have no use for the Palestinians save as a smokescreen to use against the Israelis. The late King Hussein of Jordan killed an estimated 5,000 of them during the Black September attempt to overthrow his regime back in 1970 although Arafat claimed a figure about four times that. To this day Palestinians are treated as little more than chattel serfs in the Arab countries in which they labor.

I think, that the whole character of our foreign policies, and with it the character of what America has become, primarily an imperial empire, with its corporate fascism, will be on this issue of the Middle East and Israel.

Obama will be smeared by the right wing, the liberal warhawks, as not sufficiently pro Israel, pro Zionist, pro nationalist, pro imperialist, and if you thought the fight between Hillary and Obama, or the fight on Newsvine between Zionists, and anti Zionists was intense, you have seen nothing yet, when McCain, the corporate media start their smears against Obama, who has been an appeaser for Corporate imperial policies, but now must break from this framework

He could learn some lessons from Carter. He must get backbone and challange the whole ground of "appeasement" by pointing out the generic appeasement of Western class elites, to these criminal policies. If he doesn't, McCain wins, and we will have that Iran war, if not sooner under Bush, appeasing fascism, corporate imperial foreign policies.

Please stick to the topic-- this is not about Obama!

Actually I am becoming a big fan of the new Eric Albert. Welcome back, and I'm glad I can finally read your posts without having to sift through the Marxist Mad-Libs quite as much :)

Actually I am becoming a big fan of the new Eric Albert. Welcome back, and I'm glad I can finally read your posts without having to sift through the Marxist Mad-Libs quite as much :)

I must say, his posts are quite clear now. Remember how people were defending his past posts-- saying they were unclear because English wasn't his first language-- and he couldn't help it? Amazing what a little suspension from Newsvine will do to improve a person's linguistic ability in a short time!

Hi Krishna. In my timezone it's first thing in the morning, so I've been sleeping. However I think you can now stop moderating my column. It seems to me Eric's comment is relevant if not directly on topic, under the circumstances.

Good morning! I just wanted to taek care f things while you were sleeping (I feel its everyone's responsibility to watch for COH violations-- don't you agree?) But now that you're up-- I will stop moderating!

Martin, I am so glad you posted this. The pro-Israeli apologists, both nationally and here on Newsvine, never seem to be aware of the horrors the people of the Gaza strip endure. Nor do they acknowledge the constant influx of (illegal) settlements in the West Bank. I am neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Palestinian;

Actually, I get the impression that you are a bit one sided-- but of vourse that's your right.

However, when Carter (or anyone, for that matter) blames Israel exclusively for closing its border with Gaza-- it seems a bit biased to me. Gaza borders two countries-- Israel and Egypt. Even if Israel sealed its border 100%-- the Gazans could get all the food and supplies (and explosvivs to manufacture Qassams) from Egypt-- if the Egyptians opened that border. So-- when I hear someone blame a closed border only on Israel-- I immediately realize that there is bias there. And-- specifically-- if sealing the border with Gaza is, as the title suggests-- a "human rights crime"-- then Egypt is as guilty as Israel-- why single out Israel?

isn,

Once again you seem unable to respond to topic under discussion. Perhaps you would be better served on your own column with your own article.

Gaza could very easily become an economically and politically stable country with, eventually, good relations with Israel. All it takes is a renunciation of violence and a call for donations from the world. In ten minutes, Gaza would have billions of dollars to build greenhouses (to replace the ones that were wrecked after the Israeli pullout), technological infrastructure, etc.

Excellent point. I think you have really explained what is at the core of the issues that this article brings up.

Wheel,

Are you Djehuty? I think not. Unless you are, kindly refrain from telling me what I can and cannot post here.

I've offered my idea of a solution to the conflict. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is.

Israel has cut all ties to Gaza. Gaza runs its own government, etc. Israel only runs the border crossings between Israel and Gaza, just like the US runs border crossings between the US and Canada. In other words, Gaza is completely autonomous .

This is stated as prima facie evidence, a presumption of fact. This has previously been contradicted.

An autonomous area is an area of a country that has a degree of autonomy, or freedom from an external authority.

The statement is arguing that which has already been established and is (at least) of NO VALUE to the current discussion. Gaza is not completely autonomous.

Haha. So..

An autonomous area is an area of a country that has a degree of autonomy, or freedom from an external authority.

