Colonial realities

[subsuelo]

Excellent analysis...

Colonial Realities by Nimer Sultany

Once again Israel defies an impotent international community which offers nothing but timid calls for ceasefire on "both sides." And once again Palestinian suffering and death tolls continue to break records in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

Perhaps it is easy to dismiss this suffering by blaming the victims and resorting to ready cliches. Indeed, Israeli propagandists go out of their way to repeat the sound bite: we withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and since then the Palestinians have been firing rockets on our southern towns. This sound bite might fly in the western media; after all it resonates with a simplistic world view that ignites stereotypes which have been in the making for centuries, producing demonic and degrading representations of Muslims and Arabs. It becomes easy to describe the Palestinians in this context as the carriers of incomprehensible and irrational rage. This kind of representation has intensified since September 2001 with the "rediscovery" of Israel, and its supreme court, as a western lighthouse amid the darkness of the Middle East.

When examined closely, however, reality rules out crude explanations of "violence without reason" and "terrorism without context." It becomes apparent that one cannot seriously discuss a legitimate resistance to a prolonged and horrendous military occupation within the context of the "war on terrorism." Moreover, even if one finds a place to critique some practices of the oppressed one should keep in mind the root of the problem: it is the occupation, not the resistance. No rhetorical device can conceal the reality of colonialism by transforming it either to a mere "conflict" between equally culpable sides or to portray the occupier as the retaliating victim.


It is about time that Israel be held accountable. There is a need for an international protection for the Palestinians. Under the current conditions of gross power asymmetry it is unlikely that Israel will comply with the demands of international law and just peace without a pressure from the international community. The sooner this pressure comes and the sooner the international community assumes its responsibility, the less suffering we will witness in the region.

[pelsar]

1. i need some help here....

we withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and since then the Palestinians have been firing rockets on our southern towns This sound bite might fly in the western media;......


remind me again why they're shooting rockets and trying to kill as many israelis as possible daily?

[subsuelo]

2. 'Retaliation' is the standard claim employed by both sides

Side A is 'retaliating' for civilian deaths caused by Side B, who were 'retaliating' for killings committed by Side A, who were also 'retaliating' for killings by Side B... it all goes pretty far back.

[bemildred]

3. The "reasoning", and I use that word loosely, seems to be about the same on both sides.

Something along the lines of "We'll keep fighting until you give up." What differences there are seem to be in the methods available to each side.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. I think it's a little matter of your 50 year history of human-rights-denying tyranny. nt

[MaryCeleste]

9. Actually its quite a bit longer than that in the Muslim nataions

just ask the Bah'ai

[subsuelo]

10. I can't believe what I'm reading around here lately

[MaryCeleste]

11. I suggest you read up on how Muslims have treated Bah'ai for much longer than 50 years

It may enlighten you

[subsuelo]

19. It shocks me to even have to point this out, but.

Maybe someone will learn from it. Here goes.

Would it be okay with you if someone posted:

"I suggest you read up on how Jews have treated Palestinians for years".

Do we not all agree here that this would be a disturbing, anti-Semitic statement?

Do we not all agree here that stating something like that would be cause for at the minimum an alert and a deleted post?

Then how is what you have written even remotely acceptable?

Again, I am shocked, and thoroughly disappointed that it even needs to be pointed out around here. I really expect more when I come to this forum. Honestly I expect more.

[MaryCeleste]

20. Its shocks me that you do not understand the history of the region

Muslim persecution of members of the Bah'ai faith is a historic fact over many centuries. Its not a pretty picture. It is on going today in Iran and elsewhere.

Now lets review the thread to see if your complaint is justified...

PM replied to a pro Israel post with "I think it's a little matter of your 50 year history of human-rights-denying tyranny" Inferring that 50 years of mistreatment of Palestinians by the Israelis was the problem.

I replied to PM pointing out that Muslims nations had persecuted the Bah'ai for much longer period of time.

