1.Israel withdraws/rockets
2.Hamas elected/rockets
3.‘Civil war’/rockets
4.Sanctions/rockets
5.Blockade/rockets
Quibble all you want about the specific timing. Split hairs to your heart’s content, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the attacks continued when the occupation ended, which was the point.
Why do you steadfastly ignore or gloss over the Palestinian’s actions, ot hold them responsible for their actions?
I’m not ignoring or glossing over anything, but I do prefer to focus on the ineffectual, brutal, and unjust nature of collective punishment whether its blockading Gaza or influencing the outcome of Palestinian elections.
Given my interests, I felt that the post you made, regardless of what you are responding to, could also be characterized as glossing over some relevant Israeli/American/Canadian etc. actions.
I also think the willingness to impose sanctions, to impose blockades, arm one group against another, and withhold taxes are clear evidence of continued occupation. I feel there is no reason to differentiate, unless to hair-split, just because one aspect of the occupation has been lifted while the rest of it remains in place.
Yes, the greenhouses are a good illustration of the Arabs’ basic attitude problem.
Here is a picture of the greenhouses, before the Israeli withdrawal.
Apparently wealthy westerners bought the greenhouses and gave them to the Palestinian authority in the weeks leading up to the Gaza withdrawal.
Here is a picture from after the Israeli withdrawal. Apparently the Arabs burned and looted the greenhouses.
Later, the Arabs (apparently) started using the greenhouses as a point of entry for smuggling tunnels: picture
A picture is worth a thousand words. And that folks, is 3000 words showing why Israel is rich and the Arabs are poor. But it must be Israel’s fault somehow, right? :rolleyes:
In this thread and others you’ve implied that Israel has the moral high ground and it is palestinian aggression that is the main, or even sole cause of all the problems.
But seizing land is an aggressive action, no question. Nothing is provoking Israel into having to do that.
I don’t know why you’re insisting on playing dumb on this point.
Yes, being a country, with clear laws, rights, public services including a police force and utilities, able to make international agreements etc, is basically fundamental to modern day prosperity.
I don’t claim to be able to read the minds of Palestinians, unlike the people in this thread who are certain they are doing this just to undermine Israel.
I’m responding to the OP. Israelis have a country, the palestinians don’t.
Are you claiming there has been an offer on the table within the last 40 years?
I assume by this you’re implying it’s more reassuring that doing deals with the current palestinian authorities. But of course the present day situation is that our budding entrepreneur must do that anyway, plus have the insecurity of having land seized, checkpoints built nearby etc.
So no, it’s not more reassuring.
There’s considerable debate over what constitutes a failed state and whether the palestinian territories count. Probably best we don’t go there. No part of my point relies on me labeling that region.
ummm…it may be difficult, but this is exactly what the Israelis did for 40 years before they had a state, and what the Palestinians are refusing to do now. It’s called nation building.
Let me repeat myself from my previous post upthread: "Before Israel became a state in 1948, it was conquered and occupied.
But despite the difficulties, the Jewish population living in Palestine focused its energy on the positive aspects of nation building. The Palestinians focus all their energy on the negatives.
During the 40 years before becoming an independent nation, the Israelis built universities, hospitals, banks, electric power stations, the uniquely successful agricultural communes called “kibbutz”, and established political parties which took responsibility for their actions and were untainted by corruption."
So it can be done…the only question is why the Palestinians don’t want to do it.
I’m not just implying it, I’m proving it. The facts of history show that before it gained independence, Israel built all the positive institutions for a budding nation. The Palestinians have chosen not to.
Look again at the example of the agricultural greenhouses in Gaza.
Result: Israel prospers, Palestine stagnates.
(And don’t complain to me about the checkpoints…if the Palestinians want free passage with no checkpoints, all they have to do is stop bombing Israeli busses, schools and restaurants. It’s completely within their own control. )
I’m not playing dumb at all. I’m simply scrutinizing your claims. Then we will see who is playing dumb.
These things hardly qualify as the trappings of statehood. Note that UN recognition; membership in UNESCO; having foreign amabssadors and embassies; etc. are not necessary to create these things.
Can you give me an example of an international agreement the Palestinian Arabs are unable to make which is a bar to them prospering?
Well what exactly do you mean by mind reading? If I look at a person’s words and actions and come to a reasonable conclusion about his intent, does that count as mind reading?
And are you denying that it’s possible to come to reasonable conclusions about peoples’ intentions by looking at their words and actions?
Last year, a senior Fatah member stated the following:
Do you think that I’m a “mind reader” since I can make a pretty good guess about this individuals intentions?
A simple yes or no will do.
No I am not. So what? And for what it’s worth the Palestinian Arabs could easily announce that they wish to accept the most recent offer of statehood (from 2008) and Israel would almost certainly honor it.
There’s a lot more insecurity under Arab rule, statehood or not. Besides which, Israel is in the West Bank solely as a result of Arab misconduct.
So you are retracting this argument?
Ahh…I get it. You want to focus on Israeli perfidy while I want to point out the proximate causes of Israeli actions.
I guess we’re done here, then.
Pretty much this.
Look at the 2006 Lebanon War. The Israelis didn’t just attack Lebanese targets of military significance. They destroyed as much of the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon as they could when they had a short window of opportunity to do so. IIRC, they were even taking out things like lighthouses.
