Despite swap, Gaza remains imprisoned

[Jefferson23]

While 1,000 Palestinian prisoners will be released, 1.8 million people living in Gaza are still not free.

Raji Sourani and Eyad Sarraj Last Modified: 24 Oct 2011 11:06

The prisoner exchange agreement concluded between Israel and Hamas has brought relief to thousands of families eager to see their loved ones return home. In the midst of Israel's prolonged belligerent occupation, we are witnessing a rare moment of unified Israeli and Palestinian celebration. However, this event, and the resultant media fanfare, must not distract attention from the underlying tragic reality.

The real issues demanding attention centre upon Israel's 63-year belligerent occupation, and the routine violations of international law perpetrated by the occupation forces. The most glaring example of this is the absolute closure imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip.

Israel first initiated its closure policy with respect to the Gaza Strip in 1991. In recent years, it has been progressively tightened, following the election of President Abbas, the detention of Gilad Shalit, and the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. Today, the closure is absolute.

Analysis: Hamas-Israel prisoners swap

As many as 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza are cut off from the rest of Palestine, and the outside world. This economic and psychological suffocation has decimated the Gazan economy, driving unemployment, poverty and aid dependence to record levels. An entire generation has been isolated and denied access to the outside world.

in full: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/20111021103340280648.html

[King_David]

1. The government in Gaza has a choice

Freedom or terrorism.

It is that simple.

The siege is 100% of their making.

"Mr" Hanniya stop your rockets ! ( and terrorism... Join the civilized)

[Jefferson23]

2. According to you it is 100% of their making. n/t

[King_David]

9. Yep 100% nt

[azurnoir]

13. ""Mr" Hanniya stop your rockets !

( and terrorism... Join the civilized)" , odd you'd chose to word your comment that way sounds so familiar can't quite place though, something about a wall I think, not sure though hmmmm

oh and by join the civilized do you mean use F-16's, drones, and White Phosphorus like "the civilized" do?

[King_David]

40. Think that was an accident ?

;)

[azurnoir]

43. I don't know if you used that wording by accident

perhaps if I could remember where I'd heard it before I would know but sadly I do not, care to tell us?

[King_David]

49. What you going on about

Cryptic would be s compliment to that post.

[azurnoir]

50. well you asked did you expect another answer? n/t

[pelsar]

3. I'm impressed.....so do you agree?

absolute closure imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip. ....still forgetting that egypt exists

do you agree with not just that simple sentence (can we call it an outright lie? or do you have "softer" less precise word?), but the article?

do you also have the philosophy of it being ok to ignore core facts?

[Jefferson23]

5. Why don't you tell me pelsar what you're impressed with.

The opening through Egypt is all that is necessary, is that your position?

[pelsar]

8. I'm impressed, nay fascinated....

with the way egypts part is so easily ignored.

when israel first left gaza, it was argued here, that israel still controls gaza southern border through various means, (political, military),

Now that egypt has had its own little change of govt, has declared its border with gaza as one that it alone decides what to do, (i.e. israels wishes are not relevant)

the egyptian policy is still ignored as:

playing an active part in this 'prison"
can be the obvious solution to the gazans needs.

yet the article you posted ignored it completly
my question to you is extremely simple:

do you agree with an article that ignores the gaza/egyptians border as playing a part in this prison?...not a difficult question.
(i'm actually getting to the real question: do you too, believe that the ends justifies the means?)

[Jefferson23]

11. What ends? and thanks for the clarity, I think. You are speaking

of Hamas's actions of suicide bombers, correct? If so, no..there is no justification for intentionally targeting
civilians pelsar..never will be. One can understand the motivation, but it does not change the wrong doing.
I apply this to OCL as well.

The OP is technically inaccurate since it does not mention Egypt's crossing..why do think they did that?

Perhaps because its relevance is extremely limited for Gazan's pelsar..but that is my opinion, I am not privy
to what either author thinks. I do know one is a human rights spokesperson for the Palestinians, another a physician.

As far as the OP being done with citations, nope they are not present.

Here, from B'tselem: You are aware we have done this conversation before, but, nonetheless, the documentation is there.



Background on the Gaza Strip
http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip

[pelsar]

12. the clarity is promoting an article that is false...

The OP is technically inaccurate since it does not mention Egypt's crossing..why do think they did that?

that is what i am asking you...why are you promoting an article that, via omission of a major fact, attempts to create an impression that israel alone is responsible for gazes present condition?

(you btselem article, has no relevance to your OP nor my question to you.

[Jefferson23]

16. I already gave you my answer to your question, you don't agree?

The Gaza Strip's history has everything to do with this OP, in fact, the authors would have served their
article much better imo, if they had linked to it.

I think it is fair to say the OP was not written for an audience that is unaware of the conflict pelsar,
nor unaware of the easing of the blockade, nor unaware of the hardship that Gazan's face each day despite
the opening.

[pelsar]

19. you've got to be kidding...thats your excuse?

the authors leave out a major piece of geography, a major "technical aspect" that has an affect on all of the inhabitants of gaza, has major political ramifications and your saying it doesn't even merit even a sentence?

quite the imagination there, i give you two points for that.....you actually assuming the article is written for a specific audience, and you figured this out...how?

but no you didn't answer my question,....i shall repeat it using different words:

do you believe that its credible to write an article on a such a subject and not mention the fact that the egyptians are in fact the wardens of the prison and hold the key?

[Jefferson23]

22. If I was kidding, you'd know it. Again, I answered your question, you don't like

it, fine. Here it is again: The OP is technically inaccurate since it does not mention Egypt's crossing..why do think they did that?

Perhaps because its relevance is extremely limited for Gazan's pelsar..but that is my opinion, I am not privy
to what either author thinks. I do know one is a human rights spokesperson for the Palestinians, another a physician.


Second time I tried to explain: I think it is fair to say the OP was not written for an audience that is unaware of the conflict pelsar,
nor unaware of the easing of the blockade, nor unaware of the hardship that Gazan's face each day despite
the opening.

You: do you believe that its credible to write an article on a such a subject and not mention the fact that the egyptians are in fact the wardens of the prison and hold the key?


Third time, by me: I have told you I can't speak for the authors, but gave you what I believe may be a reason why it is
omitted. Could they have added it, sure, is it credible without it, for those who know the limited benefits, it is not
essential..but it would be important for anyone who is not aware of the conflict.

I thought I explained this when I said, they would have served their work better if they added links of support
of the conditions for Gazan's..despite the crossing.

It is your opinion, based on what, is not clear, that Egypt holds the keys to the open air prison.



Quartet of Mideast negotiators: Situation in Gaza still 'unacceptable'
The Quartet - the U.S., EU, Russia, and the UN - welcomes Israel's decision to ease its blockade of Gaza, but says more must be done to alleviate pressure on the population there.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/quartet-of-mideast-negotiators-situation-in-gaza-still-unacceptable-1.297516

[pelsar]

25. limited benefits?...wow....

and perhaps explain what aspect is the limitation?

they can't bring in food? building materials, gasoline? cars? (oops they already do, via the tunnels). They can't let the gazes out to travel via rafah? is there some kind of physical limitation?

what exactly are the "limitations that you are mentioning."

its not a mater of me liking or not liking your answer, i just find them vague, incomplete, and very much avoiding the essence.

wasn't the article about it being a prison?...so why can't they leave via egypt, what exactly is the limitation there? so small that one doesn't even need bother mentioning it...

