Why don’t these relief/aid workers coordinate with Egypt to bring in relief goods through their border with Gaza instead of trying to provoke the Israelis?
Because they want to make Israel look bad, not actually deliver aid.
I don’t have time now to completely analyze the details in the link. Perhaps there is some truth to some of the allegations and photos, but some statements need clarification.
What is “long-term”? Hamas has said it has been willing to enter a truce for several months. This is unacceptable to Israel because that would give Hamas time to rebuild her armament, as she has done in the past, and as Hezbollah did in Lebanon. Israel wants an armistice and a peace treaty which would recognize her right to exist. That is something Palestine (including the Fatah faction) has been unwilling to accept.
Going through Egypt would provoke the Israelis as well. The fact is, there doesn’t seem to be anything that does not provoke the Israelis with respect to Gaza these days. That being the case, why go to the trouble of adding an extra country and crosscountry shipping to the aid equation?
Because then it would deliver everything without Israel confiscating items from the “no no” list, and it would remove any doubt as to their real intentions. I mean, if their intent is solely to bring aid to people in Gaza that need it, wouldn’t that be a more prudent course of action now that Egypt has lifted its blockade?
Well, the point of the blockade challenging from the POV of protesters - as I understand it - is to force it to be either lifted or ratcheted back to a narrow ban on weapons as such.
Insofar as they desire to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of the blockade (over a spectrum of views it seems), going through Egypt does not achieve those ends. It’s perhaps a bit like asking why Ghandi didn’t just bother to import salt from … well somewhere.
Challenging what is seen as unjust is in fact the point.
Yes, it must be that… or it could be:
“Egypt will not allow in large cargo shipments or construction material because the terminal is designed primarily as a crossing for travelers, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100607/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gaza_blockade
Yes they are, they won the last elections. Fatah have zero democratic mandate, Abbas’s term of office having ended over a year ago.
The people (very rarely) firing rockets aren’t Hamas, they’re other groups.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12536866&postcount=854
Top Israeli official. Senior advisor to Sharon. One of the initiators of the disengagement plan. I think it’s fair to say he knows what he’s talking about.
Hamas are cuddly freedom fighters. And the blockade was supposed to turn Gazans away from Hamas to support a more moderate group but this hasn’t happened. Most western observers seem to think that the blockade has backfired and that it has to end.
AGAIN, we have said repeatedly that these kinds of comments are not going to be tolerated in this thread. This is a warning for ignoring moderator instructions.
One would imagine that a sensible compromise between positions could be reached, if those stated positions were reasonable.
If Israel is, as she insists, only concerned that weaponry not reach Hamas, and that there is no punitive intent with the blockade, surely something could be done. Like maybe have the goods loaded in a friendly country, maybe even an ally! Oh, wait, maybe not…
Unless, of course, the concern for weaponry is a sham, an excuse to punish the people of Gaza for their abject failure to appreciate the generosity and humanity of Israel. Unless one is deranged enough to believe that chamomile, coriander and wheelchairs are weapons. Under those conditions, of course, no such reasonable compromise can be reached.
The only sensible question in all of this is: does anything in this lead to conditions that promote peace? So that we might avoid a situation where belligerent loons might start a bloody conflict that could easily cost millions of innocent lives? Does anyone believe that the Israeli blockade is just such an effort, that seeks to calm the waters and open a humane and sensible dialog?
Because, boiled down, thats the only question worth answering: does it promote peace, or no?
Yep, like I figured you’ve erred in describing the facts.
Your original claim:
The facts:
[
](BBC NEWS | Middle East | Sharon plan 'blocked peace talks')
You’ve had to ignore the difference between an indefinite pause in the peace process, and a permanent one.
This is not only not news, it’s certainly not the nonsense you’ve claimed about preventing “an eventual Palestinian state.” Arafat refused Camp David in 200 and instead started a war, a war that had been going on for four years by 2004 with fighting escalating in a number of ways. Everybody knew that Israel had decided to marginalize Arafat after he launched the second Intifada, not only is that not news, claiming that it was really opposition to any eventual Palestinian state (by citing something that said it was not opposition to any eventual Palestinian state) simply does not fly.
Especially since Arafat was dead by November 2004. By Feburary 2005, the two sides had announced a ceasefire after negotiations at Sharm el Shiekh. In June of 2005, direct high-level negotiations were again in progress between the PNA and the Israeli government. By 2006 Hamas was elected and declared that they rejected any and all peace agreements with Israel, would not renounce their genocidal ambitions and that despite any “hudna” and that they would not recognize Israel. Why the peace process again faltered in toto while Israel continued to talk with Abbas, is clear.
It turn out that “on the ropes” is probably overstating the case, they went from 42% to 39% hardly on the ropes but facing more criticism than they had been.
For a country that denies that the opinion of the international community counts for very much when they are critical of israel, you seem to think they are right on the money when they condemn Hamas.
You make it sound like this shift in Turkish poilicy came out of the blue. Didn’t the invasion of gaza precipitate this change of heart?
Commandoes (legally) boarded 5 relatively lightly crewed boats where they (legally) beat and tasered those on board (who I think almost everyone agrees were engaged in quite Gandhiesque behaviour) in an effort to comandeer the ships (I think the protesters were linking arms to block the path to the helm. Then they boarded the maru where the people on board engaged in significantly less Gandhiesque behaviour (but certainly not murderous behaviour (taking axeheads off of axes before you hit someone with the handles indicates something less than murderous intent to me) and the commandoes killed 9 of them in an effort to comandeer the ship.
I certainly understand the rationale behind keeping rockets out of Gaza, many do not understand the need for the blockade of food, building materials and coriander
Then why not limit the blockade to offensive weapons?
cite please
What existential threat does Gaza pose? The only existential threat to Israel could have been removed with Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia
For me that means that Israel could have removed that existential threat but chose not to. how much you want to bet the arab peace plan is off the table now. Like I said in another thread, this may be the same sort of stupidity that Arafat exhibited when he rejected the Israeli proposal in 2000.
That was me.
I think I said that the anti-zionism came from the crapstorm that has arisen from the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and the ripple effects that has had on Europe.
cite please.
The problem with bringing this up is that none of this is news to us. We know that Israel has been the subject of suicide bombing that has killed innocent civilians and hamas has been condemned and terrorism has been condemned for it. That does not excuse Israel’s reaction. If you feel that we have not been sufficiently critical of hams, then let me be the first to say Hamas is bad, very very bad. Let me follow up by saying that Hamas does not pose an existential threat to Israel and Israel should stop talking about existential threats when talking about hamas.
Wow it took over 1000 posts for Hitler and the nazis to be invoked (aside from a few jests early on that may have had an innoculative effect).
I think barbi meant fatality rather than causalty which includes injury.
Well it seems we can get Greece and Turkey to agree on something.
How much you wanna bet the Egyptians show more respect towards the vice president of an ally than Israel did?