Curious, since I see so many dishonest videos coming from both sides on my FB lately, has anyone seen a better honest review of the historical situation in Israel than this goodie from last year?
Well, I admit that is a good video. But I think it is titled incorrectly. It was more like "Israel isn't the only enemy".
The narrator mostly pointed out issues with Pan-Arabism and why Egypt, Syria, Jordan, & Saudi Arabia don't want a Palestinian State. I think he really glossed over Israel.
A couple notes:
1. According to the British, Trans-Jordan encompassed all of what is now Jordan, Israel, & the West Bank. There was no "Western Palestine". As he pointed out correctly, Britain gave the Hashemites Jordan on the East of the river. The Balfour Declaration referenced a Jewish Homeland in their historical homeland (on the west side of the river) and the UN Peel Commission partitioned that area into a "Jewish Homeland" and an "Arab Homeland".
2. The only reference he makes to the Jewish Peoples historical ties to Israel is that some communities had been there for hundreds of years. Those ties go back thousands of years.
Otherwise, frankly I found the video quite informative.
I deplore the senseless rocket attacks by Hamas. Unfortunately, cycles of relatively-calm rearming of rockets will be followed by periods such as these large-scale rocket barrages. Hamas will have galvanized their support, hundreds and possibly thousands of Gazans will have died, and there will be another "ceasefire". The only reason there is no ceasefire yet is Hamas has not yet run out of rockets. They will eventually, of course. Or they'll be sick of being killed by the Israeli military for the time being.
But - knowing full well what Israel will do in immediate response to the rockets every time, one must ask what can be done during the next "ceasefire" to prevent the cycle from perpetuating. To me, the only possibility is that Gazans themselves must see an alternative to Hamas. When Gazans look at the West Bank, they must see compatriots who are being rewarded by supporting non-violence, or at the very least not being taken advantage of during periods of calm.
Unfortunately, Fatah has fata-all to show Palestinians as a reward for a period of relative calm in the West Bank. Indeed, since the last intifada, this has been the most peaceful the West Bank has ever been vis-a-vis Israel. Pro-Israel voices will simply point toward the Wall, and suggest that that is the sole reason; but it's clearly not. The West Bank is also able to arm themselves with rockets and fire daily should they choose.
In deciding between support of Hamas and support of Fatah, Palestinians must be given a reason to support non-violence. Something, other than a strong feeling that Israel takes advantage of these periods of calm by extending the Wall, building additional settlements, further annexing East Jerusalem, and destroying the hope for an acceptable political compromise for the Palestinians.
Realistically, I have scant hope that Israel is ready to make one-sided compromises in order to sway popular Palestinian (and indeed, Israeli) opinions. But, Gaza will remain Hamas territory until it does. What should really concern Israel (and us in the West) is that Hamas may end up winning the West Bank as well given how ineffectual the PA looks during the current crisis. Should Hamas gain the West Bank and arm it with rockets as well, it's going to be really, really sad watching what unfolds. Unfortunately, I believe there are some in Israel who want just such a confrontation with Hamas in the West Bank. I think this is what will happen; and it's going to be terrible.
Hamas did not come into power until after the Israelis had withdrawn from the Gaza Strip.
The withdrawal from Gaza was meant to be a test run. They withdrew from their to see what the effect would be of a later withdrawal form the West Bank. The West Bank has border is a much larger and harder border to defend.
Immediately upon withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians voted in Hamas and used the territory as a platform to launch guerrilla warfare against Israeli citizens.
Your logic is flawed, in that the citizens of Gaza were already rewarded, and they responded with violence.
Hamas did not come into power until after the Israelis had withdrawn from the Gaza Strip.
The withdrawal from Gaza was meant to be a test run. They withdrew from their to see what the effect would be of a later withdrawal form the West Bank. The West Bank has border is a much larger and harder border to defend.
Immediately upon withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians voted in Hamas and used the territory as a platform to launch guerrilla warfare against Israeli citizens.