[Jefferson23]

27. pelar, why don't you reconcile with the OP I just posted for you..it is

obvious, it is NOT enough. You respond here as though I'm alone with this opinion. The quartet lies too, or is that just B'Tselem?


On 20 June 2010, after international pressure was placed on Israel in the wake of its action in taking control of the Turkish flotilla to Gaza, the security cabinet decided to ease the siege by enlarging the list of goods allowed into Gaza, by expanding operations at the crossings, by permitting the import of building materials for public projects and for residential construction under international supervision, and by making its policy on entry and exit of persons for humanitarian and medical purposes more efficient.

The new policy included replacing the list of products permitted into Gaza at the time with “a limited list of prohibited articles, intended to prevent only the entry of weapons and items that might aid Hamas’ terrorist regime in harming Israeli civilians.” On 6 July 2010, Israel published two lists. One list details items whose import into Gaza is forbidden without a specific permit, such as weapons and chemical materials that might be used to make weapons, along with dual-use materials, i.e. items that can be used for both civilian and military purposes. The second list contains items necessary for construction work, “whose entry is permitted only for projects approved by the Palestinian Authority and carried out by the international community.” This ended Israel’s three-year-old prohibition on the import of many consumables. The government’s decision does not mention allowing exports from the Gaza Strip.

On 8 December 2010, the government announced a further easing of the siege by allowing agricultural, furniture, and textile exports.

On 2 June 2010, Egypt opened Rafah crossing, on its border with Gaza. At present, it permits the crossing of persons in humanitarian and medical cases, as well as students, foreign residents, and Palestinians wanting to visit relatives abroad.

The three years of the siege caused a grave economic crisis in Gaza, and the extensive damage caused to houses and infrastructure in the course of Operation Cast Lead aggravated the situation. The repercussions include lack of food security among much of the population, high unemployment rates, limited possibilities for earning a living in agriculture, fishing and industry, and harm to the entire fabric of life. According to a survey conducted by the International Red Cross, in May 2008, 70 percent of Gazans were living in poverty, with a monthly income for a 7-9 person family of less than $250 (one dollar a day per person), and 40 percent of urban dwellers were living in deep poverty (a monthly income of less than $120, a half a dollar a day per person). The Red Cross’s figures also showed that, in 2009, 75 percent of the residents, more than 1.1 million persons, lacked food security, compared with 56 percent in 2008, and that dependence of the entire population on external aid was 5 percent higher than before the siege, and stood at 26 percent. According to figures of the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics, in the first quarter of 2010, 33.9 percent of the work force in the Gaza Strip were unemployed, and more than 50 percent of Gazans under age 30 were unemployed.

The decision to ease the siege is welcome, but it is only a small step in the right direction. The entry of more consumables eases the conditions of daily life in Gaza, but does not enable rebuilding of its economy. The severe restrictions on exports still in place leave Gaza isolated, making real economic development impossible.

http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/siege

[pelsar]

29. i really don't care what a quartet says.....

the majority opinion, or the opinion of a large number of people has no bearing on truth or facts.....the obvious example is germany, but there have been countless others throughout history.....


what appears to be your answer, is that you simply don't know of any limitation at rafah, do you?

and simply made it up to answer me.....

[Jefferson23]

31. pelsar, that you don't care what the quartet said, that you don't care

why they said it..that you don't care about the information from B'tselem which makes perfectly clear what exactly
are the limitations, I can't help you.

I made up nothing.

I have no idea what example Germany means to you in this situation.

[pelsar]

34. B'tselemt did not write what are the limitations....

all they wrote was:

On 2 June 2010, Egypt opened Rafah crossing, on its border with Gaza. At present, it permits the crossing of persons in humanitarian and medical cases, as well as students, foreign residents, and Palestinians wanting to visit relatives abroad.

where does it say why egypt can't turn the whole problem around by letting the gazes import above ground what they import underground?....what exactly is this limitation you've written about?

they are just saying, at present "permits"....i repeat what do YOU believe are the limitations at rafah?


the majority of the germans pre wwII believed the jews were evil etc...and i'm sure there were scholars articles explaining why, hence just because someone writes a paper, or the majority of a group believe something, it doesn't make it so.

[Jefferson23]

37. You didn't read past that sentence?

The three years of the siege caused a grave economic crisis in Gaza, and the extensive damage caused to houses and infrastructure in the course of Operation Cast Lead aggravated the situation. The repercussions include lack of food security among much of the population, high unemployment rates, limited possibilities for earning a living in agriculture, fishing and industry, and harm to the entire fabric of life. According to a survey conducted by the International Red Cross, in May 2008, 70 percent of Gazans were living in poverty, with a monthly income for a 7-9 person family of less than $250 (one dollar a day per person), and 40 percent of urban dwellers were living in deep poverty (a monthly income of less than $120, a half a dollar a day per person). The Red Cross’s figures also showed that, in 2009, 75 percent of the residents, more than 1.1 million persons, lacked food security, compared with 56 percent in 2008, and that dependence of the entire population on external aid was 5 percent higher than before the siege, and stood at 26 percent. According to figures of the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics, in the first quarter of 2010, 33.9 percent of the work force in the Gaza Strip were unemployed, and more than 50 percent of Gazans under age 30 were unemployed.

The decision to ease the siege is welcome, but it is only a small step in the right direction. The entry of more consumables eases the conditions of daily life in Gaza, but does not enable rebuilding of its economy. The severe restrictions on exports still in place leave Gaza isolated, making real economic development impossible.

The Quartet you're not interested in either, you are not curious why each of these countries are not saying out loud, hey, Egypt, good on
you..it's all over now. I can't help you with that either. You could read further if you like..same link as the first.

snip* Restriction on the entry of goods

According to UN figures, during the first two years of the siege, an average of 112 containers (a entered the Gaza Strip each day from Israel, compared with a daily average of 583 containers prior to the siege (a container is a truck hauling one freight compartment). In May 2010, one month before Israel declared an easing of the siege, the daily average was 90 trucks. Immediately after the decision, the number rose to 150. According to the official estimate, by mid-2011, the number will reach 400. Despite the improvement, this is still 30 percent lower than the daily number of trucks that entered Gaza prior to the siege and does not fully meet the population’s needs. Also, it appears that the improvement is not steady: B'Tselem’s investigation indicates that, whereas in October 2010, 139 trucks entered daily on average, the number dropped to 98 in November. (end)

You: the majority of the germans pre wwII believed the jews were evil etc...and i'm sure there were scholars articles explaining why, hence just because someone writes a paper, or the majority of a group believe something, it doesn't make it so.

So how do you make judgments pelsar, what evidence, reports do you rely on? The quartet includes the United States, Israel's greatest supporter,
was included in the OP I listed for you.

on edit to add: What do I believe are the limitations are for Gazan's?

I look at the documentation, is it reliable or not. I have no reason to doubt B'tselem, there are other reports similar.

on edit for clarity regarding the quartet comment.

[Shaktimaan]

38. unemployment?

Hm, must suck. Perhaps Hamas should refrain from firing rockets and mortars at Israeli towns, stop firing on Israeli driven aid trucks entering the strip and begin to make the welfare of Gazans their top priority instead of engagement with Israel.

I'm actually pretty confused by your position here. What exactly would you expect to happen in such a situation? How many years would you think Israel would just accept rockets hitting its cities before retaliating militarily?

If Hamas truly wants this to be a war then it doesn't seem reasonable for you to then criticize Israel on the basis of Gazans living in a wartime environment. Hamas was freely elected. This was entirely their decision.

