News From Gaza

Status
Not open for further replies.
Billy there are over 500,000 Israeli settlers in illegal settlements in Palestinian territories. How does your plan account for them?...
And more construction was authorized just yesterday*. I do not have a simple answer. Perhaps they are given the choice or staying or moving back inside the well protected zone inside the 1967 borders, which are truly impenetrable due to the mine fields, attack trained dogs, and acoustic sensors that detect tunneling, etc. I.e. let those that chose to remain outside the defensive perimeter fend for themselves - it was their choice.

I readily admit I do not have all the answers, but I am trying to give Israel a secure future rather than extract vengeance.
-----------------------
*... The Israeli government approved construction of 200 new housing units in a West Bank Jewish settlement, drawing criticism from Palestinian negotiators who said it would hurt efforts to renew peace talks. The decision, which was made by the Housing Ministry with the agreement of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, enables builders in the Givat Ze'ev settlement north of Jerusalem to move ahead with a project that was frozen after getting initial approval in 2000. ..."
More details at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acwByrp1nYFo&refer=home
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. I don't like to worry much about the assignment of blame - there is plenty to go around for all. As far as who started action "Z" it was in retaliation for action "Y" which in turn was in retaliation for action "X" .... which in turn was retaliation for action "B" which clearly was provoked retaliation for action "A" which was... - Not enough letters to get back to the starting cause of this chain of violence, so I will just jump to the real cause:

Europe and US did not stop Hitler in time and were ashamed at the end of WWII so they gave the Zionist movement some land that they (mainly the British) administrated after the Ottoman Empire failed.

Again, lets look towards a solution, not the past. What do you think is Israel's future, under the high kill ratio collective punishment policy when aerosol Ebola is available?

I have years ago outlined what I think is needed, very specifically even telling the width in meters of the border mine field, where and how its acoustic sensors, should be, the fence heights to keep the attack trained killer dog out of the mine field. How the automatic counter battery artillery system and CIWS protecting border cities would work, etc. but you do not want to waste time trying to improve my plan for truly effective defenses. - Looking backwards and fixing blame is your concern (and that of the "Israel can only do wrong" posters also).

My plan surely can be improved, but one needs to accept its basic new goal - namely total defense of Israel without significant killing innocent people via total separation for a couple of generations until all on both sides, who like you, are so hate filled that they cannot think, have died peacefully of old age in their beds.

as i recall, the first time we talked-assigning blame was the first think you did.
then you claimed, without proof, im a paid propagandist. and at the last, you talked about past history of israel-unaware of many miners details.

today, you claim you care for israel. you accused me of personal attacks, instead of replying to your suggestions, and then of curse, you attacked me, personally, again, after which you said im blind out of hate, again, without any proof.

so first of all billy, let me tell you im the most cold blooded decision maker i have ever met. an i met quite a few.

second, now that we made the personal part clear ill address you post. the reason for this conflict, is not the palestinian condition. never was. there condition was even worse before israel, and during the egyptian rule, and jordan rule.

it is entirly ideological and religious. they see the rouge jews, from europe on what they consider their land. as you said, they have no problem sacrificing themselves, but not beacuse they are desperate, but out of their belief.

as i have stated many times, their intention is to exterminate us, whether it is by abola, anterax, or brute force i.e rockets, does not matter, since the only way to make them give up their "final solution" is by defeating them, not helping them. i base this on the events of the past 10 years, where financial help didnt solve the problem, only made it worse.

im sure, as someone who cares so much for israel, you will have no problem, if we act before they will use bio weapons against us, by any means we see fit.
 
To Mr. Spock (a few comments without quoting your post, but replying to it):

Yes I do blame Israel for some terrible things Israel has done - like the extermination of the Sinai/Negev Bedouin nation / way of life. In my earlier post on this I forgot to mention one of the more humane, but effective means that were employed. There are not jobs in the forced settlement camps and their locations were chosen for poor fertility of the desert soil. This forced many of the Bedouin men to take low pay jobs in Israeli cities so the birth rate of the Bedouins was greatly reduced (Israel controls their travel of course.) Also as you have never responded to my question as to why Israel rounded them up, destroyed their animals (or ate them) if it was not because Israel wanted their land for Israelis - I will tell you what Israel offers as the answer to this question: (Ironically it is the same reason Astralia’s new president just apologized to their aborigine peoples for.) "To educate the children." is why these people have essentially been exterminated now, at least as "desert Bedouins" - some of their genes are being assimilate in other Arab countries they were driven into.