I think you, my dear, make a presumption of fact. The only external authority Israel has on Gaza is that granted to it by the international community to provide Gazans with all their humanitarian needs. Israel distributes the millions of aid dollars because we've seen before that the Palestinians in power would rather keep it for themselves than share it with their brethren.

So, Gaza would be an autonomous area, if Hamas ever bothered actually pursuing their autonomy more than they pursued the killing of some Jews.

This is stated as prima facie evidence, a presumption of fact. This has previously been contradicted.

How was my statement contradicted previously?

Yes, Israel occasionally uses force inside Gaza. However, Israel exercises authority in Gaza far less than it does in Israel proper because Israel is not involved with the everyday governmental affairs of Gaza. Thus, Gaza is subject to Israel's authority less than, say, Tel Aviv is. Thus, Gaza has a degree of freedom from an external authority, and is thus autonomous relative to Israel proper, using your definition.

Also, consider the case of Syria. A few months ago, Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Syria. Thus, Syria became subject to Israeli authority. Did Syria cease to be autonomous as a result of this? No! Likewise, periodic temporary Israeli incursions, by land or by air, into Gaza do not remove its autonomy.

Haha. So.. you, my dear...

Not funny nor warranting terms of endearment.

The only external authority Israel has on Gaza is that granted to it by the international community to provide Gazans with all their humanitarian needs.

More opinion stated as fact.

You seem to grant the international community some deference in granting the authority under which Israel exercises control. Please site reference to the international decree of autonomy of Gaza.

Gaza is not autonomous. Israel is responsible for the welfare of the Gazan population.

A more relevant legal decision to this discussion would be the recent Israeli high court ruling under which continued humanitarian punishment was endorsed:

Israel's squeeze is expressly intended to punish the entire population for the firing of those rockets by militants, which ordinary civilians are powerless to stop. "We will not allow them to lead a pleasant life," said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert when Israel cut off fuel supplies on January 18, thereby plunging Gaza into darkness. "As far as I am concerned, all of Gaza's residents can walk and have no fuel for their cars."

Olmert's views and, more important, his policies were reaffirmed and given the legal sanction of Israel's High Court. In what human rights organizations referred to as a "devastating" decision, on January 30 the court ruled in favor of the government's plan to further restrict supplies of fuel and electricity to Gaza. "The decision means that Israel may deliberately deprive civilians in Gaza of fuel and electricity supplies," pointed out Sari Bashi, of the Gisha human rights organization in Israel. "During wartime, the civilian population is the first and central victim of the fighting, even when efforts are made to minimize the damage," the court said. In other words, harm to the civilian population is an inevitable effect of war and therefore legally permissible.

That may be the view of Israel's highest legal authority, but it is not how the matter is viewed by international law, which strictly regulates the way civilian populations are to be treated in time of war. "The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property," the International Red Cross points out, invoking the Geneva Conventions and other founding documents of international humanitarian law. "Neither the civilian population as a whole nor individual civilians may be attacked."

From the website of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Middle East under the Finances section:

In 2006 (Jan-Jun) governments of sovereign nations contributed $329,119,217.

Independent government organizations (EU) contributed $90,484,526.

United Nations and co contributed $19,709,212.

U.A.E. (Via Red Crescent) contributed $13,000,000.

And the Sheikh Zayed Foundation contributed $6,000,000.

Since most of the aid coming into the territories is coming from the international community, it would be wrong to pretend that the Palestinians are not under the mercy of those powers. Also, if the high court ruled that in times of warfare it deemed those actions (cutting fuel supplies and the like) acceptable, then Israel should not be responsible for the welfare of enemy civilians.

So, dear, I don't feel the need to cite any international decree because words in the Middle East are usually for show. There might be one, but I couldn't care less about it because it is meaningless. Since Israel no longer has an occupation force within Gaza, the territory is now autonomous. If it wasn't, Hamas wouldn't have been elected to power; aid for Gaza would come together with aid for Israel, and there wouldn't be a border around the territory.

Please site reference to the international decree of autonomy of Gaza.

Gaza is not autonomous. Israel is responsible for the welfare of the Gazan population.

Since when is an "international decree" required for an area to be autonomous? No external power rules over Gaza, ergo, it is autonomous.

