Gaza, remember?

[Jefferson23]

Last update - 12:50 19/04/2009
By Gideon Levy

Alyan Abu-Aun is lying in his tent, his crutches beside him. He smokes cigarettes and stares into the tiny tent's empty space. His young son sits on his lap. Ten people are crammed into the tent, about the size of a small room. It has been their home for three months. Nothing remains of their previous home, which the Israel Defense Forces shelled during Operation Cast Lead. They are refugees for a second time; Abu-Aun's mother still remembers her home in Sumsum, a town that once stood near Ashkelon.

Abu-Aun, 53, was wounded while trying to flee when his home in the Gaza town of Beit Lahia was bombed. He has been on crutches ever since. His wife gave birth during the height of the war, and now the baby is with them in the cold tent. The tent was sent flying during the storm that devoured the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, so the family had to put it back up. They receive water only occasionally in a container, and a tiny tin shack serves as a bathroom for the 100 families in this new refugee camp, 'Camp Gaza,' in Beit Lahia's Al-Atatra neighborhood.

Abu-Aun sounded particularly bitter this past weekend; the Red Cross refused his family a bigger tent. He has also had enough of eating bean.
For three months, the Abu-Aun family and thousands of others have been living in five tent encampments built after the war. They have not begun clearing away the ruins of their homes, let alone build new ones. Thousands live in the shadow of the ruins of their homes, thousands in tents, thousands crowded together with their relatives, tens of thousands who are newly homeless and whom the world has lost interest in. After the conference of donor countries, which convened to great fanfare in Sharm el-Sheikh a month and a half ago, which included 75 countries and agreed to transfer $1 billion to rebuild Gaza, nothing happened.

remainder here: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079219.html

[GoesTo11]

1. Gaza needs something better than a choice between Hamas and Israel

"It's exactly three months since the much-talked-about war, and Gaza is once again forgotten. Israel has never taken an interest in the welfare of its victims. Now the world has forgotten, too. Two weeks with hardly a Qassam rocket has taken Gaza completely off the agenda. If the Gazans don't hurry up and resume firing, nobody will take an interest in their welfare again. Although not new, this is an especially grievous and saddening message liable to spark the next cycle of violence. And then it will be certain they won't get aid because they will be shooting."

[Duckhunter935]

2. First rocket from Gaza in 11 days lands in Israel

More than 200 rockets and mortar rounds have been fired towards Israel from the Hamas-controlled territory since mid-January when Israel ended its three-week assault targeted at the Islamist movement, according to the army.

The onslaught left more than 1,400 Palestinians dead and 5,000 wounded, Palestian medical services say.



http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/-First-rocket-from-Gaza-in-11-days-lands-in-Israel-/articleshow/4407073.cms


As I have said many times before both sides need to stop this bull, But I thgink it will not happen soon.

[shira]

3. sage advice by the righteous Gideon Levy

"If the Gazans don't hurry up and resume firing, nobody will take an interest in their welfare again".

Yeah HamasGazans, do fire away at random Israelis so that Gazans won't be "forgotten".

:eyes:

Sick fuck.

They fired away thousands of times for 8 years and the outside world didn't give a shit until the Jews Israel said they had enough and fired back. Then the outside world "cared" again. They really "care" that the PA has squandered billions of dollars in aid in order to "resist", and therefore left its own people in squalor to be propaganda pawns for useless idiots and haters so that they can cry their crocodile tears and blame Israel.

Disgusting.

[GoesTo11]

6. I took it from the rest of that paragraph that he was being facetious

Then if they fire rockets, they won't get aid because they're firing rockets. Point being, they are screwed by their current leadership one way or another. I understand that Gideon Levy is critical of Israel, but I don't think he really wants rocket attacks. If he does, may he receive the first.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Yeah, I think anyone with any sort of reading comprehension skills would have seen that...