You post without a reference how shocked you are

I suggested you read up on how Muslims treat Bah'ai(surprisingly few people know about the level of historical persecution Bah'ais)

Then you claim that is horrible or inappropriate? I fail to see how or why. If you have not done some reading on it, you should. If you feel you understand that part of history and my analogy is wrong, then counter it. Claiming shock and offense without doing the latter is at best invalid. As for your analogy of "I suggest you read up on how Jews have treated Palestinians for years"...that kind of statement and many like it are made regularly as part of discussions on ME issues. There are lots of views of those events, many irreconcilable. But asking is someone has actually studied the events is not anti semetic nor shocking nor worthy alert/deletion. However, better phrasing would be to would use Israeli vice Jew not all Israelis are Jews and not all Palestinians are Muslims.

[subsuelo]

22. Fine let's start phrasing all I/P discussion as "Jewish persection of members of the Muslim faith"

From now on.

Suit you ok? (That's a question, not a serious suggestion of mine)

[MaryCeleste]

23. The source of your outrage continues to elude me

[subsuelo]

24. Ok, here is a simple question

Would it be acceptable to you if others commented here about how "Jews killing Arabs" was a "historic fact"?

[MaryCeleste]

26. Yes if it was a historical fact in context

Israelis have for some time kicked the crap out of the people of Gaza. Thats a fact. Its not so much a religious issue, but a nationalism one IMO, others feel differently. Muslims have historically persecuted non-Dhimmi religions. That is also a fact. The two are not directly related, but I whenever someone throws the poor misunderstood and persecuted Muslims card, I tend to point out that its not a one way street. Yes two wrongs do not make a right, but context matters as well.

You continue to mix racial ethnic groups with religious groups, any particular reason?

[Violet_Crumble]

18. I just trotted off and asked the Bah'ai...

And they want you to go ask the Australian Aboriginals, coz the denial of their human rights trumps the Bah'ai or the Palestinians. They want to know how this thing works. Whoever in the world's been oppressed the longest is the folk we should solely focus on?

Just curious, but do you believe that the Palestinian people have been oppressed and their human rights violated?

[MaryCeleste]

21. I was pointing out the PKB aspects of the prior post by PM

PM said to Pelsar: "I think it's a little matter of your 50 year history of human-rights-denying tyranny". I was pointing out to PM his (use of possessive parallels PM's use of "your" to Pelsar)own long history of persecution of Bah'ais.

I do believe that the Palestinians have been oppressed and abused my multiple nations, Including but not limited to Israel, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. I also believe that Hamas, Fatah and others "movements" have also oppressed and used them.

Finally the residents of the West Bank and Gaza are doing a good job of oppressing themselves internally. Muslims kill Christians, Muslims kill Muslims, and the Druze and Copts are in there as well.

BTW, what is your definition of Palestinian?

[Shaktimaan]

12. So it is to be expected that when Israel

does something to advance the prospects of peace, like demolishing settlements and leaving Gaza, the Palestinian reaction will be increased violence, because of the past history?

When Israel reduces the occupation, violence and settlements and increases Palestinian autonomy shouldn't the Palestinian response be to similarly reduce terrorism? (If peace and a negotiated settlement is the end goal.) If positive Israeli actions will be met with the same violent response as negative actions then what's Israel's incentive to continue the process?

The sole way that the occupation will end lies in Israel benefiting in some way from ending it, not in punishing Israel when they take positive steps.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. Israel redeployed from the Gaza and doubled the settlement construction plans in the West Bank

Israel withdrew the settlements from the Gaza - and doubled the settlement construction plans in
the West Bank - links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082701113_pf.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/26/news/mideast.php

Including a whole new settlement in the Jordan Valley. That's a long, long way from the Green Line. link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210721.stm

There are approximately 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. According to B'tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, " the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank".* http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

With the construction of massive new highways and expansion of the massive settlements surrounding Jerusalem...unimpeided access between a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank is becoming increasingly unlikely:



New segregated Road being built cuts off East Jerusalem and divides the West Bank

"The Americans demanded from Sharon contiguity for a Palestinian state," said Shaul Arieli, a reserve colonel in the army who participated in the 2000 Camp David negotiations and specializes in maps. "This road was Sharon’s answer, to build a road for Palestinians between Ramallah and Bethlehem but not to Jerusalem. This was how to connect the West Bank while keeping Jerusalem united and not giving Palestinians any blanket permission to enter East Jerusalem."