As they say in the Deep South, where I grew up: "I don't have a dog in this fight." - meaning I have no reason to be biased for either side of the conflict. I am just made sad by it from a human POV. I also think that Israel and you in particular are not acting / advocating a policy that is in Israel’s best long term interest. Like the terrorists - you, IMHO, are more concerned with vengeance for the wrongs that have been done to your "dog in the fight." I think it a great tragedy - got off on the wrong foot from the start. If the Brits and other wanted to do something to ease their WWII guilt, THEY should have bought the land from the residents on which Israel was created - or something rather than just give away land to the Zionists that they only administrated, but did not own. It is really sad what has happened. The Jewish people love learning (as do I) I was "shick engle" (spelled phonetically) to the Rabbi's family* in Charleston W.Va. when they went on vacation in Canada. - God did I hope the fishing was bad Friday afternoon. - Only I could clean the fish if it was good and both boats stayed out as long as they could.

It all could have been so different. The well educated European Jews could have transformed the more primitive population (including the indigenous Jews) into a modern people - Religion is main reason why this did not happen. This conflict between the Jewish and Islamic is a sadder part of man's history than the Spanish inquisition, or the crusades, IMHO. OF course there were people, again on both sides, who found it convenient for their own power struggles to amplify this religious difference. One thing I have thought about without coming to any opinion at various times in my life is whether or not religion has been a net curse or blessing for mankind. - Still of no opinion. Certainly I can agree with you that the Islamic concept of martyr’s death reward has made this problem much worse.

I can also agree that most Palestinians (as many, but probably a smaller fraction of Jews) do now hope and pray to their god for the other side to drown in the sea or meet some similar fate. That said, I do not agree that these attitudes are unchangeable, but not so naive as (was it Norsefire?) to think those now alive can live together. -that will only IMHO be possible after a couple of generation of reasonable secure separate living in separate states. I bet there are still a few old American who still hate the "Japs" that need to die off before Japan will not be held responsible for WWII wrongs etc. (and conversely of course - the US did kill many very innocent people with two A-bombs)

Yes I do have a problem with Israel using biologic weapons on the Palestinians "in self defense." Fortunately, there is zero chance Israel would do this. Israelis have too much to lose as these weapons do not discriminate their victims by religious or political beliefs. I also believe it is in Israel's interest to make sure that the Palestinians also have too much to lose to do this when it is technically feasible for them to use infectous lethal aerosols agents, like Ebola, which have no cure or vaccine.

Summary: Given the sad state that now exists between these two cultures, I am strongly convinced that only a couple of generation of secure separation with viable economics will avoid a truly horrible mutual biological disaster for both. That is why I gave the matter some hours of thought and made my suggestion of how that might be achieved years ago.
-----------------
*I even once learned how to weave the strips of the "tiea fillian" thru my fingers to make the symbol for god. My best friend, the Rabbi's son, taught me while we were still in bed one morning after he had done his prayers - Amazing rapid speech - total incomprehensible, except to god. He is a Harvard graduated atheist - an MD -a professional pathologist now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To Mr. Spock (a few comments without quoting your post, but replying to it):

Yes I do blame Israel for some terrible things Israel has done - like the extermination of the Sinai/Negev Bedouin nation / way of life.

so blame.
 
BTW, as evidence of my skill in forecasting the future, I mentioned my old recomentation of TIPs in post 492. I initially recomended them for those too scared of ADRs when few though well of them. See how right I was at:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akJRTfj.dVGY&refer=home


The demand for TIPs is now so strong that these US bonds now effectively pay negative interest!

I have mentioned TIPs only a few times as I liked the ADRs of India and Brazil better. I did move most of my 401(b) assets into TIPS about a year ago (and told that in posts too) as the IRS bite would have been to great to cash out all at once.