I really don't understand how you think about this. Gaza is making war upon Israel by launching rockets at Israeli civilians. How do you expect Israel to continue to supply Gaza with the goods used to manufacture those very rockets and bombs? Did the United States supply Nazi Germany with materiel and food in the waning days of WWII? Was this a war crime, that the United States didn't airlift food to starving German civilians in Berlin (before the fall of Berlin)?

I don't feel the need to cite any international decree...

I see. You can't cite the international community has deemed Gaza autonomous (because it hasn't - see 8.4).

No external power rules over Gaza, ergo, it is autonomous.

So in support of your declaration that Gaza is autonomous (#8) you, ergo, declare it is so? This is circular reasoning. It defeats progress in discussion. Might that be your real interest here?

When one states opinion as fact, is exposed and can't support those statements more than the points of an argument are at risk. It reflects on ones credibility.

Discussion is derailed by false debate of widely accepted language and concepts. Until your statements are supported the basis of discussion must hold to what is known -Gaza is not autonomous and Israel is responsible for the welfare of Gazans. The credibility of your comments and purpose for participation is suspect.

Further, when Ariel Sharon announced that the IDF was leaving Gaza Israeli citizens and American Jews donated many greenhouses for use by the Palestinians. Here's what they did with many of them.

Further, when Ariel Sharon announced that the IDF was leaving Gaza Israeli citizens and American Jews donated many greenhouses for use by the Palestinians. Here's what they did with many of them.

Bill-- if you haven't seen it yet: take a look at the video clip linked to in comment #5.7-- an Egyptian general (ret'd) tells a lot about Hamas from an Egyptian perspective.Very revsaling.

Maloney, Yasser Arafat always spoke in English about how he wanted to pursue peace with the Israelis. Then when the American crews left (or turned off their cameras) he would speak in Arabic, telling his supporters that they were gonna exterminate the Jewish rats. Who gives a @!$%# about an international decree. There's one international decree that the Palestinian don't give a @!$%# about, Israel's creation by the U.N. So why is it that I should care about an international decree in favor of their autonomy?

Discussion is derailed by false debate of widely accepted language and concepts. Until your statements are supported the basis of discussion must hold to what is known -Gaza is not autonomous and Israel is responsible for the welfare of Gazans. The credibility of your comments and purpose for participation is suspect.

Widely accepted among who? What is known by who?

By the way, where's your proof that Israel is responsible for the welfare of Gazans. And don't cite an International Red Cross or a World Health Organization report, that is if you want to have real discourse.

So in support of your declaration that Gaza is autonomous (#8) you, ergo, declare it is so? This is circular reasoning. It defeats progress in discussion. Might that be your real interest here?

I can't prove that no power rules over Gaza. I can't prove a negative.

Bill - the story of the Gaza greenhouses is another sad tale. According to some of the Israeli former owners the water to the greenhouses was cut off around the time of turnover. The Israeli government had been subsidizing the businesses and it was estimated that their productive capacity at the time of turnover was about 50% of what it had been. Some of the greenhouses were dismantled before the turnover as the farmers planned to restart in Israel. The reports of vandalizing may have included legitimate cannibalizing of greenhouse to upgrade the functions in another greenhouse. Later the closing of the Karni crossing choked off the passage to market for the produce that was ready to take to market from Gaza.

I can't prove that no power rules over Gaza. I can't prove a negative.

The challenged was to support the statement that Gaza is autonomous. The legitimacy of the international community to determine Israel's authority was suggested in 8.5. That's why I figured it was fair to ask for support for the claim of Gazas autonomy by citing an international organization.

That Gaza is not considered autonomous, by international standards, is shown by it's exclusion from the areas that are considered autonomous areas (8.4). We could talk about degrees of autonomy apart from international standards.

What international organizations certify autonomy?

And, what areas that are "autonomous areas" is Gaza excluded from? You didn't prove anything in 8.4

Bill - the story of the Gaza greenhouses is another sad tale. According to some of the Israeli former owners the water to the greenhouses was cut off around the time of turnover. The Israeli government had been subsidizing the businesses and it was estimated that their productive capacity at the time of turnover was about 50% of what it had been. Some of the greenhouses were dismantled before the turnover as the farmers planned to restart in Israel. The reports of vandalizing may have included legitimate cannibalizing of greenhouse to upgrade the functions in another greenhouse. Later the closing of the Karni crossing choked off the passage to market for the produce that was ready to take to market from Gaza.