[Jefferson23]

52. You're sympathetic to collective punishment?

I don't support Hamas, but I do recognize they are not the main obstacle to a two state solution.

What are you suggesting, no peace deal until what happens? Abbas has just been declared useless by Lieberman, and
you don't find it curious that Israel's timing of the Palestinians release for Shalit had anything to do with
undermining Abbas?

[pelsar]

47. i'm not asking mr btselem....they also didn't answer the question...

your link is a technical explanation of the amount of materials being brought in vs needs.....i'm not asking you, what are the amounts are, nor am i asking is it enough.

i'm asking what exactly are these limitations that your referring to from egypt? Why can't goods enter from egypt to make up for the lack in gaza?

are they physical? are they political?

your links do not mention these limitations. I believe i keep on asking the question and you keep referring to reports that also don't mention WHAT are the limitations in bringing goods from egypt?
___________________________
for instance, why can't a container ship dock at port said, unload its containers on trucks, the trucks then drive the aprox 20km to rafah, enter gaza and unload their materials there?

(btw this is actually done, the trucks just unload on the egyptian side)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/14/v-print/127280/in-rafah-tunnels-from-gaza-just.html

He detailed the accounting: "Each shipment through the tunnel pays wages to at least two drivers, five workers on each truck for loading and unloading, at least 10 workers for packaging goods and at least five watchmen to secure the perimeter, not to mention rentals of trucks and warehouses for storing and packaging. All those workers are on the Egyptian side. The same process consequently takes place on the Palestinian side of the tunnel."

how do i judge a report?..first i assume there is a political angle, no matter what side of the line its on, then i compare the report to what i understand of the events on the ground. If something so obvious is missing, than the reports get dumped in to the trash...meaning it has no credibility. The Betaslam report is more of technical report and is probably correct, which is why they don't mention the political options.

Your OP was a political article that wants to put the responsibility for gaza on israel, hence they had to ignore the egyptian option, mentioning such would totally ruin their viewpoint since it would mean admitting that egypt can turn the situation around completely....

this is what i believe you don't want to say.....
________
you don't want/believe israel should be relieved of the responsibility for gaza, i.e. israel should be made to "pay". If you and others admit that the egyptian border can not only relieve israel from the responsibility but help in gazans independence and reduce their suffering, your preference is that the responsibility stay with israel, no matter what the consequences for the gazan.

its pretty hard to get around that conclusion, why else not promote the egyptian option? they are friends aren't they? they do care? don't they?

[Jefferson23]

54. I don't see how anyone could even imagine Egypt could do as

you suggest and this would eliminate the issues for the Palestinians of Gaza.

At least we are on the same page about the conditions within Gaza; more or less. You: "The Betaslam report is more of technical report and is probably correct, which is why they don't mention the political options."

B'teselm are not there as political analysts no, that is correct. I still don't know why you think the quartet including the
United States does not agree with you about Egypt though.


Stay well.

[pelsar]

56. you avoid explaining......constantly

i've noticed that you usually send me to a link, which has no relevance, or make some vague statement that you can't back up or explain: example below:

I don't see how anyone could even imagine Egypt could do as you suggest and this would eliminate the issues for the Palestinians of Gaza.

why not? the whole subject is about food and travel....egypt opens its border all the way, what EXACTLY can't be imported? is there a quantity problem, quality problem of egyptian food?
do the travel agents in gaza have problems with egypt?. This time try to be specific....unless of course the 'issues" have nothing to do with food and travel, do they....

the real issue is that you don't want israel "left off the hook", you prefer the Palestinians to suffer if that is the price for keeping pressure on israel....correct?

[Jefferson23]

57. Oh bullshit..that you offer NO evidence to counter any of my

questions with few exceptions. You don't care to respond to the quartet not mentioning Egypt as the answer.

You don't like the answer I give, fine, repeating it does not inspire me to give you the answer you wish for.


You: i repeat, i believe you don't want israel "left off the hook", you prefer the Palestinians to suffer if that is the price for keeping pressure on israel....correct?


You believe this based on YOUR belief, which is based on I don't know what, that all things Gazan will be handled by Egypt or should be.
You're sure you read the B'tselem link, doesn't seem that way.

I prefer the Palestinians suffer? now this is rich. Yea, its great fun watching my government do nothing, and here all along the
answer has been Egypt.

Try and remember WHO is the occupying power pelsar, Egypt can't change that fact.

[pelsar]

58. your claiming there is a limitation..

i'm asking what this limitation is?

what part of the question is not clear?

it has nothing to do with evidence of anything at all, its a simple question to you, as you have claimed there is some kind of limitation with what egypt can do....

is it physical?, is it political? is it metaphysical? the gazans are starving, so what exactly is stopping those 1000's of trucks in egypt from entering?

[Jefferson23]

61. Egypt is NOT the occupying power.

I was clear, you just don't like the answers I gave..big difference.

You have no interest in reconciling why the quartet doesn't see it that way either..I can't help you pelsar.

I don't have the answer you want, I suspect, you don't have one either.

[pelsar]

62. your slowly becoming clearer...slowly

The reason, as your finally stated is that you don't believe egypt should bring in supplies, to solve the shortages is political not physical....and thats sad


clearly the well being of the gazans is not your highest priority...if that was the single most important issue, you would look upon egypt as a real option for the gazans to get out from being dependent upon israel......and have all of the supplies needed come in through egypt.

that is why you mention that israel, as the "occupying power' must solve the problem, rather than have the gazans and egypt work out a solution that doesn't involve israel.

so once again the Palestinians are pawns in a political game. (and you not the only one who believes that egypt should not help the gazans get out from israeli control)
__________

[Jefferson23]

63. No pelsar, the above is your answer to the question you asked me.

The one you want, not the one I gave you. Why bother asking me when you can answer my question for me..that is a waste of my time
and yours.

I afforded you the courtesy of not answering for you a question I posed to you several times regarding the quartet.

I think we're done here. You have the conclusion you want, yours..be happy now.

[pelsar]

64. now your question...

you asked:
I still don't know why you think the quartet including the United States does not agree with you about Egypt though.

its quite simple: the quartet and the US know that egypt will not check for rockets and other military hardware if they open their doors, at least not as diligently as israel does. They too do not want an armed hamas, hence there is no pressure from them on Egypt.

but that should have no impression on someone who's sole concern is the welfare of the gazans and their nutrition levels as you claim to be.

fact is, there is no physical barrier that stops egypt from sending 1,000 trucks daily in gaza full of food, calling israel the occupying power is not a limitation for egypt to send in supplies as it has done in the past, its only politics. and for those who complain about israels limitations and ignore the clear obvious option of going through egypt certainly have put politics above the welfare of the gazans.


you yourself can't even list a single limitation (all you do is link to reports that also do not list a single limitation). the stops egypt from bringing in all that is needed...you can't even lift a quote from your links that state this limitation your write about.

i asked because i have learned that it takes many many posts to get past the "standard answers" before getting to the real values. for example:
Just as it took years for it become clear that for many, minority rights take a back seat to nationalism, as per the gay rights posts.
it took many many posts for it to become clear that is acceptable for the "sin of omission" to be not a sin at all, and standard acceptable practice when its serves an agenda (i.e demonization as per the "kill the Palestinians for their organ claim.)

and it took many many many posts for the hierarchy of gazan politics for it be clear, why egypt is "always forgotten" when one discuss the gazan prison, and their limitations. (when israe left gaza, it was quite fascinating to read the various excuses why egypt cannot help the gazans, and as they fell one by one with time, we are now left with nothing more than pure politics....nothing more and nothing less and its pretty ugly and hypocritical to say the least.)

it just takes time and persistence

[shira]

65. IOW, Jefferson23 will neither confirm or deny that his position is for Egypt...

...to do nothing to help alleviate suffering in Gaza.