Your logic is flawed, in that the citizens of Gaza were already rewarded, and they responded with violence.
If by "rewarded" you mean that despite their claims of not occupying Gaza, Israel still maintained control of all borders, air space, sea, and all movement of people and goods in an out of Gaza. Israel, despite their own claims, is and has never ceased to be an occupying power of Gaza. A fact which is confirmed by the UN and the HRW, among others.
Israel has never given up control of Gaza, they simply removed their settlements, just so you're aware.
If by "rewarded" you mean that despite their claims of not occupying Gaza, Israel still maintained control of all borders, air space, sea, and all movement of people and goods in an out of Gaza. Israel, despite their own claims, is and has never ceased to be an occupying power of Gaza. A fact which is confirmed by the UN and the HRW, among others.
Israel has never given up control of Gaza, they simply removed their settlements, just so you're aware.
Israel pulled out of Gaza in late 2005. In January 2006, Hamas won a landslide victory in the elections. One of their platforms was on the destruction of Israel. In what world should Israel have stopped reinforcing controls of shipments into Gaza with a result like that?
Israel pulled out of Gaza in late 2005. In January 2006, Hamas won a landslide victory in the elections. One of their platforms was on the destruction of Israel. In what world should Israel have stopped reinforcing controls of shipments into Gaza with a result like that?
They never stopped.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have protected themselves by controlling imports and exports, simply that they never once "rewarded" the citizens of Gaza by letting go of control. They've maintained the role of an occupying power without interruption for decades.
In between the time Israel disassembled their settlements and the time Hamas was elected, Israel still maintained occupying power of Gaza.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Israel pulled settlements out of Gaza because the majority of the Israeli public was sick of wasting resources and lives protecting a lunatic fringe. It was - first and foremost - a military decision. In no way shape or form was Israel 'conceding' anything to the Palestinians.
In addition, the outposts of Gaza hardly resembled the San Diego-style suburbs of permanent settlements in the West Bank.
The Following User Says Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
They never stopped.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have protected themselves by controlling imports and exports, simply that they never once "rewarded" the citizens of Gaza by letting go of control. They've maintained the role of an occupying power without interruption for decades.
In between the time Israel disassembled their settlements and the time Hamas was elected, Israel still maintained occupying power of Gaza.
Except they did stop.
There was no blockade until after Hamas came into power. The Gaza Strip also shares a border with Egypt. They also placed a blockade at the same time....I assume because the Egyptians are apartheid racists too...oh no wait they are the exact same race/ethnicity/religion as the Gazans. Maybe Hamas is just dangerous.
There was no blockade until after Hamas came into power. The Gaza Strip also shares a border with Egypt. They also placed a blockade at the same time....I assume because the Egyptians are apartheid racists too...oh no wait they are the exact same race/ethnicity/religion as the Gazans. Maybe Hamas is just dangerous.
You are misinformed.
According to the Oslo Accord, Israel was granted continued control of Gaza airspace and Gaza waters, something which has not ceased since 1967. As for the borders, if you believe Israel did not control the borders, then why exactly in November 2005 (two months after Israel "left" Gaza and two months before Hamas was voted in) was an "Agreement on Movement and Access" put in place that to improve the movement and economic ability Palestinians had in their own, "unoccupied" land? Israel never once gave up control of Gaza. Never. The only group that has ever claimed that is Israel themselves. All unbiased sources cite uninterrupted control of Gaza by Israel (including the UN, and the European Union, whom side with Israel).
As for the bolded part, what kind of point are you trying to make exactly? That Hamas is dangerous? You really need to make that excruciatingly obvious point? Did the fact that they are a terrorist group not make it obvious enough?
There was no blockade until after Hamas came into power. The Gaza Strip also shares a border with Egypt. They also placed a blockade at the same time....I assume because the Egyptians are apartheid racists too...oh no wait they are the exact same race/ethnicity/religion as the Gazans. Maybe Hamas is just dangerous.