Here's what really happened:

"NEVE DEKALIM, Gaza Strip - Palestinians looted dozens of greenhouses on Tuesday, walking off with irrigation hoses, water pumps and plastic sheeting in a blow to fledgling efforts to reconstruct the Gaza Strip.

American Jewish donors had bought more than 3,000 greenhouses from Israeli settlers in Gaza for $14 million last month and transferred them to the Palestinian Authority. Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn, who brokered the deal, put up $500,000 of his own cash."

How about a source for that Krishna?

It's the same MSNBC source Bill cited in 8.11.

What is the point in reposting it?

I think the point is that Israel contributed with a considerable sum of money to try to help the Palestinians and they got sh*t on in spite of it.

To be proper, Scott, it wasn't Israel, per se, but rather individual Israelis and American Jews.

Still, as you say, that help to the Palestinians was shat upon quite momentously.

That was my misstatement. As you pointed out, I was attempting to highlight that Jewish people helped economically with no obvious benefit to themselves and were promptly sh*t on for it. Very disappointing, IMO.

By limiting the greenhouse story to a lawless event that was described as vandalism or looting the larger ideological concept of a benevolent Israel and altruistic Jews is highlighted. Disappointment is reserved for the heroes for the qualities to which you are predisposed. Handy.

This necessarily ignores the larger circumstances which may not paint as flattering a picture. In the situation that preceded the looting event that you would like to highlight Israeli owned and government subsidized greenhouses employed a significant number of Gazans. Before the turnover nearly half the employees were not Israeli citizens. Community security was provided by Israel.

At the turnover community security was withdrawn along with the Israeli government subsidy of water. Some Israeli farmers had dismantled (note that it is not referred to as looting, vandalism) some of the capital equipment and took it out of Gaza. Estimated productive capacity was about 50% of what it had been.

Nonetheless production was revived. Within 3 months of the turnover greenhouse produce was rotting at the Gaza border as Israeli government chose to deny passage to markets outside of Gaza.

I've outlined some of the circumstances surrounding the event (not because I think you don't know them) in order to describe my own reasons for finding the greenhouse story as a disappointment. I chiefly identify with the idealism with which Wolfensohn under took the effort to maintain production in Gaza.

Within this ideological framework there was hope for a component (economic) that might aid in growing the basics for the community. The work of the greenhouses had the potential to be a small but significant step toward creating a community that could function in the larger context of the region. The ultimate failure of those enterprises is, to me, a reflection of the larger struggle. The strangulation of that hope is why I find it a sad tale.

about one million of whom are refugees.

It's interesting to note that the UN definition of refugees is different depending on one's country of origin. In Israel/Palestine, anyone who is descended from anyone who "fled" Israel in 1948 is a refugee. Anywhere else in the world, anyone who didn't flee themselves from whatever situation they encountered is not a refugee, that is, children of refugees lose the title of refugee.

I just think that double standard is interesting. ::shrug::

i_s_n:

Actually, not true. According to the Palestinian National Authority's own citation of the UN definition, the definition is:

UNRWA defines a refugee as "any one who was living in Palestine two years before the 1948 War and migrated to one of the areas in which UNRWA operates and became "financially " in need".

"Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA's services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than 4.4 million in 2005, and continues to rise due to natural population growth.

http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html

PS, where did i_s_n come from? I prefer "insert" or "Jeremy", and "i_n_h" makes sense, although it seems hard to type, but I don't understand i_s_n...

i_n_h:

I stand corrected .... twice.

:^{)>

I was pretty surpised when I saw that definition I cited on the PNA official site.

I stand corrected .... twice.

Haha, great. I appreciate you admitting when you're wrong, and I hope to have the balls to do the same if I ever get proven wrong. It's unlikely, though, that that would ever happen... :D j/k

Not that simple. Read the comments above concerning that, beginning with 5.1.

Dennis:

Israel gets angry and threatens to relinquish all ties to the Gaza strip.

Yeah. So? Call the bluff.

Follow the links, jack.

And as for "calling the bluff," this isn't poker. There are lives at stake.

Dennis:

this isn't poker. There are lives at stake.

Quite so. Lives will be immediately improved if they open the Egyptian border.

Oy. Go read the stuff. It's not that simple.

Quite so. Lives will be immediately improved if they open the Egyptian border.

It seems that people would rather argue against that-- and rather, blame Israel for not opening its border.

Oy. Go read the stuff. It's not that simple.

