Slaughter in Gaza

[tha]

The new US president Obama has decided to send the new envoy George Mitchell to he region. He will arrive tomorrow. It is tradition that on the day before a new US or important European envoy arrives an attack is launched on innocent civilians. Fatah did that is the past, and Hamas took over. Over the just the past decade these alone attacks took the lives of more than a hundred people. This tradition is very consistent and never forgotten. One more slaughtered today.

Israel on the other hand always presents a number of options the envoy can choose from to improve understanding between all parties. That is why envoys after some time always seem to side with Israel. Because they learn that Israel consistently sticks to it promises or refrains from making them and the other side consistently breaks promises.

[garo]

Originally Posted by tha

Israel on the other hand always presents a number of options the envoy can choose from to improve understanding between all parties. That is why envoys after some time always seem to side with Israel. Because they learn that Israel consistently sticks to it promises or refrains from making them and the other side consistently breaks promises.

Like they stuck to their Oslo Agreement promise of not building any more settlements?

[tha]

Originally Posted by garo

Like they stuck to their Oslo Agreement promise of not building any more settlements?

1. Oslo was declared dead by the US, the EU, the Arab partners and Israel and all of them blamed Fatah.
2. Still, the number of settlements has gone down since. Building in existing settlements was not ruled out by the Oslo agreements.
3. Leaving all settlements in Gaza was to show that Israel was prepared to make way for a new Arab state. Another four settlements on the Westbank were also uprooted to signal that if Gaza and other territories would be properly governed, that is within the international frameworks, all non strategic settlements would be uprooted as well.

[garo]

Originally Posted by tha

1. Oslo was declared dead by the US, the EU, the Arab partners and Israel and all of them blamed Fatah.

When was Oslo declared dead and when did the settlement construction start again? Settlements were never stopped and even before the ink was dry on the agreement, settlement construction resumed. Anyway, your point was that Israel always holds to its commitments and the history of settlement construction shows that this is false.

2. Still, the number of settlements has gone down since. Building in existing settlements was not ruled out by the Oslo agreements.

The number may have gone down but the number living in the settlements has gone up considerably. You occupy and build all the land between 5 settlements and then you say the number of settlements has gone down.
[/quote]

3. Leaving all settlements in Gaza was to show that Israel was prepared to make way for a new Arab state. Another four settlements on the West Bank were also uprooted to signal that if Gaza and other territories would be properly governed, that is within the international frameworks, all non strategic settlements would be uprooted as well.

Rubbish! Gza was never meant to be part of the "Greater Israel". Leaving Gaza was a tactical retreat in order to allow fuller control over West Bank. Plus Gaza was never left alone and it turned into a prison.

Just research the figures on the number of settlers in the West Bank and you will know the the truth.

There is an internationally recognized consensus for a just solution but the US and Israel continue to block it.

[cheesehead]

tha, garo,

May I have, from each of you, practical, non-cynical ideas on how to stop or greatly reduce rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel?

(Perhaps it may help to frame this as a request for suggestions to new US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.)

Israel cites the past attacks as its reason for the recent invasion. (Some) Palestinians claim the attacks are a legitimate resistance-to-occupation tactic.

I ask for something other than what has been shown not to work in the past, and for something more immediate and practical than a total comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole. "Practical" means, among other things, something not so one-sided as to be a "victory" for either side, but something which could lead to a series of step-by-step phased actions to further reduce tensions and build trust.

That rules out, for example, such extreme proposals as (a) another invasion of Gaza or (b) withdrawal of all Israeli settlers from the occupied areas without some equally large concession by Palestinians.

The sort of ideas I have in mind might well involve a combination of modest actions/concessions on both sides.

For example, what practical incentive do either of you suggest that Israel can provide Hamas for the latter to take effective action within Gaza to stop the rocket attacks? Or, if you think it is not currently possible for Hamas to do that, what suggestions do you have to make it possible, including how Israel can help?

[S485122]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

May I have, from each of you, practical, non-cynical ideas on how to stop or greatly reduce rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel?
...
For example, what practical incentive do either of you suggest that Israel can provide Hamas for the latter to take effective action within Gaza to stop the rocket attacks? Or, if you think it is not currently possible for Hamas to do that, what suggestions do you have to make it possible, including how Israel can help?

Considering the fact that when Israel was in charge of what are now the Palistininan teritories (roughly 1967-1993,) it was not able to stop violence from Palestinians, despite its army, its police, its financial resources ... how can one expect the "Palestininian authority" to take effective action within Gaza to stop the rocket attacks, whithout most of the means Israel has ?

Originally Posted by cheesehead

That rules out, for example, such extreme proposals as (a) another invasion of Gaza or (b) withdrawal of all Israeli settlers from the occupied areas without some equally large concession by Palestinians.

Considering the fact that 100 settlements where built illegaly, that of the 120 others 75% also did not comply with regulations, that 30 settlements where build on land still owned by Palestinians^*, it is preposterous to consider the demand to withdraw from those illegal settlements as extreme ! It would be like settling a dispute between thieves and their victims by letting the thieves keep the stolen goods. And I repeat this is in regard of Israeli law, not international law !

My opinion is that to reduce violence from Palestinians, economic and policing violence against them has to reduce dastically. They must have freedom of movement, freedom of trade, discrimination against non Jews must stop in Israel. (It is one of the few states where there is not only an official state religion, but where those not of the offical religion have less rights than by Law.)

An even better solution would be to have one state where everybody has equal legal rights.

Jacob

* BBC World Service : Israel 'hides settlements data'

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by S485122

Considering < snip > how can one < snip > ?