Neither will he confirm or deny that his position is for nationalism trumping civil and human rights in Gaza and the West Bank.

Of course it's pretty obvious what his position is on both issues.

:eyes:

[Jefferson23]

70. see post # 32. n/t

[Jefferson23]

69. This response is yours pelsar, not mine..that was my point.

I can't list a single limitation as they DO NOT all hinge on aid coming into Gaza..which you seem to believe is the answer to Israel's
responsibility. To build an economy, much more is necessary.

You: the quartet and the US know that egypt will not check for rockets and other military hardware if they open their doors, at least not as diligently as israel does. They too do not want an armed hamas, hence there is no pressure from them on Egypt.
but that should have no impression on someone who's sole concern is the welfare of the gazans and their nutrition levels as you claim to be.

You imagine you know what my sole concerns are, they begin with the United States putting pressure on the Israeli government to end
settlements, end the blockade..there needs to be much more than aid, the report highlights this very well what needs to be done.


You don't agree, fine. Telling me how I value or not the Palestinians, you're way out of line.

[pelsar]

72. of course its my response....you're vague at best.

To build an economy, much more is necessary.

really? like what?......if the gazans have free trade/increased trade coming out of egypt, as far as i can tell, the only limitation to a better economy is hamas governing style...and that has nothing to do with israel.

The OP was about the gaza prison and its poor health, despite your claiming that opening the border to egypt won't help, you have neglected to explain exactly why not.


and yes i still claim you prefer to have political pressure on israel at the expense of the Palestinians welfare ....you reject the option of them expanding their independence via egypt...with vague claims of "it won't help"

I can't list a single limitation as they DO NOT all hinge on aid coming into Gaza
well you can't list and you can't explain,....

It appears to me, you agree with the arab regimes that feel if the Palestinians have a good life, they will "forget" that the jews stole their land, and will no longer be willing to fight and die for it, correct the injustice, its beginning to look more and more like that.

[Jefferson23]

73. Your problem is that you don't accept any answer than the one you prefer.

Your conjecture is just that, yours. You don't like my response, too bad.

Vague? No. You don't agree there is information within the report to support WHY Gazan's need more than aid via Egypt.

That would be your hard luck.

on edit/grammar

[pelsar]

79. i dont understand your answers..i can't find them

as far as i understand.....you send me to read links to articles that are not directly related to the answer, and you claim they have the answer-which i don't find.

then you make some vague statements about the answer, that i attempt to clarify to understand how that fits the actual problems/solutions....and i get nothing.

so, after giving it some thought as to why you can't answer the questions clearly and directly, i figure you have a reason, and i come up with my own conclusion based on such statements of yours

and then you write (which i have learned is a standard for avoiding answering anything directly) is that you have already answered and that i don't like your answer, when in fact i simply don't find your answer


A short summery:

so far i have had two main questions, one, you answered after about 10 posts.....

First you claimed there were limitations of what egypt could offer.
after many many attempts by me, you finally answered that there are in fact no physical limitations (as far as i understood your answer), but then you added there is something else that they can't supply that restricts the gazans ability to improve their economic situation

i asked you what it is.......and you send me back to a report.

i have a suggestion, since your claiming that there is something else, perhaps you can actually write it out? or is there a problem with that?

[shira]

20. FTR, the motivation behind suicide bombing is not understandable....

Not unless it's understandable to kill random Jews for occupying since 1948 even an inch of Israeli land.

[Jefferson23]

23. I'm not responsible for your inabilities. n/t

[shira]

30. No sense pretending suicide bombing is based on the '67 occupation only....

....and therefore 'understandable'.

[Jefferson23]

32. I'm not pretending you understand, you are doing that quite well all by yourself. n/t

[shira]

48. IOW, you got nothing substantive. Just condescension and ridicule. Lame. n/t

[Jefferson23]

53. I'm not responsible for what you ask for. n/t

[barb162]

4. Take a look at a map and you'll notice Egypt next door as a way out.

Some of the shopping malls in Gaza look pretty ritzy. I wonder why they are built in the midst of so much poverty. Hint: There's nowhere near as much poverty as you'd like to portray. Pelestinian income is far higher than that of many other countries in the Mideast. Please get off the inaccurate soapbox.

LUXURY and WEALTH abound in Gaza and the Palestinian territory SHOPPING MALL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLzO129Fw-c

Roots - a luxury Palestinian restaurant in GAZA, inside look into the PRISON of Gaza.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=2XoGaJiPsVg

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

15. I check out the visd about the shopping mall and people should check out the guy who posted it too

who's youtube channel starts with the logo Islam=TERRORISM his personal introduction vid is quite umm well words escape but it should be watched it kind of gives a fell for the opinions that we're dealing with here

link to the guys channel page

http://www.youtube.com/user/IslamEthics

[Jefferson23]

17. lol. n/t

[azurnoir]

44. Hi Barb nice to see you back after a long absence from this forum

the mall and such are kind of old news around here though

[King_David]

59. 'the mall and such are kind of old news around here though '

I got a feeling she is up to date on Israel happenings and does not rely on DU for this info.She is within the community and has brothers sisters aunts uncles nephews and nieces ther.
That is the same for most of us here in this forum and the community.

[azurnoir]

60. The youtube videos were from 7/10 and 4/11 when the stories were first reported

both here and in the media oh BTW what did you think of the the youtube channel that the video about the mall was posted on the one called IslamEthics?

BTW I think that someone 'forgot; about the luxury hotel in Gaza

[henank]

6. What 63 year occupation?

the real issues demanding attention centre upon Israel's 63-year belligerent occupation,

Since when is the occupation 63 years old? 63 years are the length of Israel's entire existence - in which case the writer is opposed to Israel's very existence, and using the word "occupation" is just a euphemism for the wish to have Israel destroyed.

[shira]

7. If Abbas can get away with saying it, why not everyone else? They're not even trying to pretend...

...anymore that the goal is 2 states.

(Abbas) "We want to legitimize ourselves. We are going to complain that as Palestinians we have been under occupation for 63 years"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/world/middleeast/06palestinians.html

[Shaktimaan]

46. that's different.

Abbas didn't say it was solely Israel's occupation. They HAVE been under occupation for 63 years, after all.

[King_David]

10. The whole article is a load of CRAP nt

[Mosby]

18. Exactly - but people here don't want to talk about these pesky little facts.

[shira]

21. The half-truths, lies, omissions, etc... are intentional. They can't and won't defend that. n/t

[Jefferson23]

24. They are referring to the 63 year anniversary of the Nakba. n/t

[aranthus]

26. Talk about turning a blind eye to unpleasant truths.

They mean the 63 year occupation of Tel Aviv, Haifa, West Jerusalem etc. I don't understand how you can pull the Nakba out of what they are saying, but even if that were true, the Nakba refers in part to the 63 year occupation of Tel Aviv, Haifa, West Jerusalem etc. No wonder these people don't have to hide what they mean anymore.

[Jefferson23]

28. The 63 years is not about the anniversary, it is just a coincidence?

What do you think they mean aranthus.