I again tell you -the depression coming is now unavoidabel. -Why I will vote Republican - want the blame fixed correctly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the israelis did not reject the partition plan. i have no problem with a palestinian state, but the problem is that in the current situation, there are no conditions for peace. every territory we leave for the palestinians, they see it as one step closer to eliminate israel. its a religious belief probably, above all other things.

unfortunate as it sounds, we are headed for an all out war. and most israelis are fed up with giving their hand for peace, and only get bitten in the end. as do i.

Partitin Plan huh!?! Who gave the UN the right to divide a people's own land and give most of it to the occupiers?

Myth

Britain, unable and unwilling to continue its governance of Palestine, requested the United Nations to take steps to resolve the communal conflict between Palestinians and Zionists. In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly resolved, by a two-thirds majority, to endorse the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state (Resolution No. 181). Israel and its supporters say that the Palestinian rejection of the Partition Plan in 1947 was tantamount to their forfeiture of any future claim to Palestine.

Facts

First, the United Nations was not competent under international law to partition or otherwise dispose of the territory of Palestine against the wishes of the clear majority of its inhabitants. Although Palestine, in 1947, was still subject to a mandate that had legally terminated as a result of the dissolution of the League of Nations, it did not affect its statehood or the sovereignty of its people, so the question of its future government was a matter that fell exclusively within its own domestic jurisdiction and could not become subject to adjudication by the United Nations. The United Nations did not possess any sovereignty nor did it exercise any other right over Palestine. It therefore had no power to partition Palestine or to assign any part of its territory to a religious minority comprised mostly of recent European immigrants in order that they might establish a state of their own.

Second, the Partition Plan has no legal validity. The Partition Plan was adopted by the General Assembly, not the Security Council. Resolutions of the General Assembly have the force of recommendations to member states of the United Nations but do not have any mandatory force. Therefore, the General Assembly vote to accept the recommendations of UNSCOP to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state did not mean that one or another state was being created over the objections of one of the parties.

The partition plan also violated a very basic principle in international affairs: that of self-determination of peoples, recognised by Article 1 of the United Nations Charter. The carving-out of 55 percent of Palestine for the creation of a Jewish state and the subjection of part of the original inhabitants (who were not Jewish) to its dominion represents a blatant violation of this principle.

Third, the Partition Plan was neither just nor fair. The Partition Plan granted 55 percent of Palestine to the Jews, who at that time comprised only 30 percent of the population, and who owned a mere 6 percent of the land. Within this Jewish state were to have been 407,000 Palestinian Arabs. The Arab state was to comprise only the remaining 34 percent of the land. The major reason the Palestinians rejected the partition resolution was on the grounds of its lack of fairness: it proposed to give the minority population an exclusive and hegemonic right to the majority of the land.

In 1946, the total population of Palestine was 1,972,0000 inhabitants, comprising 1,247,000 Palestinians and 608,000 Jews, as well as 16,000 others (see UN Doc. A/AC 14/32, 11 November 1947, p. 304). The Jewish population was composed primarily of foreign-born immigrants, originating mostly from Poland, Russia and Central Europe. Only one third of these immigrants had acquired Palestinian citizenship (Government of Palestine, Statistical Abstract, 1944-1945, p. 42).

With respect to land ownership, it appears from the government of Palestine's Village Statistics that the Jews then owned 1,491 square kilometers (exclusive of urban property) out of a total of 26,323 square kilometers in Palestine (Appendix IV, to the Report of Sub-Committee 2, UN Doc. A/AC 14/32, 11 November 1947, p. 270.). Thus, Jewish land ownership amounted to 5.6 percent of the total area of the country. In contrast, the Palestinians owned the rest of Palestine, including all the areas that were categorised as public domain. Moreover, the territory allocated to the Jewish state included the coastal plain extending from Akka to Ashdod and other fertile lands, while the Palestinians, an agricultural people, were left mainly with mountainous and arid regions.

Israel's claim that since the Palestinians rejected the partition resolution it therefore has is a claim devoid of any legal foundations. The Palestinian refusal to accept the partition in no way confers upon Israel the right to aggravate a wrong. In other words, the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 could not take away the rights of the Palestinians nor enlarge the rights of the Jews. The United Nations itself affirmed this view when Israel was admitted to the UN by reaffirming its resolutions, which provided for the rights of the Palestinians, including UNGA 181 and UNGA 194.
 
and they were paid for that land, despite the arab propaganda machine.