Actually-- its extremely simple. The fact of the matter is-- its no more difficult for Egypt to open its border than it is for Israel to open its border. (Of course both countries aren't too enthusiastic about doing it-- both don't like the idea of Islamic extremists entering their country...)

Oy. Go read the stuff. It's not that simple.

You still didn't answer my question-- Before Israel began its occupation of Gaza in 1967-- what was the status of Gaza? Not knowing that-- you might lack some understanding of the situation vis-a-vis the Egyptian-Gaza border...and Egypt being able to-- or not being able to--supply Gaza.

In case you haven't noticed, krishna, I'm basically staying out of this discussion.

In case you haven't noticed, krishna, I'm basically staying out of this discussion.

I've heard a lot of excuses for not answering a difficult question during my times in Internet discussions-- but that has to be the best ever! (I just counted-- 7 comments from you here..) Actually, I'll let you in on a little secret-- I'm also basically staying out of this discussion as well. Heh :-)

A couple very early on in regard to Egypt opening their border, and a few directed at jack trying to get him to see those first comments. That's it...nothing very specific at all.

Dennis:

Then it isn't that "simple" for Israel, either.

It fact, it's about hundred times more complicated for Israel than for Egypt.

I know it's not simple, Jack. But I've got a massive headache right now and I really don't feel up to getting into this. Maybe later.

It would be possible for Egypt to become responsible for Gaza. This is a concept Daniel Pipes was forwarding last Winter. In February Hamas representatives held talks with Egypt and were hopeful there would be a sort of partnership.

However, the Egyptian source said Cairo was for now likely to stand by a U.S.-brokered agreement it made when Israel withdrew troops from Gaza in 2005 that gives Israel an effective veto over movement across the Gaza-Egypt frontier. "That's where we stand at the moment," the source told Reuters, making clear Cairo was not prepared to harm relations with Israel, the United States, European Union and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. "The Israelis don't want anything to do with Hamas at all, even at second-hand."

Egypt's leaders view Hamas with mistrust as allies of their banned Islamist opposition.

link

The talks broke down on how the border between Gaza & Egypt would be controlled. There was whispered speculation that Israel would physically re-occupy Gaza if they were legally relieved of responsibility of the welfare for the Gazan population and the Palestinian community would suffer further fraction.

I'd like to see Egypt simply assimilate Gaza into Egypt proper and then Egypt could do to Hamas what it did to the Muslim Brotherhood. The end result would be Egypt having 1.5 million more citizens it doesn't really want or need, but if Egypt's govt took control of Gaza, there would cease to be a problem with Israel since Egypt and Israel are at peace. Perhaps Israel should start holding out carrots for Egypt to assimilate and govern Gaza like economic assistance.

Also, there's far more reason for Egypt to take responsibility for them. The Palestinians, like the Egyptians, are Islamic. The Israelis, unlike the Palestinians, are Jews. The Palestinians want to kill Egyptians less than they want to kill Jews.

Actually, many of the so-called "Palestinians"living in Gaza are actually Egyptian in origin anyway.

Djehuty:

Scott how about saying the British should be responsible for Gaza? They were responsible for the territory before 1948 and sponsored the creation of Israel. Unlike Egypt they have the resources to rebuild Gaza.

Well, aside from the fact that Egypt owned it most recently, many Palestinians are ethnically Egyptian. They're only called Palestinian because Gaza was halved off from the Sinai. As for resources, I'm sure that the Israelis as well as much of the rest of the world community would pay Egypt handsomely to take Gaza out from under Israel's control and into Egyptian hands. Resource problem solved.

There's no conceivable legal requirement for them to do so, and they're not likely to want to. Both these objections apply to Egypt, too no matter how much some Israelis might want this to be different.

Funny thing that sometimes reality runs totally contrary to the precepts of law, sometimes. This is one of those times. Egypt is Arab, just like the Palestinians. It is the only conceivable power in the region that could absorb Gaza and govern it.

Hamas continues to commit war crimes against Israel and the Palestinian moderates that want peace. Any attacks, including on their own fuel depots, food stocks, and water supplies has created this humanitarian crisis in Gaza, while things are settling down in the West Bank, which has even seen an increase in the values of their stock market. Hamas is the poision, Hezbollah takes the same position in Lebanon. These two entities are terrorists, and have been branded so by the USA, EU, and other national groups and individual countries around the world.