[aranthus]

33. They didn't say 63 year anniversary.

They said 63 year occupation. That's not so secret code for Israel, which was created 63 years ago. They think that all of Israel is their occupied land. They think Israel is the injustice that has to be rectified. Palestinians have been saying these things for 63 years. You think all of a sudden they mean something different?

[Jefferson23]

35. I doubt anything I say will change your mind yet, here goes:

63 years ago represents the creation of Israel, the beginning of misery..one way or the other, even before the
occupation of 40 odd years began from their perspective...it was so different for them in the interim?

When Israel was created, where did that leave the Palestinians?

Why do they hold the Nakba anniversary? They want Israel destroyed is the answer for you, they need to be pleased about the past in order
to work for a peace agreement?

I think you confuse their frustrations with nothing changing for them with their remembrance of the catastrophe to mean the majority
desire an end to Israel.

[oberliner]

36. "Israel's 63-year belligerent occupation"

You are reading things that aren't there.

The above quotation is taking directly from the article.

Your pontifications do not match with what the author is actually stating.

Which is that all of what is now Israel is actually occupied Palestine.

63-year belligerent occupation.

Gaza and the West Bank weren't occupied by Israel 63 years ago.

[aranthus]

39. But they have been saying the same thing for decades.

I do not understand how you read frustration into, "Israel's 63-year belligerent occupation," which is what the authors actually wrote. Gaza hasn't been occupied for 63 years. The West Bank wasn't occupied for 63 years. The only land that has been "occupied" for 63 years is Israel proper. What else can they be writing about? Sure the Palestinians are frustrated with the situation. You think that the Israelis aren't?

When Israel was created, where did that leave the Palestinians? It left them with a choice. They could have chosen to accept the UN Partition as it was mapped out. They could have chosen to accept a Jewish state, and asked to negotiate more reasonable boundaries. If what they really wanted was a state of their own, they could have chosen anything, but the one thing they did. They chose war. Not because there were any refugees, because there weren't any. Not because the Jews had stolen their land, because there hadn't been any forcible taking of land. Not because they weren't going to get a state of their own, because the Partition Plan provided for one for them. They chose war in order to prevent the creation of a Jewish state, even if it was on land that they did not own. One consistent theme in Palestinian thought ever since is that Israel is illegitimate. That's the meaning of, "Israel's 63-year belligerent occupation." The Palestinians may be frustrated with losing the war, but that doesn't mean that they have given up on their reason for fighting it.

[Jefferson23]

51. As I asked earlier, this is a coincidence they are stating 63 years

and that it is the 63 year anniversary? Why I refer to their frustration is that it exists, that you believe
their meaning behind the statement is something else..I don't think so.


With that said, the focus of the OP is on Gaza, and the conditions there, despite the eased opening through Egypt.



Also, a comment on your on the partition plan that was rejected and a bit of the history going back to
what was planned for the Palestinians.

snip* AMY GOODMAN: How was it that for so many years the Zionist narrative was that there were either no Palestinians — it was an empty land — or the Palestinians left of their own accord?


BENNY MORRIS: These are different subjects, but I think the Zionists preferred not to see the 500,000-or-so natives who were there, as they regarded them at the end of the nineteenth century, because if they had sort of looked at them and they’d have seen the problem of what do you do with 500,000 people who don’t want you to arrive and settle in your — in what they regarded as their land, this would have knocked out the confidence from the Zionists and undermined their enterprise. It was better to see that the — to believe that the land was in some way empty. But if you look at the actual Zionist documentation, they did see the Arabs, and they knew there was a problem almost from the start.


When it comes to the Palestinian so-called — most of them so-called refugees or the displaced of ’48 — look, political movements, peoples like to feel good about themselves and to feel that their cause is just. My belief is the cause, the Zionist cause, was just, and they had good reasons to believe — to see themselves as good. But every war has its dark side, especially civil wars, which are notably vicious. And ’48 also had a dark side, which involved the displacement of 700,000 people and the decision by the Israeli government — and this is the crucial decision — there was never a decision to expel, but there was a decision not to allow back the refugees. And this, in some ways, is a dark side to the ’48 war, which was a glorious war of the creation of the state of Israel; the defeat of larger armies, ultimately larger countries, by a small and weak community. But they preferred not to look at the dark side.


AMY GOODMAN: Saree Makdisi, I wanted to bring you in, a professor at UCLA joining us from Los Angeles. Your response to Benny Morris?


SAREE MAKDISI: Well, I mean, I think the most interesting thing is the way in which Dr. Morris talks about there being a problem way before 1948, and he’s entirely right. When the Zionist movement decided to create a Jewish homeland or a Jewish state in a land that had a largely non-Jewish population at the beginning of the twentieth century, there was in fact a problem. He’s totally right. So the question is, as he puts it in his own work, what do you do with this big population that doesn’t want there to be a state that displaces them or ignores them or sidesteps them or overshadows them or whatever? And as his own research shows and as the research of other historians shows, from the — at least the mid-1930s on, there’s talk of removing the population.


And that goes on to this very day in different forms. I mean, for example, there are people in Israel itself in Israeli politics to this very day, both within Israel proper and in the Occupied Territories, who talk about completing the process of transfer, of removal, of 1948.


And as he also says, the other thing is that, irrespective of what language one uses — and notice how candy one can be with the use of language: are they “refugees”? Are they “displaced persons”? It doesn’t really matter what language one uses; the people who were removed from their homes, that’s what matters. And as he says himself in what he just said now, what matters isn’t so much that they were removed from their homes, it’s that they were never allowed back to their homes. So whatever the circumstances of the removals and expulsions of 1948, the more important fact is, that was seen as something — as an issue forty years previously, if not longer before that, and as an issue to be blocked when they decided — when they wanted to go back to their homes after the fighting stopped. And they’ve never been allowed to go back, as you know, despite their moral and legal right to do so. That’s what this is all about.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/16/as_israelis_celebrate_independence_and_palestinians

discussion of partition plan:

snip*Morris: But the fact is — and this is something most Arab commentators ignore or don’t tell us — the Palestinians rejected the UN partition resolution; the Jews accepted it. They accepted the possibility of dividing the country into two states, with one Arab state and a Jewish state. And the Jewish state, which was to come into being in 1947-48, according to the United Nations, was to have had an Arab population of 400,000 to 500,000 and a Jewish population of slightly more than 500,000. That was what was supposed to come into being, and that is what the Zionist movement accepted. When the Arabs rejected it and went to war against the Jewish community, it left the Jewish community no choice. It could either lose the war and be pushed into the sea, or ultimately push out the Arab minority in their midst who wanted to kill them. It’s an act of self-defense, and that’s what happened.


My facts in any —- in all my books have not changed at all. They’re all there. But one has to look at also the context in which things happened, and this was the context: an expulsionist mentality, an expulsionist onslaught on the Jewish community in Palestine by Palestine’s Arabs and by the invading Arab armies, and a Jewish self-defense, which involved also pushing out large numbers of Palestinians.


AMY GOODMAN: Saree Makdisi, this issue of the acceptance of the partition, can you take it from there?


SAREE MAKDISI: Yeah. I mean, there are several things about it. For one thing, as Dr. Morris points out, it’s true that the mainstream Zionist movement accepted the partition plan. But on the other hand, as his own historical record shows, Ben-Gurion and others were very frank that the acceptance was meant to be tactical rather than sort of, you know, whole-hearted. So the idea was to accept and then go from there, not just to accept and then really settle down into the two states as envisaged by the UN partition plan.