In the 1948 war the Palestinians were largely defenceless, and sought to avoid getting caught in the fighting which broke out. A significant proportion of the Palestinian population was terrorized into leaving.

At first this was the result of threats, intimidation and acts of terror, in cities like Jaffa and Jerusalem, carried out by two Jewish terror organizations, IZL (Irgun Zvai Leumi) and LEHI (Lohamei Herut Israel). Of such acts the most notorious occurred on 9 April 1948 at the village of Deir Yassin on the western side of Jerusalem, when 120 villagers were killed. Deir Yassin had a devastating impact on Palestinian civilian morale, in the words of Israeli military intelligence,

"a decisive accelerating factor [to flight]"
(quoted in Benny Morris, 'The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defence Forces Intelligence Service Analysis of June 1948', Middle Eastern Studies, vol.xxii, no. 1, January 1986, p.9).

Deir Yassin has always been considered as an Irgun outrage, but the destruction of the village was approved by the Haganah.

There were also deliberate efforts to force the Palestinians to leave their homes. During the summer months of 1948 a decision was taken to prevent Palestinian villagers, both in the forward battle area and behind Jewish lines, from harvesting their summer and winter crops in 1948. Others were directly expelled. In July 1948 Jewish forces resolved to seize the two Palestinian towns of Lydda and Ramla. From the start, the operations against the two towns were designed to induce civilian panic and flight, and at least one of the four Jewish brigades was told:

"Flight from the town of Ramle of women, the old and children is to be facilitated. The males are to be detained"
(Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (Cambridge, 1987), p.28).

In Lydda fear led to panic, and many were shot down in what amounted to a large-scale massacre of probably 250-300 men, women and children after the town had surrendered.

When General Allon asked:

"What shall we do with the Arabs ?"

Ben-Gurion made a dismissive, energetic gesture with his hand and said:

"Expel them"
(Morris, p. 207).

Approximately 70,000 inhabitants of the two towns were then driven out, almost 10 percent of the refugee total.

Expulsions, sometimes accompanied by atrocities, became increasingly frequent in the mopping-up operations from late summer 1948 onwards, and increased the fearfulness of the Palestinian population. In the course of his research the Israeli historian Benny Morris found an Israeli Intelligence report that estimated that 70 percent of those who fled in the decisive period up to 1 June 1948 did so as a result of direct or nearby Jewish military or paramilitary action. In other words, they fled either because they were expelled or because they thought their lives were in immediate danger, not because they voluntarily 'abandoned' their homes. Furthermore, it was widely understood what was intended, and it took place under 'a coalition government whose policy, albeit undeclared and indirect, was to reduce as much as possible the Palestinian population which would be left in the country and to make sure that as few refugees as possible would return.

By 1948, the number of Palestinian refugees was estimated 780,000. Zionists claim that this figure is 520,000. Israel's Six Day War proved almost as great a disaster for the Palestinians as the 1948 war had been. Large numbers of Palestinians fled or were expelled from villages or refugeecamps, particularly those on the floor of the Jordan Valley where they could flee across the river. Altogether 355,000 Palestinians crossed to the East Bank, of whom 210,000 had not previously been refugees and were now described as 'displaced'. Of those displaced either during the 1967 war or immediately after it, only 15,000 were allowed to return, less than 5 percent of the total. By 1994, the 'displaced' of 1967 numbered an estimated 800,000. Once again, as in the period after the 1948 war, Israeli troops routinely shot civilians trying to return home.

Even after the armistice agreements of 1949, Israel continued to expel or coerce thousands of Palestinians into leaving, notably from the "Little Triangle", a strip of West Bank land ceded by Transjordan during negotiations, and in the south from Majdal ("Ahkelon") on the coast, to Faluja and Bir Saba. the environs of Hebron, and from the demilitarized zone east and north of the Sea of Galilee. In 1953 it expelled another 7,000 bedouin.

Only 17 percent of the Palestinian population, approximately 160,000 remained in what became Israel. What had just taken place was the second major case of ethnic cleansing in the post-war world.
...
 
You conveniently leave out the attacks on Jews by Arab mobs that preceeded the War of Independence by at least a decade.
 