Exactly.

See:

"Mainstream Palestinian forum:

What kind of resistance is it that insists on continuing to shed Palestinian blood at the lowest price just to prove it is a "resistance," even if it sacrifices all else?

"He went on, "We left our homes for 'them.' They brought sand bags into our bedrooms and living rooms. They set up heavy machine guns and planted Shewath- explosive charges on the nearby asphalt, leaving us behind in the open, as if we were worthless shepherds and what they were doing was a sacred duty even if the price is the souls and blood of our children."

On the verge of bursting in anger, Abu Raja said, "What kind of resistance is this that occupies the homes of innocent civilians and set up its rockets near the homes of unarmed and innocent people, to launch a rocket that falls on the ground in an open area, so children and women will be killed afterwards? What kind of resistance is it that insists on continuing to shed Palestinian blood at the lowest price just to prove it is a "resistance," even if it sacrifices all else? How long shall we ourselves believe it?

"It's absurd that my son will be killed for nothing in his sleep for the sake of one resistance fighter who set up a machine gun in his bedroom window and started firing at Israelis who retaliate with a shell that kills my son and demolishes my home."

LINK

Hamas is a group of religious fundamentalists-- extremely violent terrorists-- who attack their fellow Arabs as well as the Jews. Here's another article that gives more insight into their barbaric ways:

Palestinian victims of Hamas swear revenge

"SHADI Bakr Ahmad gingerly eased his legless torso into two new plastic limbs and vowed they would one day walk him back to his brutal destiny in Gaza.

The Fatah man and his 14 comrades in rehabilitation have barely six legs left between them, after being mutilated by their Hamas rivals during the violent takeover of power last June. All have unfinished business: they want to get back on their makeshift feet soon to hunt down the men who maimed them.

Palestinian victims of Hamas swear revenge

Krishna I hope you're trying to make the argument that these barberic terrorists

Indeed, they are a nasty lot.

In order to understand the crisis, one must understand the main players-- such as Hamas:

"Palestinian victims of Hamas swear revenge

SHADI Bakr Ahmad gingerly eased his legless torso into two new plastic limbs and vowed they would one day walk him back to his brutal destiny in Gaza.

The Fatah man and his 14 comrades in rehabilitation have barely six legs left between them, after being mutilated by their Hamas rivals during the violent takeover of power last June. All have unfinished business: they want to get back on their makeshift feet soon to hunt down the men who maimed them

LINK

Perhaps facilitating a Fatah wipeout of Hamas would be beneficial for everyone, including the hapless Gaza refugees who cannot stand up to them.

Why the quotes?

Israel doesn't want peace, peace is the last thing they want.

Israel doesn't want peace, peace is the last thing they want.

I am not sure I agree with that. They want peace, they just don't want any non Jews living in Israel as first class citizens.

I am not sure I agree with that. They want peace, they just don't want any non Jews living in Israel as first class citizens.

Oh! Is that why Israel kicked out all the Israeli Arabs, took away their rights to vote, serve in Knesset, serve in the IDF, speak and travel freely?

I am not sure I agree with that. They want peace, they just don't want any non Jews living in Israel as first class citizens.

Oh! Is that why Israel kicked out all the Israeli Arabs, took away their rights to vote, serve in Knesset, serve in the IDF, speak and travel freely?

Actually, the real proof is in the polls-- with all the propaganda, all the taqiyya-- the fact remains-- the majority of Israeli Arabs would rather live in Israel than in an independent Palestinian state. If Israeli treatment of them were so bad-- this would not be the case:

Two polls released last week, from Keevoon Research, Strategy & Communications and the Arabic-language newspaper As-Sennara, survey adult Israeli Arabs on the issue of joining the PA, and they corroborate what Gheit says. Asked, "Would you prefer to be a citizen of Israel or of a new Palestinian state?" 62 percent want to remain Israeli citizens and 14 percent want to join a future Palestinian state.

LINK

Wow Krishna a Jewish newspaper article , written by some one who is rabidly anti Islamic,says Arabs are better off under Jewish rule; who could have seen that coming?

Dennis:

Why the quotes?

Because "Palestinians" existed after the 1967 war when they ceased to be Egyptians and Jordanians. I believe it is called the "bait and switch."

Well, in that case, I suppose Jews cannot persecute Palestinians since Jews were clearly Palestinians as granted citizenship by the British Mandate govt.