But the post you replied to did display a rather appalling desire to conflate Gazans with Hamas, and Jews with Israelis, something I did think was against the rules of the forum...

[Idealism]

25. Sarcasm can be delicious if properly ingested n/t

[Jefferson23]

5. Thought you might find this of interest that I believe addresses the

many concerns about Gaza.

Mitchell visit to Israel: Does Obama's path to Iran pass through Jewish settlements?

snip** A new focus on the settlements

Another sign of shifting strategy is the possibility that the Obama administration would make a palpable link between Israel's approach to reaching peace with the Palestinians and Israel's concerns over Iran's nuclear program.

On Thursday, Yedioth Ahronoth, one of Israel's mass-circulation papers, quoted an official in the Obama administration as saying there would be a tradeoff: Bushehr for Yitzhar. The catchphrase is meant to imply that if Washington's outlook on Iran is to be more or less in sync with Israel's, Netanyahu must be willing to dismantle settlements in the West Bank. (Bushehr is an Iranian nuclear facility, while Yitzhar is known to be among the most hard-line Jewish settlements.)

The paper's Shimon Shiffer wrote that Netanyahu and his top ministers, Mr. Lieberman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, "agreed to show a united front that the route to reaching a solution would be the road map, and would clarify that Israeli flexibility on the Palestinian issue would be contingent upon the American approach toward resolving the Iranian threat, as well as its attitude towards Hamas and Hezbollah.

article in full here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0416/p06s07-wogn.html?page=2

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. The Palestinians don't think they have anything to gain from non-violence.

I think that a large part of the problem in the Middle East is that most of the Palestinians don't have any hope of achieving anything through non-violent means.

This has been reinforced time and time again, and the latest Israeli elections have made that message plainer than ever.

The only way to stop Palestinian violence is to give them hope that they can achieve a viable state through non-violent means. And the latest election results provide further evidence that the large majority of Israelis are hell-bent on ensuring that they can't.

The only way to break the cycle will be if the US makes it clear that, if the Palestinians agree to make peace, it will force Israel to allow the establishment of a viable Palestinian state even though it doesn't want to. There are some signs that Obama and Mitchell may be doing that, but I'm not optimistic that they'll have the political strength to carry it through.

[GoesTo11]

7. But they're wrong

They have drawn the wrong lessons - violence has worked poorly for them. The latest Israeli election results were at least in part a response to the rockets from Gaza.

What hasn't worked with respect to non-violence is to commit to it long enough for a weak Palestinian security force to be in charge, and then to either have a lot of violence occur through letting it happen or making it happen, followed by Israel coming in and cracking down. It's a broken cycle. But it doesn't have to be.

If you look at, for example, Canada and the US, it's not like we are all on both sides ideologically committed to Gandhi's non-violence. We just have a peaceful relationship because there is trust etc and it works. The reason Canada doesn't attack the US and the US doesn't attack Canada is not mutually assured destruction (same with Germany and France), it's just obviously pragmatic. We're quite a distance from that equilibrium now.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. I'm not sure I agree, for two reasons: Israel's long term plans, and game theory.

Firstly, I think - as evidenced by Israel's most recent elections, and by the comment threads on Israeli news websites and the comments from posters like Shira here on DU - that Israel is firmly opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state, let alone a viable Palestinian state. I think that the only two things that will stop Israel ultimately stretching from the Jordan to the Sea, as its foreign minister and many of its ruling party want, are the Palestinian capacity for violence and the possibility of US pressure and hitherto - although possibly not any more - the latter appeared unlikely to happen.

Secondly, the Palestinians are fragmented. That means that you have to ask not "what do the Palestinians as a whole have to gain from renouncing violence" but "what does an individual Palestinian have to gain from renouncing violence, if the world around him continues as it will if he does". Here, the answer is "well, if even one other Palestinian doesn't, Israel will use that as an excuse to continue its "proportional responses to defend its citizens", with all that entails, so my doing so doesn't gain us anything."