You conveniently leave out the attacks on Jews by Arab mobs that preceeded the War of Independence by at least a decade.
What prompted this (assuming that it did indeed happen)? I.e.my question is why at that time, 10 or less years before creation of Israel, after centuries of I assume reasonably peaceful co habitation of the region as far as religious groups were concerned. - I am sure there were killings for centuries but suspect they were mainly within each growp as this is the normal case. - For example when two men want the same girl or are in drunken fight etc. both are usually within the same group.

What triggered the jewish / islamic struggle you speak of? When did the Zionist begin to call for the creation of Israel in the "holy land"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From 1922 through 1928 the relationship between Jews and Arabs in Palestine was relatively peaceful. However, in late 1928 a new phase of violence began with minor disputes between Jews and Arabs about the right of Jews to pray at the Western Wall (Kotel) in Jerusalem. These arguments led to an outbreak of Arab violence in August 1929 when Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, fomented Arab hatred by accusing the Jews of endangering the mosques and other sites holy to Islam. Observers heard Husseini issue the call: Itback al-Yahud "Slaughter the Jews!"

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_riots_1929.php
 
What triggered the jewish / islamic struggle you speak of? When did the Zionist begin to call for the creation of Israel in the "holy land"?

It was the news of the British signing the Balfour declaration in 1917 combined with immigration of Jews from Europe (which had been going on before this without raising any alarms from the late 1880s, in fact).

To assuage Arab apprehensions aroused by the revelation of the Sykes-Picot agreement by the Soviet Government after the 1917 revolution, and by certain conflicting statements of British policy (see sect. II below), further assurances followed concerning the future of Arab territories.

A special message (of 4 January 1918) from the British Government, carried personally by Commander David George Hogarth to Sherif Husain, stated that "the Entente Powers are determined that the Arab race shall be given full opportunity of once again forming a nation in the world ... So far as Palestine is concerned, we are determined that no people shall be subject to another". 3/

Six months after General Allenby's forces had occupied Jerusalem, another declaration, referring to "areas formerly under Ottoman dominion, occupied by the Allied Forces during the present war", announced "... the wish and desire of His Majesty's Government that the future government of these regions should be based upon the principle of the consent of the governed, and this policy has and will continue to have support of His Majesty's Government". 4/

In the following years the reports from the Mandatory Power were treated in a routine fashion. In 1929, however, the PMC expressed sharp criticism of the Shaw report on the "disturbances" that year, expressing the opinion that the violence arose from direct opposition to British policies that the Palestinian Arabs considered as a denial of their inherent natural rights.

"The Mandates Commission considers that the Palestine disorders cannot justly be regarded as an unexpected disturbance in the midst of political calm, like those sudden explosions of popular passion which have so often been witnessed in the East. They were preceded during the last four months of 1928 and in the early part of 1929 by a number of premonitory incidents which were usually connected with the Wailing Wall ...

"The conclusion, that the outbreak was not directed against British authority, seems to be expressed too categorically.

"Doubtless the Arab attacks were directed only against the Jews, but the resentment which caused the Arabs to commit these excesses was ultimately due to political disappointments which they attributed to the parties concerned in the mandate, and primarily to the British Government. All the declarations by persons and organizations representing the Arab section tend to emphasize the fact that the Arab movement was a movement of resistance to the policy of the Mandatory Power solely in its capacity as mandatory. This has never been more clearly stated than in a letter from the Palestinian Arab delegation, and in a telegram from the Arab Executive, both received by the members of the Permanent Mandates Commission during the extraordinary session. The first reads as follows:

"We believe that the main cause of the disturbances which have led to continual bloodshed in Palestine for the last 12 years is the persistence of the British Government in depriving the Arabs of their natural rights. We feel that there can be no security in future against the recurrence of disturbances such as those which have taken place, or perhaps of an even more serious nature, unless the British Government promptly and radically changes its policies ..." 115/

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/1c...aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument
 
Thanks to both SAM and spidergoat for given answers to my question as to cause of the pre-Israel riots, which it appears did mainly kill innocent Jews. While still not well informed, here is what I think probably happened:

The brits were drinking tea or something and did not do a good job of protecting either the Jewish minority or the rights of the majority from the Zionist dreams of a Jewish state in the holy lands. Some very irresponsible leaders, lacking any foresight of what would follow, wanted to increase their power and to arouse up the masses against the Jews who were living there. They probably did have some vague understanding that the Palestinians (and thus they themselves) were likely to lose out as the Jews had more influence in England and with the various commissions than they had.