Meanwhile, the Arab rejection of the plan had to do with the fact that basically they were—- the Palestinians and Arabs were being told that they should become a minority in their own land. That’s what this is fundamentally all about, as well. So, the question is, which viewers have to contemplate is, what would they do if somebody came and told them that they should either become a minority in their own homeland — that is, second-class citizens — or be removed from their homeland? And I think almost anybody would say this is an unreasonable proposition. So, again, it comes back to the question of, what would you do in this situation?


But more than that, I think what’s important to ask Dr. Morris, as long as we have him with us, is: when you talk about — Dr. Morris, when you talk about the events of 1948 in that famous interview with Haaretz in 2004, you say quite clearly that ethnic cleansing is justified and that the main problem, as far as you see it — then, anyway — was that Ben-Gurion didn’t go far enough in completing the ethnic cleansing, that he should have removed as much as possible of the non-Jewish population all the way to the Jordan River. So my question to you is, is this still a position that you hold? Do you still think it was justified? Do you still think that Ben-Gurion should have finished the job? And do you think still that in some ways that is the origin of the conflict as it persists to this day?


BENNY MORRIS: My point in the Haaretz interview, and I repeat it since then, is that a Jewish state could not have arisen with a vast Arab minority — 40, almost 50, percent of its population being Arabs — which opposed the existence of that Jewish state and opposed their being a large minority in that state. And they went and they showed that by going to war against the Jewish state, which left the Jews in an intolerable position: either they give in and don’t get a state, or they fight back and in fighting back end up pushing out Arabs.


My point also was that had — and this is really the point, and I think you would agree with it and understand it perhaps on the logical plane, if not on the emotional plane — had the war ended, the 1948 war ended with all the Palestinian population being moved — moving, it doesn’t matter how — across the Jordan River and there establishing their state in Jordan, across the river, a Palestinian Arab state, and had the Jews had their state without or without a large Arab minority on the west bank of the Jordan River, between the river and the Mediterranean Sea, the history of the Middle East, the history of Israel-Palestine, the history of the Palestinians and of the Jews, would have been much better over the past sixty years. Since ’48, all we’ve had is terrorism, clashes, wars, and so on, all of which have caused vast suffering to both peoples. And had this separation of populations occurred in 1948, I’m sure the Middle East would have enjoyed, and both peoples would have enjoyed, a much better future since 1948.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/16/as_israelis_celebrate_independence_and_palestinians

[aranthus]

67. Are you suggesting that Saree Makdisi represents mainstream Palestinian opinion?

As to whether the 63 years is a coincidence. No, of course it's not. The creation of Israel and the first of the Palestinian war losses occurred at about the same time. Also, there is much in what at least some Palestinians say to suggest that they believe that the real "Nakba" was Israel's creation, or at least that Israel's creation was the cause of the Nakba (as opposed to the war against Israel that the Palestinians started). In any event, the issue here is what these authors meant by 63-year occupation? There is nothing in what they wrote to suggest that they meant the anniversary of the Nakba. They never use the word. The second important question is whether the thinking that they evidence is the Palestinian mainstream or not.

[Jefferson23]

71. True, and why I have asked, is it not a coincidence, the nakba.

I replied to another poster who shares your opinion, that Abbas recently framed a statement as such, with no mention
of the nabka specifically..no comment reflecting alarm that I'm aware of was issued by the Israeli government expressing any concern.

Saree Makdisi does not need to be mainstream aranthus, needing to substantiate well what you claim is more to the point.

If I relied on MSM Tv land about the Iraq war, as well as domestic issues in the U.S., I'd probably have supported
the war and never learned about details of the fraud of Wall Street, the fraud that comes from the health insurance industry...among other issues.



I am not saying it is impossible for you to be wrong about the authors intent, clearly, they do not mention the anniversary.
I just find it more open to the anniversary, as they make no worded gesture to suggest it is about going back to the '48 borders.

[aranthus]

74. Yes, Nakba and the desire to destroy Israel are related.

However, in the case of this article, the authors only mentioned "Israel's 63-year belligerent occupation". Not only is the statement false, it's inconsistent with accepting Israel at all. The reasonable interpretation of that specific phrase is that they mean the occupation of Tel Aviv and Haifa, as Israel proper is the only area that Israel has occupied for 63 years. Palestinians have been talking about the occupation of Palestine since well before 1967. they always meant Israel proper in the past, and I don't see any reason to think that the code has changed. It is really a stretch to think that they mean the Nakba, when they don't even mention it.

Now contrast that with what Abbas wrote in the New York Times, and which you have referred to. He claimed that the Palestinians have been occupied for 63 years. Not only is that specific statement true, but it is not inconsistent with an Israel. The reason is that Abbas didn't say that the Palestinians had been occupied by Israel for 63 years. In fact, in the early years, they were occupied by the Egyptians and Jordanians, who were the real architects of the destruction of the proposed Palestinian state. The very different nature of what Abbas said from these authors may explain why the Israelis didn't officially raise a fuss.

You state, Saree Makdisi does not need to be mainstream aranthus, needing to substantiate well what you claim is more to the point.

First, I think that I have substantiated what I have asserted. Second, perhaps I wasn't clear in my question about Makdisi. What I was trying to get at was whether you thought he represented the majority or normative opinion of Palestinians. The reason that I asked is that you seem to be citing him to support the idea that the subject authors aren't being as rejectionist as I think. The thing is that Makdisi is about as rejectionist as they come, so it's a little odd that you cite him to make that point (if that's what you were trying to do). Personally, I hope Makdisi is nowhere near the mainstream of Palestinians' thought. If he is, peace is worse than an illusion.

[Jefferson23]

75. Makdisi is cited for the info given through the exchange with Morris, regarding

the UN partition plan you mentioned. I was not referring to your opinion about the authors ( 63 years belligerent...)comment, but to the discussion that took place at Democracy Now.

And no, I did not use the interview to support anything to do with the 63 year occupation comment it was entirely separate.


Raji Sourani, one of the authors of the OP. I don't see his work suggesting anything about '48 borders, the other gentleman is a psychiatrist...I don't know if he writes frequently or not..didn't research him.

Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights

http://www.rfkcenter.org/search/node/Raji%20Sourani


Abbas: We don't want to delegitimize Israel," Abbas tells his guests. "We want to legitimize ourselves. We are going to complain that as Palestinians we have been under occupation for 63 years".

Your suggesting Abbas would have received a mention from the Israeli government if he had not added those qualifiers? Because he was not
speaking of only Gaza?


"The real issues demanding attention centre upon Israel's 63-year belligerent occupation, and the routine violations of international law perpetrated by the occupation forces."

I don't know aranthus about the OP speaking in codes, I'm not saying they don't exist, they certainly do..I'm just not convinced they're using one.

Makdisi, what is he rejecting exactly?

[aranthus]

76. Makdisi is an anti-Israel rejectionist.

I am not refrerring necessarily to the Democracy Now interview. He's printed occaisionally in the the LA Times, and the UCLA Bruin. He wants it all. Full right of Return and Israel gone.

[Jefferson23]

77. He supports a one state solution and he writes why too.

He has given up on the two state, that is an exclusive opinion..no, it is not. The Palestinians worry about having a viable state..it does not appear he always thought this was the best solution, no? Is he a rejectionist on principle or does he simply hold no hope?

I don't see anything by him here about full right of return..maybe he writes that opinion elsewhere.



Look at his reasoning:





Forget the two-state solution
Israelis and Palestinians must share the land. Equally.