So, you think it can't be done.

But that's not what I asked for.

What can you propose so that it can be done?

it is preposterous to consider the demand to withdraw from those illegal settlements as extreme !

It certainly is when you leave out part of what I characterized as extreme!!! One can make anything seem preposterous by selective exclusions, but that won't impress me!

Note that the relevant part of my whole statement (underlining the part your response ignores) was, "That rules out, for example, such extreme proposals as ... withdrawal of all Israeli settlers from the occupied areas without some equally large concession by Palestinians".

What I claimed was extreme was proposing withdrawal without a corresponding concession.

If you disagree with something I say, please refrain from misrepresenting what you claim to disagree with.

My opinion is that to reduce violence from Palestinians, economic and policing violence against them has to reduce dastically. They must have freedom of movement, freedom of trade, discrimination against non Jews must stop in Israel.

May that fairly be interpreted as saying that you think that a solution to stopping the rocket attacks against Israel must (or should?) include the following Israeli concessions:

a) drastically reducing economic violence against Palestinians,

b) drastically reducing policing violence against Palestinians,

c) allowing Palestinians freedom of movement,

d) allowing Palestinians freedom of trade, and

e) an end to discrimination against non-Jews in Israel?

If so, what are the relative priorities of items a)-e) on that list?

It seems fair to me that if all items on your list were to be granted, they would have to be balanced by a few more items on the other side, besides merely:

a) cessation of rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel.

What other such items do you propose to add to the Palestinian concessions? Since you mentioned "violence from Palestinians" instead of my more limited "rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel", may we fairly presume that you would include:

b) cessation of rocket attacks from West Bank, Lebanon or anywhere else into Israel, and

c) cessation of suicide bombings in Israel

?

And since adding items tends to grow toward demands for a complete solution, which items a)-e) on your Israeli concession list are you willing to take off to balance item a) (without b) and c)) on the Palestinian concession list, since I was asking only for a step toward a peace solution, not the entire solution?

[S485122]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

...
Note that the relevant part of my whole statement (underlining the part your response ignores) was, "That rules out, for example, such extreme proposals as ... withdrawal of all Israeli settlers from the occupied areas without some equally large concession by Palestinians".
...

Some of the accords between parties (including the Israeli government) had included an Israeli concession in land to compensate for those settlements that would not be evacuated. Now you ask the concession would go the other way round ? In my opinion asking concessions from a state that has no control over it's borders (controlled by Israel), it's airspace (controlled by Israel), it's foreign trade (controlled by Israel), it's resources in water and land (controlled by Israel)... is indeed preposterous. It is like thieves asking concessions from the people they burglarised before returning the stolen goods.

What I see is Israeli and Palestinian politics being ruled by extreme and fringe parties. In Israel the main problem is the mainstream parties not willing to rule together and thus hostage of their allies. In the Palestinian territories I see corrupt politicians and extremists. All those marginal parties have an institutional interest in escalation : they need violence to remain in power. Do not forget that Israel helped creating Hamas to weaken the PLO, just like the USA helped Al Qaeda to combat the USSR occupants of Afghanistan. But once the devil is out of the box...

Jacob

[garo]

cheesehead,
What are your suggestions for concession Palestinians should make to get back their own land?

I think the Arab peace plan of 2002 is a good basis for negotiation as are the Geneva accords. But both were rejected by all major Israeli parties but accepted by Fatah.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by S485122

Some of the accords between parties (including the Israeli government) had included an Israeli concession in land to compensate for those settlements that would not be evacuated. Now you ask the concession would go the other way round?

No.

I'm not attaching the entire history of the region to my question. I'm not rehashing all the UN resolutions or all the past accords or broken agreements.

I'm just making a straightforward request in post #104. If you want to read more into it than is there, please state what that is nonaccusatorily (like, "... assuming that you meant to include the accord between such and such on such-and-such date providing such-and-such"), or just respond to my request as it stands.

Note that in post #106 above, in response to your "My opinion is that ...", I _asked_ whether a possible interpretation, in words that were slightly closer to what I wrote previously, was correct. I didn't respond by accusing you of malicious intent.

In my opinion asking concessions from a state that has no control over it's borders (controlled by Israel), it's airspace (controlled by Israel), it's foreign trade (controlled by Israel), it's resources in water and land (controlled by Israel)... is indeed preposterous. It is like thieves asking concessions from the people they burglarised before returning the stolen goods.

Pretending that there are no alternatives does not impress me. For example, even little-old-bystander-I know that one concession Hamas could make is to plainly and unambiguously acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to exist. I'm not saying that (large) concession is necessarily appropriate for inclusion in your response to my request, but it (along with the other three possible concessions I listed above) _is_ a simple demonstration that your contention (that asking the Palestinians for concessions is preposterous) is a false contention. There are many other possible concessions of various magnitude. I've listed four possible concessions with very little effort; I don't believe that _you_ can't think of any (probably better) others.

So how about responding to my request in good faith (or plainly stating that you wish not to), instead of making false assertions about what is or is not preposterous?

And ... is the interpretation I stated in #106 a proper one for your "My opinion is that ..." statement?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by garo

cheesehead,
What are your suggestions for concession Palestinians should make to get back their own land?

I have no such suggestions. I think both tha and you probably have much better ideas about possible concessions than I do.

Furthermore, "get back their own land" is a very complicated notion in that area. So I was just asking about rocket attacks, for now.

I think the Arab peace plan of 2002 is a good basis for negotiation as are the Geneva accords.

May they be read online somewhere?