Now, it's possible that if the US makes it clear that if the Palestinians renounce violence it will force Israel to make peace even though it doesn't want to. But anyone who expects Israel to allow the Palestinians a viable state willingly is not paying any attention to Israel.

That doesn't mean that I think that either violence or violence against civilians are either ethically acceptable or good strategy (I don't think the Palestinians have anything to gain through violence either; I think that their right to resistance to occupation goes as far as killing soldiers and destroying property, but not as far as killing civilians)

But it does mean that I think that the Palestinians will only renounce violence if the US (or Israel, but it won't) makes it clear that they can achieve a viable state without it.

[GoesTo11]

9. I agree with much of what you say, but

by your logic, what does an individual Palestinian gain by engaging in violence either? Just satisfaction? Or do you mean that certain factions gain by messing stuff up?

Overall, the Palestinians would be better positioned to engage in constructive action if they had a more unified leadership (although I suspect that the idea that if Hamas were in charge, they would be dragged into constructive positions is wishful thinking - there is a complex mix of motivations and beliefs going on there).

On the Israeli side, it's not as simple as you describe. There not just Greater Israel vs. Two-staters. My guess is that the swing vote doesn't care that much about a greater Israel, but doesn't want the Palestinians to have a state not out of spite but because they don't trust them - so out of a desire for security. This may not in the end turn out to make them the most secure, but that is largely the motivation. When you go around in Israel and talk to Israelis, most aren't saying "damn, I wish I could go for a picnic in Efrat and then shop for some tsotchkes in Shechem." They say things like "you can't trust the Palestinians, they only believe in violence." If this view could be changed, then a majority of Israelis would support the two-state solution. They are fed up with the cost of occupying - how many 40 year old men feel like being on patrol in a hostile city away from their families for a month?

Certainly makes the case for a strong outsider to bring both sides to a situation that is mutually preferable to their current one - to get outside the box of the prisoner's dilemma (since you mention game theory).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. The relevant question is "what do they think they gain".

I don't think an individual Palestinian gains anything by engaging in violence.

My impression is that some of the Palestinians engaging in violence are doing so because they genuinely believe they can achieve something - destroy Israel, bring Israel to the negotiating table, force Israel to allow them a state or similar; some are doing it for religious or idealistic reasons, and some are doing it out of sheer anger - they've suffered so much at Israel's hands that they want to make it suffer in return, and they feel that they have little to lose by doing so. I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at the relative incidences of the three motivations, but my suspicion is that it's the middle one that will be the real problem - Israel can make peace with people trying to achieve specific goals by making some or all of those goals achievable through peaceful means; it can make peace with people who are angry and have nothing to lose by showing it has changed and giving them something to lose; I'm not sure what will mollify genuine religious fanatics. But my impression is that they're in a minority compared to the other two groups among the Palestinians, although not among some of their backers.

My impression of Israeli public opinion is extremely unscientific - it's based on a) election results and the statements of elected leaders, and b) reading ynetnews, the Jerusalem post and Haaretz on line, and looking at the talkback sections there. But what I'm getting from there is an awful lot of hatred of the Palestinians, an awful lot of people denying that there even is a Palestinian people or saying that the "falestinians" should "go home to Jordan", a near-total dismissal of the idea that territorial concessions should be a part of the peace process, widespread support for extending settlements, and a lot of people viewing anyone left-wing or pro-peace as a traitor, anti-semite, anti-Israel or self-hater. And that's even at Haaretz...

I'm not sure the I/P conflict is a prisoner's dilemma in the classic sense - there are lots more than just two options.

[GoesTo11]

16. One problem is nasty outsiders (vs. nice outsiders)

I think your middle group - those who are violent for religious and idealistic (more like ideological) reasons are heavily driven by outsiders -- higher level religious leaders who are just using the Palestinians to achieve whatever their aims are. In other words, basically, Iran is using the Palestinians to get at the US via Israel. This is a problem that Obama knows about and is trying to figure out how to deal with.