When you get a chance, watch the video I linked a few posts back. It appears Egyptians are a tad more eager to call out Hamas.
One of the most telling things in the region is the absolute lack of any bordering nation guarding against Israeli attacks. No guards, no towers, simply nothing. With what you would read in this thread regarding how bad Israel is, you would think these places would be on the lookout. Instead, they create rules that discriminate against Palestinians, such as laws forbidding ownership of homes or land and lack of government services.
You are misinformed.
According to the Oslo Accord, Israel was granted continued control of Gaza airspace and Gaza waters, something which has not ceased since 1967. As for the borders, if you believe Israel did not control the borders, then why exactly in November 2005 (two months after Israel "left" Gaza and two months before Hamas was voted in) was an "Agreement on Movement and Access" put in place that to improve the movement and economic ability Palestinians had in their own, "unoccupied" land? Israel never once gave up control of Gaza. Never. The only group that has ever claimed that is Israel themselves. All unbiased sources cite uninterrupted control of Gaza by Israel (including the UN, and the European Union, whom side with Israel).
As for the bolded part, what kind of point are you trying to make exactly? That Hamas is dangerous? You really need to make that excruciatingly obvious point? Did the fact that they are a terrorist group not make it obvious enough?
I think you forgot to mention that while Israel certainly did leave Gaza, the Palestinians certainly were not exactly a peaceful entity. This was a token of good measure yet Israel was certainly cautious about it. Keeping some security measures was vital, and proved reasonable considering Hamas started killing Palestinians and took over.
And do you honestly think the UN is on Israel's side?
You are misinformed.
According to the Oslo Accord, Israel was granted continued control of Gaza airspace and Gaza waters, something which has not ceased since 1967. As for the borders, if you believe Israel did not control the borders, then why exactly in November 2005 (two months after Israel "left" Gaza and two months before Hamas was voted in) was an "Agreement on Movement and Access" put in place that to improve the movement and economic ability Palestinians had in their own, "unoccupied" land? Israel never once gave up control of Gaza. Never. The only group that has ever claimed that is Israel themselves. All unbiased sources cite uninterrupted control of Gaza by Israel (including the UN, and the European Union, whom side with Israel).
As for the bolded part, what kind of point are you trying to make exactly? That Hamas is dangerous? You really need to make that excruciatingly obvious point? Did the fact that they are a terrorist group not make it obvious enough?
So you admit that a terror group is in power, but you don't think Israel should be able to take steps to limit what they get their hands on?
And yes there was an Agreement on Movement and Goods in place. Pursuant to that agreement, the Gazans received full movement of goods, and would have immediately received a seaport and eventually an airport, both under Palestinian control.
It was all part of a process that was going to normalize the Gaza Strip. All signs point to their being a gradual and total withdrawal until Hamas was put into power. What purpose does Israel have to control the area if they have withdrawn the Jews from it?
Israel pulled settlements out of Gaza because the majority of the Israeli public was sick of wasting resources and lives protecting a lunatic fringe. It was - first and foremost - a military decision. In no way shape or form was Israel 'conceding' anything to the Palestinians.
In addition, the outposts of Gaza hardly resembled the San Diego-style suburbs of permanent settlements in the West Bank.
You're just making things up now. Within the West Bank there are far more isolated settlements than there were in the Gaza Strip.
The disengagement plan was also not the result of public pressure. In fact, it actually took a lot of pressure to get the public (and the politicians) to agree. Also, do you really think having an islamist terrorist state is easier (either economically or militarily) for the Israelis?
Also, here a picture of Neve Dekalim, the biggest former settlement in Gaza, looks pretty similar to other settlements to me:
Spoiler!
The move to disengage was 100% a test case to see how the Palestinian people would react to removal of Israeli military presence.
So you admit that a terror group is in power, but you don't think Israel should be able to take steps to limit what they get their hands on?