If you’re an enemy of Israel you don’t spend that money on a second school or hospital. No, you spend that money on re-building the first school or hospital that no longer exists.
I’m extremely skeptical of this claim. Please show me proof. Also, please show me two instances where the Israelis militarily targeted a school or hospital which was not also being used for military purposes.
Also, are you saying that Lebanon is poor and that it is poor because of Israeli aggression?
Did they have any issues with a more powerful neighbour arbitrarily building settlements and checkpoints such that it would be impossible to define a border?
Essentially saying “Sure, we do aggressive and unnecessary things too. But they started it!” is not the moral high ground. Even ignoring that the other side says the same thing.
No, they had much,much worse problems. Like getting killed by the local Arabs, who attacked the Israelis whenever they felt like it–while the ruling occupying power (Turks and then the British)prohibited the Israelis from owning weapons to defend themselves. (I have a relative who was a construction worker in Israel in 1933–and had to crawl and hide inside the drum of a concrete mixer truck to save his life, while Arab gangs murdered all his co-workers…and the British policemen nearby sat and did nothing .)
This was not an isolated incident.
And it was certainly impossible for the early Israelis to establish any of the borders of the new nation they were trying to build.
Yet, despite all this…they went ahead with the nation building, and prospered. Unlike the Palestinans.
It’s worth noting that the early Zionists purchased and owned a lot of land well outside the borders of what is now Israel.
To this day, the Jewish National Fund owns (at least nominally) over 10,000 acres of land well inside of Syria.
Also, a large percentage of Israeli Jews are descendants of Jews who left all of their property behind and fled the Arab world in the late 40s.
So if Israel wanted to crank up the excuse machine, it would have plenty of fuel. To Israel’s credit, it has kept such activities to a minimum.
Given your interest in proximate causes, I am surprised you came up with the relationship between rocket attacks and the election of Hamas. The rocket attacks preceded Israel’s withdrawal, and followed Israel’s withdrawal. The rocket attacks preceded Hamas’ victory and followed Hamas’ victory. Other than in some people’s words, you can see almost no relationship between rocket fire and political variables, except that after the blockade, the rocket fire sharply increased and negotiated ceasefires cause the rocket attacks to decrease. See? I’m interested in proximate causes too, not simply “Israeli perfidy”.
I recommend looking at the financial figures I posted above. The fact is that despite Israeli actions (never mind thirty-odd years of civil war) as a country, Lebanon - and Jordan - the two countries most affected by Israeli emnity - are both doing much, much better financially than either Egypt or Syria - and I doubt any reasonable case can be made that Israel has looted those two countries.
In short, Israeli actions cannot explain Arab nations’ relative wealth or poverty. Israeli actions could no doubt do some harm, but its neighbouring countries do either well or poorly based on their own internal dynamics.
If your theory were true, Lebanon would be relatively poor and Egypt and Syria would be relatively rich. But the reverse is the case.
Well, I never said that Palestinian aggression was the SOLE cause, but it’s certainly the main one. As to moral high ground, it’s kind of hard to say that the guys launching periodic and random rocket attacks against the civilians in another country, thus provoking a military response that the folks doing those attacks KNOW will kill or harm a non-zero number of THEIR OWN CITIZENS has such a moral position. The Israelis get it by default, unfortunately.
As to seizing land, do you understand that this territory in question (in the West Bank) was seized by Israel in the Six-Day war all the way back in 1967? Hell, most of the freaking posters on this board weren’t even BORN when this happened. Again, I’m asking you (since you chose not to answer the actual question but instead tried to play the Emotion Card Without Context)…why SHOULDN’T Israel settle their own citizens into that land at this point? What were they getting by not pushing through settlements in that region? What was the benefit they were gaining by curtailing those settlements? Can you list any?
No, they don’t, because not everyone agrees with that description; others see Israel as the aggressor.
“It’s kind of hard to say that the guys launching periodic military strikes on your territory, that kill dozens or hundreds of civilians, thus provoking the only retaliation the Palestinians have available to them, lobbing rockets over (which kill tiny numbers by comparison), has such a moral position”.
Just so we’re clear BTW, I take no side in this conflict. I’m just aware that both sides claim the other is the aggressor. And really, I don’t care who is correct on that point. Conflicts like this end when both sides don’t care any more who started it, they just want it to be over.
Morals are the reason you don’t just seize land because you can.
And before you start the record “But the arabs…”, you can’t justify an immoral action in that way.
For the third time, my point was that even when no longer occupied, the attacks continued. I raised this to counter the argument that the Palestinians were justified in these attacks because they were being occupied. Those are really the only timepoints that matter. Your comment that “you can see almost no relationship between rocket fire and political variables” bolsters my point.
The land was siezed it is true, but from Jordan - which has since disclaimed any responsibility for it. The issue then becomes the rights of self-determination of the people who are presently living on that land.
The Israeli position all along has always been that it would, in effect, recognize those rights as part of a comprehensive peace process - subject to Jerusalem being the Israeli capital and certain territorial adjustments to make Israel more strategically safe. Israel did not want a repeat of the pre-1967 situation in which Jerusalem was divided by what amounted to a militarized frontier - nor would a return to that make sense.
The Israeli temptation, however, is to slice off bits of land above and beyond what is needed for these purposes - and the longer the peace deal seemed elusive, the greater the temptation. This is directly against Israeli self-interest because it makes the primary goal - a comprehensive peace - more difficult for them to achieve.