Israelis are exasperated. They are fed up Palestinians - this surely goes both ways - but I don't think this is permanent.

Here's what I mean by the prisoner's dilemma: Each side can either be accommodating toward co-existence or can be violent and aim for the destruction of the other side (or at least non-state status).

The four cases are then:

Palestinians / Israel
Accommodate-Accommodate - Each side has a peaceful state, though one that is smaller than they'd like.
Accommodate-Don't accommodate - Israel would have all the ancient cities and more area to settle, Palestinians would have nothing, they would just all be refugees or second-class citizens (which is why they wouldn't go this route)
Don't accommodate-Accommodate - Israeli peaceniks get attacked, Palestinians form one-state solution as a first stage and ultimately kick the Jews out (Israelis won't accept this route)
Don't accommodate-don't accommodate - Israel has slightly larger than 1967 borders state, lives with war and difficult international relations, Palestinians have a small amount of autonomy but basically live with war and largely lousy living conditions.

Pretty simple really.

They're stuck in the bad quadrant now; it will take a generation of externally supported peace to get to the good quadrant and to stay there will involve the kinds of mechanisms that most countries have and maybe more.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

31. For one thing, they watched Hebzollah defeat Israel.

Not only in 2006, but when Israel withdrew "unilaterally" from South Lebanon.

That was the strongest lesson of all -- make them bleed and they will go home.

I think that POV underestimates the attachment to the WB, and the paranoia Israelis feel the West Bank.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

30. Can you give an example of "constructive action?"

Genuinely interested...

[shira]

10. Palestinian leadership has never renounced violence

Only short-term have they done so, like during the Gaza disengagement in 2005. They proved they CAN do so, but not for long periods of time. Neither do they seem willing to PUBLICLY renounce violence and preach tolerance through their media or in their school systems. It's all hate (very disgusting anti-semitism too) and intolerance.

Maybe they should honestly give peace a chance for a while, without just paying lip service to it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Nor has Israel.

However, the Palestinians have repeatedly offered to do so, whereas no Israeli leader has ever offered to end the military occupation of Palestinian land.

[shira]

13. um, okay....yeah

Do you get your info. on these affairs from comic books?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. Can you point me to the last Israeli leader who offered to dismantle the settlements?

Rabin, I suppose, in the long run, but he was shot before he could make it more than a vague statement of intent.

[shira]

15. It happened in Gaza almost 4 years ago.

It was offered 8 years ago at Camp David too.

The response was more warmongering by the PA.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Dismantling some of the settlements is like stopping firing some of the rockets.

Of course withdrawing from a few settlements while maintaining the rest didn't satisfy the Palestinians, any more than stopping firing some rockets while continuing firing others would satisfy the Israelis.

And at Camp David, Barak insisted on keeping a significant quantity of the best land in the West Bank, and refused to allow the Palestinian sovereignty over Palestinian sections of Jerusalem.

Israel has repeatedly offered the Palestinians "less war". It has not yet offered them "peace".

[shira]

18. no, ALL settlements in Gaza were abandoned, not some

Had Palestinian leadership not opted to go to war as a result of Gaza 2005, and had instead worked towards real peace, the pressure for Israel to withdraw from the W.Bank would have been enormous. As it is, Gaza 2005 shows Israel would be suicidal to do the same in the W.Bank now. Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion airport would be bombed within minutes of disengagement.

As for 2000-01, Barak offered what amounted to 100% of Palestinian territory pre-1967 when passage between Gaza and the W.Bank is included with the 98%. And Palestinians would have had sovereignty over Palestinian sections of Jerusalem. I don't know where you get your info. from.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Now you're being deliberately disingenuous.

The Palestinians are one people. Dismantling all the settlements in Gaza but not in the West Bank is like bombing Tel Aviv but not Haifa. Talking about the settlements in Gaza as "all" is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate.