I believe that the Jews were harassed at the Wailing Wall and later some killed as a result of these irresponsible leaders actions, lies they spread, etc. but hold the Brits more responsible as they were the controlling authorities. Soon it was out of control AND NOW THE PALESTINE PEOPLE are suffering disproportionally for hostilities their leaders lead then to do to the Jews, back in 1929* but also that these leaders did have reason to fear for their positions and for the loss of rights of their people, given the conditions at the time. What is sad is that they instigated violence instead of more peace protest as Gandhi would have done and proved later could make the Brits be more just.
-------------------
*all in all, quite a terrible year for mankind.

P.S. One part of Spidergoat's link is counterproductive to it cause, at least for me:
"...the Jews were sent to Jerusalem, exiled from their homes for the crime of being a victim of the Arab riot...."
As I do not believe it. The brits were probably just aware of the danger to these Jews and wanted to get them to safety and understood that they had failed to protect the dead Jews. This phrase: "crime of being a victim of the Arab riot" reflects a strong bias which does make one question the validity of other statement made.
 
Billy:

I'm not so sure that Gandhi made the right choice either, but it was a difficult one and perhaps he did what he thought was for the best. He accepted the partition that the British and the Muslim league asked for, ignored the traditional Muslims who did not want the partition and let loose the massive displacement of people through India and Pakistan. There were riots, savage acts of violence and wholesale massacres, with a death toll of one million people. Its also curious to me that in both cases it was the secular party of Jinnah and the Zionists who wanted a separate state while the religious were firmly against it.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, Zionism failed. There were still Jews in Europe at the time WWII broke out, so it should have happened much sooner. It's no coincidence that Great Britain was both sympathetic to the Jews and one of the Nazi's greatest foes.
 
In my opinion, Zionism failed. There were still Jews in Europe at the time WWII broke out, so it should have happened much sooner. It's no coincidence that Great Britain was both sympathetic to the Jews and one of the Nazi's greatest foes.

The same Great Britain that sent Jewish refugees back to Germany from the UK?

In any case, even before WWI, it was too late to create a state based on an immigrant society that wanted to establish a majority religion. Even the Ummayyads, after 100 years had barely 10% of Muslims outside Arabia. I doubt they would have lasted very long had they tried to kick out or convert everyone.
 
The same Great Britain that sent Jewish refugees back to Germany from the UK?

In any case, even before WWI, it was too late to create a state based on an immigrant society that wanted to establish a majority religion. Even the Ummayyads, after 100 years had barely 10% of Muslims outside Arabia. I doubt they would have lasted very long had they tried to kick out or convert everyone.

then perhaps what helped was that it was based on a refugee society, rather then religion.
 
The Gaza Bombshell

"After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever."

:rolleyes::rolleyes:


The Tightening Noose

"Soon, I was in Ra'ed's car heading south to Rafah with Rania Kharma, a coordinator for the Palestinian-International Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza. I handed her the chocolate bars she had requested. "Thanks, habibti [my dear]" she said. "You know how important chocolate can be for a woman." Normally remarkably passionate, Rania now spoke and moved with the air of someone smothered by wet blankets.

We passed carts piled with bananas and oranges. "So there's fruit here. What exactly is getting in?" I asked.

Before the siege, she explained, there used to be 9,000 different items allowed into Gaza. Now, the Israelis had reduced what could enter the Strip to 20 items or, in some cases, types of items. Twenty items to meet the needs of nearly 1.5 million people. It felt like some kind of TV fantasy exercise in survival: You're going to a deserted island and you can only bring 20 things with you. What would you bring?

Medicine was on the list, Rania told me, but only pre-approved drugs registered with the Israeli Ministry of Health. Frozen meat was permitted, but fresh meat wasn't (and there was a shortage of livestock in Gaza). Fruit and vegetables were allowed in, but -- Ra'ed quickly inserted -- less than what the population needed and of an inferior quality. It was, he felt, as if Israel were dumping produce not fit for their citizens or for international export into Gaza.