There is no longer a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Forget the endless arguments about who offered what and who spurned whom and whether the Oslo peace process died when Yasser Arafat walked away from the bargaining table or whether it was Ariel Sharon's stroll through the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem that did it in.

All that matters are the facts on the ground, of which the most important is that -- after four decades of intensive Jewish settlement in the Palestinian territories it occupied during the 1967 war -- Israel has irreversibly cemented its grip on the land on which a Palestinian state might have been created.

Sixty years after Israel was created and Palestine was destroyed, then, we are back to where we started: Two populations inhabiting one piece of land. And if the land cannot be divided, it must be shared. Equally.

This is a position, I realize, which may take many Americans by surprise. After years of pursuing a two-state solution, and feeling perhaps that the conflict had nearly been solved, it's hard to give up the idea as unworkable.

But unworkable it is. A report published last summer by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs found that almost 40% of the West Bank is now taken up by Israeli infrastructure -- roads, settlements, military bases and so on -- largely off-limits to Palestinians. Israel has methodically broken the remainder of the territory into dozens of enclaves separated from each other and the outside world by zones that it alone controls (including, at last count, 612 checkpoints and roadblocks).

Moreover, according to the report, the Jewish settler population in the occupied territories, already approaching half a million, not only continues to grow but is growing at a rate three times greater than the rate of Israel's population increase. If the current rate continues, the settler population will double to almost 1 million people in just 12 years. Many are heavily armed and ideologically driven, unlikely to walk away voluntarily from the land they have declared to be their God-given home.

These facts alone render the status of the peace process academic.

At no time since the negotiations began in the early 1990s has Israel significantly suspended the settlement process in the occupied Palestinian territories, in stark violation of international law. It preceded last November's Annapolis summit by announcing the fresh expropriation of Palestinian property in the West Bank; it followed the summit by announcing the expansion of its Har Homa settlement by an additional 307 housing units; and it has announced plans for hundreds more in other settlements since then.

The Israelis are not settling the occupied territories because they lack space in Israel itself. They are settling the land because of a long-standing belief that Jews are entitled to it simply by virtue of being Jewish. "The land of Israel belongs to the nation of Israel and only to the nation of Israel," declares Moledet, one of the parties in the National Union bloc, which has a significant presence in the Israeli parliament.

Moledet's position is not as far removed from that of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as some Israelis claim. Although Olmert says he believes in theory that Israel should give up those parts of the West Bank and Gaza densely inhabited by Palestinians, he also said in 2006 that "every hill in Samaria and every valley in Judea is part of our historic homeland" and that "we firmly stand by the historic right of the people of Israel to the entire land of Israel."

Judea and Samaria: These ancient biblical terms are still used by Israeli officials to refer to the West Bank. More than 10 years after the initiation of the Oslo peace process, which was supposed to lead to a two-state solution, maps in Israeli textbooks continued to show not the West Bank but Judea and Samaria -- and not as occupied territories but as integral parts of Israel.

What room is there for the Palestinians in this vision of Jewish entitlement to the land? None. They are regarded, at best, as a demographic "problem."

The idea of Palestinians as a "problem" is hardly new. Israel was created as a Jewish state in 1948 only by the premeditated and forcible removal of as much of the indigenous Palestinian population as possible, in what Palestinians call the Nakba, or catastrophe, which they commemorate this week.

A Jewish state, says Israeli historian Benny Morris, "would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. ... There was no choice but to expel that population." For Morris, this was one of those "circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing."

Thinking of Palestinians as a "problem" to be removed predates 1948. It was there from the moment the Zionist movement set into motion the project to make a Jewish state in a land that, in 1917 -- when the British empire officially endorsed Zionism -- had an overwhelmingly non-Jewish population. The only Jewish member of the British government at the time, Edwin Montagu, vehemently opposed the Zionist project as unjust. Henry King and Charles Crane, dispatched on a fact-finding mission to Palestine by President Wilson, concurred: Such a project would require enormous violence, they warned: "Decisions, requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of a serious injustice."

But they were. This is a conflict driven from its origins by Zionism's exclusive sense of entitlement to the land. Has there been Palestinian violence as well? Yes. Is it always justified? No. But what would you do if someone told you that there was no room for you on your own land, that your very existence is a "problem"? No people in history has ever gone away just because another people wanted them to, and the sentiments of Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull live on among Palestinians to this day.

The violence will end, and a just peace will come, only when each side realizes that the other is there to stay. Many Palestinians have accepted this premise, and an increasing number are willing to give up on the idea of an independent Palestinian state and embrace instead the concept of a single democratic, secular and multicultural state, which they would share equally with Israeli Jews.


Most Israelis are not yet reconciled this position. Some, no doubt, are reluctant to give up on the idea of a "Jewish state," to acknowledge the reality that Israel has never been exclusively Jewish, and that, from the start, the idea of privileging members of one group over all other citizens has been fundamentally undemocratic and unfair.

Yet that is exactly what Israel does. Even among its citizens, Israeli law grants rights to Jews that it denies to non-Jews. By no stretch of the imagination is Israel a genuine democracy: It is an ethno-religiously exclusive state that has tried to defy the multicultural history of the land on which it was founded.

To resolve the conflict with the Palestinians, Israeli Jews will have to relinquish their exclusive privileges and acknowledge the right of return of Palestinians expelled from their homes. What they would get in return is the ability to live securely and to prosper with -- rather than continuing to battle against -- the Palestinians.

They may not have a choice. As Olmert himself warned recently, more Palestinians are shifting their struggle from one for an independent state to a South African-style struggle that demands equal rights for all citizens, irrespective of religion, in a single state. "That is, of course," he noted, "a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle -- and ultimately a much more powerful one."

I couldn't agree more.

Saree Makdisi is a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA and the author of "Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation," out this month from W.W. Norton.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-makdisi11-2008may11,0,7862060.story


on edit for clarity and to add link.

[aranthus]

78. Fine. So let's say that he's a one state anti-Israel rejectionist,

though I seem to remember him wanting right of return in some of the Times and Bruin articles. Either way, nothing that he wants is the path to peace. The cause of this war from day one has been Palestinian rejection of the Jews' right to a state of their own. Whether they now want to end Israel's existence by right return or by creating one Arab majority state, they are still rejecting the Jewish people's right to a state. Makdisi and his ilk haven't changed in over 60 years. Until there is a real change in Palestinian thinking, then there won't ever be peace. You write about the Palestinians being frustrated, and i mentioned that the Israelis are frustrated too. Well one of the things that they are frustrated about is that apparently, Palestinian hostility to the Jewish state's existence hasn't abated one iota, and all of their supposed protestations of peaceful intent may be just so much air. That's why I hope that Makdisi thoughts aren't held by most Palestinians. If they are, it means nothing has changed, and nothing may ever change.

[Shaktimaan]

45. Nakba anniversary?

Where does it mention that?

Sorry dude. It says "Israel's 63-year belligerent occupation" not Nakba anniversary.

When Israel was created, where did that leave the Palestinians?

Basically fucked, however that is hardly Israel's fault. The Palestinians started a civil war, lost and then lost the remaining land to their supposed allies, Egypt and Jordan. Which indicates that without Israel's creation, the Palestinians would have lost 100% of Palestine to its neighbors anyway. The only opportunity for a Palestinian state was always through Israel.

Incidentally, the Palestinians who remained in Israel did very well for themselves comparatively. It could have been this way for all of them.