And your second paragraph is just again deliberately misleading - Barak did *not* offer to return 100% or 98% of anything; he offered seventy-something % initialy; 91% in a few decades time, and offered to throw in some land of significantly less value than that which he insisted on annexing.

[shira]

20. what a bizarre and skewed view you have of this conflict

Because Israel didn't disengage from ALL Palestinian territory, it's as if they didn't disengage at all and therefore INVITED even more aggression? A big reason this conflict hasn't been resolved already is this maximalist position of "all or nothing", and defense for it from folks like yourself, that keeps the conflict going.

Be realistic.

Do you have ANY reason to believe - any evidence to show - that if Israel pulled out of the W.Bank along with Gaza 4 years ago, that the Palestinian response (more war) would have been different?

Do you believe it would be different, like no rockets, etc.. if Israel withdrew within the next 3-6 months?

Please answer.

Barak did offer what amounted to 100%. Read Clinton's parameters. President Clinton stated that this was a proposal that Arafat could take to his own people and claim 100% of the pre-1967 land. Barak and his cabinet agreed to Clinton's parameters.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Yes, I do:

To wit, the fact that that was what they were asking for at Camp David.

If Israel withdraws to the Green Line (including in Jerusalem) then there will be peace.

Until then, there won't.

[shira]

22. so Gaza 2005 should have brought more peace, not more war

Why do you think Gaza 2005 led to an INCREASE in Palestinian "resistance" rather than a decrease?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Because it wasn't enough to reduce hostility.

You're dealing with human beings, not animals or robots.

Giving back less than 10% of their land (which is about what the Gaza strip is) doesn't result in a 10% reduction in their anger - people don't work like that. You need to remove the casus beli, not just shrink it slightly.

[Vegasaurus]

24. It isn't about the Green Line

but about all of Israel.

Hamas and its supporters have said that they will continue violent resistance until they destroy Israel and "liberate all of greater Palestine".

Why do you think that withdrawing to the Green Line will bring peace when the Hamas leadership has expressed incessantly (even to this week) that it won't?

Do you know something that the Palestinians themselves don't know?

[shaayecanaan]

26. It will bring peace with the 73% of Palestinians who support it...

73% of Palestinians support a peace agreement based on the 1967 borders. By comparison, that is much more than the proportion of Northern Irish Catholics who were prepared to support the Good Friday agreement that led to peace between the Protestants and Catholics.

Israel will not have peace with every single Palestinian by withdrawing to the green line. However, it will rob the extreme Palestinian elements of popular support should they wish to reignite the conflict following a peace agreement.

Many Catholic groups such as the Real IRA opposed the Good Friday agreement and vowed to continue operations against the British until they left the six counties and there was a united Ireland. There was a Real IRA attack on British soldiers only a month ago in which 2 people were killed. However, the next day there were over 100 000 Protestants and Catholics rallying in Belfast against the Real IRA.

If you want to stop reasonable people supporting Hamas, you must offer to them a reasonable solution. And you must not allow extreme elements to derail the peace process, as the Real IRA tried to do by carrying out the Omagh bombing.

[Vegasaurus]

27. If 27% of the people want to continue terrorism, suicide bombings and rockets

that is a good percentage of people, and there will be no peace.

What is so sacred to you about "the Green line"?

Are you prepared to uproot three generations of families and create civil war?

Or are you willing to concede that land swaps, equal to 100% of the land of the settlements, will be offered instead?

I don't know how people really believe that a half a million people, many of who have lived in their homes and communities for 40+ years, and going to be uprooted.

Whether or not those communities should be there or not, Israel will not voluntarily uproot that many people without a war.

The question is whether all the pacifists here prefer to wage war against Israel in order to get the settlements and communities cleared out.

Because that is what it will take.

It would never be voluntary.

And even at that, I do not for a second believe that there would be peace.