When did I ever say that? I would ask, for the sake of a fair and balanced argument, that you avoid creating false stances and attacking them. I very clearly said the opposite of what you're asserting:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
I'm not saying they shouldn't have protected themselves by controlling imports and exports
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
And yes there was an Agreement on Movement and Goods in place. Pursuant to that agreement, the Gazans received full movement of goods, and would have immediately received a seaport and eventually an airport, both under Palestinian control.
It was all part of a process that was going to normalize the Gaza Strip. All signs point to their being a gradual and total withdrawal until Hamas was put into power. What purpose does Israel have to control the area if they have withdrawn the Jews from it?
All true. They would have received a seaport, an airport. All signs did point to there being a gradual and total withdrawal. This however, never came to fruition, namely because of the threat Hamas posed. Unfortunately, this truthfulness of this post regarding the intentions of a gradual, eventual withdrawal, with further freedoms to be granted in the future (until the Hamas took over) is in direct conflict with the post you made, which I said was factually incorrect:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
They withdrew from their to see what the effect would be of a later withdrawal form the West Bank. The West Bank has border is a much larger and harder border to defend.
Immediately upon withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians voted in Hamas and used the territory as a platform to launch guerrilla warfare against Israeli citizens.
Your logic is flawed, in that the citizens of Gaza were already rewarded, and they responded with violence.
As I said (and you admitted to in the post quoted at the top), no withdrawal was completed. No "reward" was bestowed upon Gaza. Withdrawal was the eventual goal, with eventual freedom granted to Gaza, but this never occurred. Israel never gave up control, never ceased it's role as an occupying power, and never allowed the people of Gaza to be free. If the "reward" you speak up was pulling military personnel out, you are correct, but the rest of your post isn't accurate. We all know why Israel never withdrew, and it was a valid reason. That does not, however, mean that fictional accounts of what happened should form the backbone of your argument.
I took issue with your claims that Israel withdrew and rewarded Gaza. Something that, while intended, never occurred. Thank you for admitting as much.
It's freakin give and take. I don't understand why you don't get this Chill.
Israel started the unilateral withdrawal. Gaza SHOULD have went on with their lives and started negotiating for border access and various other infrastructure.
Instead, Hamas moved in within months. How could any agreements or "reward" have been done in that short period of time?
Yet you give Israel 100% blame for something that was logistically impossible. I just don't understand.
All your statements STRONGLY IMPLY that Israel should have just left the border wide open (even canada and the US don't do that, but I digress). You can keep stating that you never said that explicitly, but it is obvious to anyone with half a rational mind that it is the message you are trying to push. In fact, you quoted yourself being the voice of reason with "I'm not saying they shouldn't have protected their borders", when several posts above that, you state in a negative manner that: "Israel still maintained control of all borders, air space, sea, and all movement of people and goods in an out of Gaza."
Maybe English isn't your first language, but the way that statement is phrased implies that you disagree that they should have maintained control of said borders/air space and movement - thus, your voice of reason remark really means you are just trying to play both sides and doing a really really poor job of covering up your bias.
The Following User Says Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
I think you forgot to mention that while Israel certainly did leave Gaza, the Palestinians certainly were not exactly a peaceful entity. This was a token of good measure yet Israel was certainly cautious about it. Keeping some security measures was vital, and proved reasonable considering Hamas started killing Palestinians and took over.
And do you honestly think the UN is on Israel's side?
Are you certain?
Did I forget to mention it? Is this pertinent to the discussion? Once again I have to ask, what exactly are you arguing? Because I am arguing they never released Gaza from occupation, not why they did or did not do it.
Honestly, I find you harder and harder to engage with. Your constant misplaced focus and purposeful avoidance of posts and points that you aren't able to spin into pro-Israeli rhetoric is tiring. Still, I'm curious to see your response to the last response I gave you. One which you, conveniently as usual, seem to have dodged despite the direct questions and clear calls for clarification on your part. But I sense you will continue ignoring things you cannot attempt to use to paint critics of Israel as supporters of terrorists and anti-Semites.