[Jefferson23]

55. So it is not a coincidence, 63 years ago this year..the Nabka?

True that Palestinians living in Israel did better, comparatively, in a measured way, yes. Could have been this way for all of them? No.

snip* Raul Hillberg.

Would you like to be an Arab citizen in Israel? Think of the doors that are closed. You may eat better and have a better income than if you lived in a slum in Cairo. The great irony is that the economic condition of Israeli Arabs is considerably better than the proletariat in some other Arab countries, but a person needs something more. A person needs a feeling of dignity. Think of the security check points. It is a life that certainly something ought to be done about it in one way or another. This particular battle cannot be fought forever. It cannot be. The Israelis will tire of it. The Israelis will simply tire of mistrusting people. It is not possible to go on this way forever.
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_6.1-2/hilberg.htm

On the war, there is sharp disagreement with your statement:

Jerome McDonnell: Norman Finkelstein is Assistant Professor of Political Science at DePaul and is the author of Beyond Chutzpah: on the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. And I’ll talk with him towards the end of the hour about the very public debate over his tenure bid at DePaul but we’ll spend most of our time today with the Six Day War. And Norman Finkelstein told me about the build up to the war.

Norman Finkelstein: In order to understand the biuld up to the war the best place to begin is November, 1966. There was an Israeli retaliatory, as they call it, attack on a Jordanian village called Samu. In the course of this attack on Samu they blew up around 125 buildings and killed a large number of Jordanian soldiers.

When that attack happened the Jordanians and also the Syrians began to attack Nasser for not coming to their defense. Here was this Egyptian president claiming to be the leader of Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism and he was doing nothing. Nasser was being taunted for his, as it were, impotence in the face of Israeli aggression.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkelstein-on-the-june-1967-war/

[Shaktimaan]

66. A coincidence?

No, it's not a coincidence at all. In 48 during Israel's Independende celebration the Palestinians started their civil War with the Israelis. After the two subsequent wars ended and the dus settled, Israel had considerably more land than before. Most people just consider this land to be Israel proper. But not everyone. Plenty of people see Palestine as having been under occupation since 1948. Hardcore anti-occupations peeps want Israel behind the 48 borders. pronto. Real nuts like Hamas want to eradicate the Jews altogether. Those who gravitate towards the refugees tenmd to see them as more critical to the peace process, and demand full or partial ROR for Palestimians to Israel.

SO...THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES!!!! But notice, they happened at the same time!!!!!!!
Yes the Nakba happened 63 years ago. But Israel also gained its independence 63 years ago, thus claiming the majority of Palestine for itself.

There's nothing wrong with your nakba idea. It just has no application to this instance. He was VERY clear. De NEVER mentioned the nakba.

Pursue this issue at your leisure, but I warn you... you are about to lose any tiny micron, any small, invisible scrap, any shopworn modicum of credibilty here.

[Jefferson23]

68. I have no concern of my credibility, it does not hinge on what you accept

or not, it is my opinion. An opinion that the authors, true, do not mention the nakba. I am not
convinced they are suggesting anything more than that. If they spoke more specifically to the quest of Israel behind
the '48 borders, I would think they would do so. The OP's focus is on the conditions of Gaza.

For example, Abbas recently framed a statement with a similar reference and without mentioning the nabka too, you may believe
he is referring to the same quest..he did not receive any uproar from Bib over it btw.

[King_David]

41. Nope

The say what they mean clearly. No need for YOUR further interpretation.
You do not possess special interpretive talents on translating what the say loud and clear/zeh baroor.

They meant 63 years of occupying Tel Aviv and Raananah and ....

[King_David]

42. The whole article is discredited

Piece of shit journalism /inaccurate opinion.

[pelsar]

80. seems hamas disagrees......

One thing about the religious fanatics, they have no interest in playing the 'victim"...seems hamas disagrees with aljazzera and all of those who wasted so much bandwidth defending the article.......

The GDP in the Gaza Strip has increased more than 30% compared to last year, unemployment rate is lowest recorded in past 10 years.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=54733

Gaza gets new luxury hotel
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4096055,00.html

Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh says that things are going well.
 
"We have emerged from the siege stage and are now at the development and construction stage," he said. "We have no problem obtaining cement, iron and other construction materials. The storehouses in Gaza are full – we received everything through the tunnels."
 

Indeed, this summer marks the start of a new fashion in Gaza: Renting out rooms on the beach. Such a room will cost a family about NIS 1,400 (about $405) a day, and the demand is high.

_____

hamas just shot down all those claims that gaza cant improve its economy because of israel...reminds me of how israel controlled the egyptian border, until it became almost absurd to keep on claming that (though i 'm sure some still believe it)....

[Jefferson23]

81. They're desperate to convince their constituents they've done a good job.

Change the Palestinians can believe in..where did I hear that political slogan before?

[pelsar]

83. did hamas just ruin another "its israels fault" theory?

how did it go, what was that theory: that unless israel opens its borders then gaza will forever remain hopeless. One thing about hamas, is that they certainly do believe in their own abilities...unlike much of their pseudo friends in the west.

damn that insignificant egyptian border, it really ruined the "its all israels fault" meme,

with their second 5 start hotel built it seems that they can import anything they want, which means any shortages are merely poor governing on their part, nothing to do with israel.

now what can we blame israel for in terms of gaza?.....if their economy improves, the employment rate drops, exports increase, who's going to complain that they have a theocratic regime that is anti western anti civil rights, anti women's rights?......nobody that i know thats for sure.
_____

what i really have come to believe and its all come out of israel leaving gaza (remember the mantra? israel has to remove some settlers, destroy some settlements to show "good faith, break the cycle...)

its not about settlements, social issues, its about keeping the Palestinians as victims so one can continually blame israel for its original sin....that of returning to the land, creating a democracy and refusing to 'apologise" to the world for doing so. Thats why you can't accept the hamas has broken the taboo and is making gaza a better place. worse case scenario for you? they make an islamic club med/Singapore version out of gaza.

[Jefferson23]

84. An Islamic Club Med out of Gaza? That's a worse case scenario for me, so you say.

So for the sake of argument, Hamas creates this fun happening place, under your premise it is only outsiders like me who
would be denying this reality? Once Gaza is filled with 5 star hotels, the issues Westerners like me should do is concentrate
and complain about their main problem in your opinion, their theocratic regime..because Hamas in your opinion was elected based on that desire by the Palestinians. It had nothing to do with the corruption of the PA etc..is that correct?


You believe Israel's very existence is the problem, not the settlements, not the water crisis, nor the control of the air space,
no freedom of movement, the destruction of homes, minors taken and no due process applied, East Jerusalem and houses built without
permits, the separation barrier and international law should be disregarded on these matters..sovereignty and all that. What
about the West Bank? Settler violence the IDF ignores, OCL..what a blast that was..but nope, that couldn't have anything
much to do with the problem.


I thought is was Egypt you were certain was to be the saving grace here, now it is Hamas's ingenuity.

[shira]

82. In addition to GDP growth of 30%, unemployment in Gaza dropped to decade lows...

Employment

During Q2 of 2011, the unemployment rate dropped to its lowest rate in the
last decade, 25%. The number of employees in the construction sector grew by
4,500 people during Q2 of 2011.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=54733

I'm certain this comes as bad news to the pro-Palestinian crowd. Because good news for Palestinians equates to hasbara for Israel and that's bad. Better that Palestinians remain miserable.

Oh well, now that this lie has been exposed, onto the next lie. The demonization of Israel must continue...