Are you kidding? Clutchfans have the answers to all of our problems including World peace, global warming, the economy, broken relationships and getting T-Mac to play with heart.
I'm glad you replied to that post, wnes, because the absurdity of it blew me away. You saved me the effort. I might not have replied quite the same way, but what you said was good enough. If anyone cares to get to the nut of what is driving the current conflict in Gaza, glynch's posts that I quoted in bold pretty much sums it up. Without continued Israeli expansion in the West Bank, supported by the right wing Israeli governments that have basically been in charge in Israel for years (due, IMO, to their mad system of parlimentary government, which gives small radical right political groups power all out of proportion to their numbers in the Israeli population), it is very unlikely that Hamas would have come to power in Gaza in the first place. Israel's policy towards the West Bank drives Palestinian extremists like Hamas. Their "squeezing" of Gaza does that as well, which is also due to West Bank policy on Israel's part. The more moderate Gaza government prior to the current Gaza regime (the same "moderate" party that still rules in the relatively peaceful West Bank), was seen as helpless by Gazans to lift the barriers in place by Israel that prevented them having a semblance of a "normal" life. Those barriers in place in response to Hamas attacks on civilian Israel, which the former, more moderate by a mile, Gazan government was unable to prevent. When you get down to it, to put it in simplistic terms (and IMO), Israeli policy towards the West Bank is behind most of the conflict re Gaza of the last several years. If anything, Israel's policies have been an enabler of the rise of Hamas extremism.
This could be the last gasp of that squeeze policy, pushing the line under the last of this diplomatic order to allow acceptable compromises under the new order. I hope the Obama/Clinton position is a closed door statement to Israel that OK, enough is enough, it's time to pull back the settlements and give the Islamic players some dignity and empowerment. Maybe that would counter martyrdom since it really only makes sense as a tactic of hopelessness. A serious question but where are Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the Gaza problem? Doesn't Egypt share a border with Gaza and could render any blockades mute? Couldn't Saudi Arabia just buy Hamas out with humanitarian and development aid to Gaza?
As I understand it...Egypt has its own blockades. They've taken heat from the rest of the Arab world for keeping it closed.
What's the story with the infrastructure, etc.? One side claims that closed borders, lack of funding and supplies, etc, etc have created zero infrastructure, horrible living conditions, poor medical care and a host of other issues. The counter-argument is that the Palestinians actually have received considerable funding and the powers that be have chosen to use it on weapons, chosen to use all medical supplies for their own good, etc. Curious, what are the facts on this topic?
From my understanding and what I've heard from Israelis themselves there are a few reasons why Israel has continued to build settlements in the West Bank. The first is geographic as Israel is a very small country but under its Constitution has to take in any Jew. This has led to influxes of non-Western European Jews including Jews from Ethiopia and India. Many Israelis feel that it to accomodate all the new Israelis is to expand rather than to try to cram more of them into Israel proper. This is one of the reasons that many settlers are given benefits to move to the settlements. For defensive purposes. One thing I've heard from a few hawkish Israelis is that Israel at its narrowest point was only 9 miles wide and there is a fear that in an Arab Israeli war Israel could be split in two. By securing large tracts of the West Bank Israel has a buffer zone from the Arab states. This is largely the same reasoning behind occupying the Golan Heights and when Israel occupied southern Lebanon. For resources. Its in any country's interests to control more of the scarce water resources especially along the Jordan River. This also plays a role in the continued occupation of the Golan heights. There is also a lot of good farm land in the West Bank that Israel has taken. For diplomatic reasons. Most Israelis know that they can't occupy the Palestinian territories indefinately so one of the ideas is to create facts on the ground by consolidating and settling a lot of territory now. The Israeli strategy as shown by what they offered at Camp David in 2000 and in the layout of their West Bank security wall is to offer concessions by agreeing to dismantle far flung settlements smaller settlements while retaining most of the larger ones. Religious reasons. There is small but vocal minority of Israelis that believe Israel should be all of the lands of ancient Judea and Samaria and see settlement as almost a religious duty. This group is particularly active in Hebron where they have established a settlement in the midst of what is the technically Palestinian controlled city. Regarding settlement strategy while events in Gaza are somewhat influenced by continued settlement building in the West Bank there are other more direct issues there. The Israelis built few settlements in Gaza and pulled out in 2005 because there was little value in staying there rather than as a concession to peace. Gaza doesn't have a lot of strategic value since it is bordered by Israel's longest and so far most steadfast Arab ally and the ocean. It doesn't have a lot of resources and the density and size of population make it difficult to occupy. In 2005 it was easier just to wall it off. What has happened since then though is that the PA in Gaza was corrupt and ineffective and defeated both electorally and militarily by Hamas. The Israelis didn't just wall it off but also imposed a crippling economic blockade. The misery and desperation of the people there have empowered Hamas to strike out at Israel. My own theory is that while Hamas are true believers in the destruction of Israel, launching rockets and kidnapping Israeli soldiers also helped to divert attention from Hamas' own failure to improve the lives of Gazans. So IMO the current conflict has much more to do with the current Gazan situation than it does with the wider Palestinian conflict.