Not for a second.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Does your compassion about uprooting families extend to Palestinian families?

Such as those uprooted by Israel's "Security Wall", or by the settlements you so eagerly defend?

Personally, I have far fewer qualms about uprooting settlers than I do about uprooting law-abiding families.

The question is not what I am prepared to concede, it's what the Palestinians are prepared to concede, and unless Israel is willing to offer land a) not merely comparable in area, but also in value, and b) placed so that the Palestinian state is not practically bisected - which it would be virtually impossible to do without removing most of the settlements - then I doubt they will accept settlements remaining.

[Vegasaurus]

29. The people who have lived in 40+ year old settlements did not uproot

any Palestinian families for the security wall.

The security wall was built very recently, in response to people who thought that strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up pizza parlors and buses was a way to make a political statement.

Those law-abiding Israeli families are not going away.

We are not talking about the settlers of the last decade, but law-abiding families who are not ultra-religious, "greater Israel" types.

The Palestinians do not have the upper hand and cannot make the same demands (unless they really have no desire to have a state at all).

It is why the Palestinians don't have a state now, and won't have a state in the near future, no matter what Obama or Mitchell say.

That is, unless people are promoting war with Israel.

Is that what you are proposing?

[Violet_Crumble]

32. You were asked if you felt compassion for Palestinian families put out of their homes...

Yr continued refusal to answer a question that's been put to you many times indicates strongly that you don't...

And both the wall and the settlements have resulted in Palestinian families losing their homes. To claim otherwise is completely untrue...

And for someone who tried to claim in a recent thread that yr opposed to the settlements, yr proving yet again that you actually do support the settlements and don't see the need for them to be dismantled. What sort of Palestinian state is it that you think could come about when there's Israeli settlements peppered throughout this state? What yr advocating isn't any sort of viable state at all...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. So what you are saying

is that you support the displacement of law-abiding Palestinian families to make way for the wall (which is one of the biggest obstables to peace) but that you oppose the displacement of illegal Israeli settlers (there are, by definition, no law-abiding Israeli families in the settlements) as part of the peace process?

"The people who have lived in 40+ year old settlements did not uproot any Palestinian families for the security wall." ... well, they had them uprooted on their behalf by the IDF, and many of them or their parents uprooted more families to make way for their settlements when they were founded.



Also, why did you make the claim that you are opposed to the settlements in another thread just a few days ago, when you are disproving that claim right here?

And I notice that you didn't actually answer my question.

[Vegasaurus]

35. I said that the majority of the people who have lived for 40+ years

raising generations of their families, did not have anything to do with wall construction.

I have been 100% clear on my position all along.

The continual building of new settlements, including post-Oslo, has been very detrimental to Israel.

The original settlements, built on land captured in the '67 war is not in the same category, and yes, the facts are on the ground already.

Whether it is 40 or 60 years, those people have been there for several generations.

Those settlements are not, and should not. be disbanded.

It is no better to uproot those half million people than it was to uproot original Palestinians.

What right do you think will be done by just reversing the uprooting?

Do you think that will end the conflict?

If so, you are really delusional.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Yes, I think that Israel withdrawing to the Green Line will end the conflict.

I think that nothing else but that will.

So when you're defending the settlements, what you're actually defending is eternal war.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. And a more specific reformulation of the question you've avoided:

Does your compassion to people being forced out of "their" homes extend to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x272174 ?

[shaayecanaan]

37. "The Palestinians do not have the upper hand and cannot make the same demands"

It is why the Palestinians don't have a state now, and won't have a state in the near future, no matter what Obama or Mitchell say.

That's fine, as long as Israel is prepared to do without American aid and without trade relations with the EU. If it wants to be the Serbia of the middle-East, it is quite entitled to do so but I should warn you that right now that is not working out very well for the Serbians.

On the other hand, as long as Israel is dependent on those two things, they're not really in a position to disregard what Obama and Mitchell say.