A simple "sorry I falsely accused you of supporting Hamas" or even "Sorry I did not understand your point and jumped to conclusions" would be a refreshing change from you. While I doubt you'd ever apologise, I'd love to be proven wrong. You and I are not on such different sides you see, but your passion (and perhaps blindness) for Israel stops you from seeing that.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
You're just making things up now. Within the West Bank there are far more isolated settlements than there were in the Gaza Strip.
The disengagement plan was also not the result of public pressure. In fact, it actually took a lot of pressure to get the public (and the politicians) to agree. Also, do you really think having an islamist terrorist state is easier (either economically or militarily) for the Israelis?
The move to disengage was 100% a test case to see how the Palestinian people would react to removal of Israeli military presence.
My apologies if my assertion does not fit with your fictional narrative. Polls from Israel before the "disengagement" showed a majority of Israelis were in favour, with good reason: having your children conscripted to protect Israel is one thing, having them conscripted to protect the lunatic fringe quite another. Many on the Israeli Right were thoroughly against it - true - but Sharon managed to push it through.
As for this "Test Case" scenario - you are making this up completely. Your narrative here is completely fabricated. I'm not even sure why you are doing it, to tell you the truth. Sharon himself said of the disengagement that he wanted to consolidate Israeli resources around permanent West Bank settlements, and that it was for Israeli security. At the same time, four of the more remote settlements were removed in the West Bank that required disproportionate protection.
However, expansion of permanent settlements in the West Bank continued apace, and today there are approximately 75,000 more settlers in the West Bank than there were in 2006.
When did I ever say that? I would ask, for the sake of a fair and balanced argument, that you avoid creating false stances and attacking them. I very clearly said the opposite of what you're asserting:
All true. They would have received a seaport, an airport. All signs did point to there being a gradual and total withdrawal. This however, never came to fruition, namely because of the threat Hamas posed. Unfortunately, this truthfulness of this post regarding the intentions of a gradual, eventual withdrawal, with further freedoms to be granted in the future (until the Hamas took over) is in direct conflict with the post you made, which I said was factually incorrect:
As I said (and you admitted to in the post quoted at the top), no withdrawal was completed. No "reward" was bestowed upon Gaza. Withdrawal was the eventual goal, with eventual freedom granted to Gaza, but this never occurred. Israel never gave up control, never ceased it's role as an occupying power, and never allowed the people of Gaza to be free. If the "reward" you speak up was pulling military personnel out, you are correct, but the rest of your post isn't accurate. We all know why Israel never withdrew, and it was a valid reason. That does not, however, mean that fictional accounts of what happened should form the backbone of your argument.
I took issue with your claims that Israel withdrew and rewarded Gaza. Something that, while intended, never occurred. Thank you for admitting as much.
You don't think total withdrawal of all settlers and military and freedom of goods was a "reward"?
Maybe you're right....but that's only because the intent wasn't to reward anybody. Israel was using Gaza as a small test case to see how withdrawal would work on a wider basis. Hamas chose to see it as a "reward" for their previous military action, and use that as a propaganda tool to excuse more attempted violence.
Israel never gave up control, never ceased it's role as an occupying power, and never allowed the people of Gaza to be free
...due to the attacks from Hamas. I am really honestly trying to see what your arguments are, but there are none: Israel was supposed to give up control, never did give up 100% control, Hamas is bad and because of them Israel could not give up control, so see how Israel is wrong?
That seems to be your argument, switch some words around and it covers many of your posts. You claim to agree with some vague principles yet appear to be completely unaware.
And what do you mean by free? They are certainly free, except for Hamas. Should they have unlimited access to Egypt and Israel? Yes? Than what about Jordan and Lebanon? Israel absolutely limits supplies, but I think that is what you get when the government (Hamas) launches attack after attack. I have yet to see much in this thread offering good advice for what Israel should do, at least anything better than what they are currently doing regarding Hamas.