I hope their bombs go off early http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052894.html Iran says they have 70,000 suicide bombers ready to strike Israel By The Associated Press Tags: Hamas, Israel News, Gaza More than 70,000 Iranian student volunteers have registered to carry out suicide bombings against Israel because of Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip. According to the official IRNA news agency, hardline student leader Esmaeil Ahmadi says the students want to fight Israel in support of Hamas - Gaza's Islamic militant rulers. Five hard-line student groups and a conservative clerical group launched a registration drive last week to ask the government to allow them to stage the suicide attacks. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government has not responded to the call yet. The government never responded to similar requests in the past. This raises the likelihood that the calls are mainly for propaganda purposes
Really... a Zionist nation trying to entice and recruit jews? Oh the horror!!! Care to discuss the average number of children of a typical Israeli family vs. a typical Palestinian family? If you are going to push the "jews are overpopulating Israel proper so they need to expand" argument, then you have to understand that Palestinians have created such insane overpopulation with their birthrates. This does not give Israel the excuse to further build settlements in the West Bank, but this argument does not hold at all. I think the ultra-religious wing of Israel is more to blame for West Bank settlement and expansion than any other factor. I see what you did there...
Fascinating. It's interesting that Israel's illegal settlement expansion should be unabashedly overlooked because they've "dismantled numerous of them" but at the same time a few misguided Rockets are justification for Israel to go ape***** on Gaza. It's convenient to demand moderate response from only one side.
Average number of people in an Israeli Household (2006): 3.7 total or 1.7 children http://www.cbs.gov.il/hodaot2006n/11_06_041e.pdf Average number of people in a Palestinian Household (2006): Gaza: 11.4 total or 9.4 children West Bank: 9.3 total or 7.3 children Somebody please tell me I'm reading this viewer wrong... I did not think it would be this high! The total number could also include grandparents? Not sure what the typical Palestinian household consists of. Either way, you can see the sharp contrast. http://atlas.pcbs.gov.ps/website/PSSD/Population/Pop_HHSize06/viewer.htm http://atlas.pcbs.gov.ps/atlas/PSSD/population/meta-en.asp
Great post, Franchise2001. The next time I will see such a moderate and reasonable post from the other side of the argument will be the first.
A Palestinian "household" could also include extended family. I would think that would be quite normal in high-population, poor, urban areas.
The only concession he made in that post to the "other side" is that Palestinians have a right to a state and to live with dignity. If you've never observed a similar level of moderation on the other side of the argument, I have to question how moderate and reasonable you are. Another thing. Can someone please explain to me what it means for Israel to have a "right" to exist. States don't have rights. States confer rights to people. I've never heard anyone say that the US has a "right" to exist. I believe in the right of people to self determination. But suppose I happened to share a large piece of land with some people of another race/religion. Suddenly, they declare that they plan to establish a governing body over that land that is meant to represent their ethnic group. Suppose they insist that such a governing body has a "right" to exist. Should I accept that? If I do not, does that make me a racist?
It means you don't sign a peace accord with someone whose charter says their organization's reason for existence is eliminating you from the face of the earth. There is no peace with an organization whose charter repeatedly calls for your destruction. If they want total war, then they should expect total war in return. If they want coexistence and make it clear that that is what they want, they should be able to expect coexistence in return. It means if they want to coexist with Israel they need to acknowledge that Israel doesn't 'deserve' to be wiped off the face of the Earth. If their plan is still to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, then it is perfectly reasonable for Israel to try to do the same to them in return. In that instance, a 'peace accord' wouldn't be to Israel's advantage, as it would only serve to give the other side time to rearm for the inevitable attack.
So what exactly makes Israel insane? Its kind of like a dog that you keep poking with a stick, and the dog takes it. Until one day the dog has had enough and whammo the dog bites you. Hamas and the rest of the middle east has been screwing with Israel since being re-established after WWI. This is just the dog biting back after years of taking it. Now they need to finish the deal and push them all back out of Gaza and the West Bank. It is going to be an interesting year to say the least....
If and when Pakistan/Iran/Libya/Saudi Arabia finally nukes Israel off the face of the earth, the world will remember what happened here today, and precious few will feel sorrow, regret, or pity. What goes around, comes around.