"I cut open an avocado last week and found the inside completely rotten," he added.

Diapers and toilet paper were allowed entry, as were sugar, salt, flour, milk, and eggs. Soap yes, but not laundry detergent, shampoo, or other cleaning products.

"I'm not sure about baby formula," Rania said. "Sometimes you can find it, sometimes you can't."

Tunnels under the Egyptian border, once used mainly to smuggle weapons into the Strip, were now responsible for a brisk black market trade. Hamas, which controlled the tunnels, reportedly earning a hefty profit from the $10 it now cost Gazans to buy a single pack of cigarettes. Chocolate couldn't be found, not even on the black market. A bag of cement that once cost about $10 reached $75, and, by the time of my visit, couldn't be found at all. All construction and most repair jobs had ground to a halt.

The Ramadan fast is traditionally broken with a dried date. A special request for dates was made to the Israelis and granted -- but only as a substitute for salt. To get their Ramadan dates, Gazans had to sacrifice something else.

"Israel says they're not going to starve us," Rania remarked with a wry grin as we neared Rafah. "They're just putting us on a really tight diet."

:(
 
perhaps we should accept our extermination then. let the palestinians kill as many israelis as they can, and wait till all the rest of the neighborhood join the party. :D
 
Thanks to both SAM and spidergoat for given answers to my question as to cause of the pre-Israel riots, which it appears did mainly kill innocent Jews. While still not well informed, here is what I think probably happened:

Pretty much

Some additional perspectives.
After World War II the Allies faced the difficult question of what to do with European Jews who had been displaced by the war or who had survived the Holocaust. Sending them back to Germany was not an option. As the dominant world power at the end of the war the US forced a plan through the UN to settle Jews in Palestine despite the objections of the Arab countries and of Great Britain, which had controlled the “mandate” of Palestine since the First World War.



England was the dominant power in the Middle East at that time and as such it had the responsibility for maintaining stability. When Israel was created by the UN over Arab and British objections, the British government believed that an unstable situation had been created that made Palestine ungovernable, so it pulled out its troops. Some Arabs had been dispossessed of their land in order to make room for Jewish immigrants. It was apparent to almost everyone (except apparently the US) that displacing Arabs to make room for Jews, who in turn had been displaced in Europe, simply moved the problem from Europe to the Middle East and solved one problem by creating another.



The Arab countries surrounding Palestine united in support of the displaced Palestinian Arabs. As a temporary solution Palestinian Refugee Camps were set up on the land just outside Israel. Almost immediately after the British troops pulled out, the Arab states jointly attacked the new state of Israel with the intent of pushing the Israelis off the land and giving it back to the Palestinian inhabitants who had been dispossessed. Israel fought to a stalemate and won its survival. In the war Israel captured Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula and the West Bank from the Palestinians and their Arab allies and at the end of the war with the Arab states Israel kept these “Occupied Lands” that had been intended to be the territory of a future Palestinian state.



Unfortunately the stage was now set for more conflict, as more and more Jewish settlers moved into Israel and as the Arab population continued to be forcibly evicted from its land under a perverse concept of eminent domain and forced into huge refugee settlement camps. The Palestinians were now a dispossessed people without a home or a country and such land as they might have had as a Palestinian state continued to be occupied by the Israelis.



While the early leaders of Israel and the Zionist movement were largely non-religious Jews, some of the justification for creating the state of Israel was that Palestine was the Biblical Promised Land and that by creating a new Jewish state, in some sense Jews would be “coming home” to their original homeland, which of course they had not occupied in almost 2000 years.



It is painfully obvious that a good deal of the trouble in the Middle East is aggravated by religious fundamentalist parties among the Israelis who believe that Jews have a divine right to possess and occupy all of the former land of Palestine and to Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel. They want to drive the Arabs out of Palestine, they want to keep the land they took from Jordan and Syria now known as the Occupied Territory and on which Israeli settlers continue to displace Palestinians, and they want to rid themselves of any Palestinian or Islamic presence in Israel. In other parts of the world this displacing of occupants is termed ethnic cleansing.

http://christianhumanist.net/Israeli.aspx
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top