<snip>

"To Daniel Seidemann, a lawyer who advises an Israeli advocacy group called Ir Amim, which works for Israeli-Palestinian cooperation in Jerusalem, the road suggests an ominous map of the future. It is one in which Israel keeps nearly all of East Jerusalem and a ring of Israeli settlements surrounding it, providing a cordon of Israelis between largely Arab East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, which will become part of a future Palestinian state."

<snip>

"To me, this road is a move to create borders, to change final status," Mr. Seidemann said, referring to unresolved issues regarding borders, refugees and the fate of Jerusalem. "It’s to allow Maale Adumim and E1 into Jerusalem but be able to say, ‘See, we’re treating the Palestinians well — there’s geographical contiguity.’ "

Measure it yourself, he said. "The Palestinian road is 16 meters wide," or 52 feet, he added. "The Israeli theory of a contiguous Palestinian state is 16 meters wide."

"In the end, he said, “there is no Palestinian state, even though the Israelis speak of one.” Instead, he said, “there will be a settler state and a Palestinian built-up area, divided into three sectors, cut by fingers of Israeli settlement and connected only by narrow roads.”"

link to full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=5&pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=22948d4799a34065&ex=1187496000&emc=eta1&oref=&oref=login

---

Settlement expansion actually massively exhilarated after the signing of the Oslo Accord in September 1993 resulting in increasing the number of setters by approximately 90% by the time of the Camp David 2000 talks. They exhiliarated again following the Gaza redeployment.

New UN map charts West Bank reality
From the Financial Times of London

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fdu

"Produced by the United Nations’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, it is based on extensive monitoring in the field combined with analysis of satellite imagery. It provides an overall picture officials say is even more comprehensive than charts drawn up by the Israeli military.

The impact of Israeli civilian and military infrastructure is to render 40 per cent of the territory, which is roughly the size of the US state of Delaware or the English county of Norfolk, off-limits to Palestinians."



snip:"The rest of the territory, including main centres such as Nablus and Jericho, is split into isolated spots. Movement between them is restricted by 450 roadblocks and 70 manned checkpoints"

snip:"Diplomats say the effect of the infrastructure changes would be to formalise the de facto cantonisation of the West Bank. Some 450,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and occupied east Jerusalem and settlements have grown by at least 5.5 per cent a year compared with less than 3 per cent among Palestinians."

[Shaktimaan]

14. the new settlement building began

a full year and a half after the gaza pullout. Actually when Israel left Gaza they also closed down a few (two?) west bank settlements. I often find that anti-Israel arguments demand that we ignore any kind of timeline, ignore specific causes and effects to make their point. How could terrorism increase because of new WB roads or settlements if they weren't even begun to be built until months or years following the terrorism increase we're discussing? How are they relevant to the Palestinian response IMMEDIATELY following Israel's pullout?

Most of the rest of what you wrote supports what I said. Because of the situation, Israel can not expect any reciprocation if it takes positive steps.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. I don't believe you will find that is accurate at all

settlement expansion continued and increased following the Gaza redeployment. Only a few remote "unauthorized outpost" in the West Bank were closed down. There was certainly no freezing or curtailing of expansion in the West Bank. There was certainly no commitment to deal with any of this. Fatah was in power then. And there were certainly no steps taken to restart active talks and negotiate for a viable two-state solution and bring an end to the whole conflict.

And following the Gaza redeployment - a great of deal of control by Israel still persisted:

this is a Nov. 2006 statement from B'tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories - regarding Israeli government controls following the Gaza 2005 redeployment:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp

"Israel continues to hold decisive control over central elements of Palestinian life in the Gaza Strip:

Israel continues to maintain complete control over the air space and territorial waters.

Israel continues to control the joint Gaza Strip-West Bank population registry , preventing relocation between the West Bank and Gaza , and family unification.

Israel controls all movement in and out of Gaza , with exclusive control over all crossing points between Gaza and Israel , and the ability to shut down the Rafah crossing to Egypt .

Israeli ground troops conduct frequent military operations inside Gaza .
Israel continues to exercise almost complete control over imports and exports from the Gaza Strip.

Israel controls most elements of the taxation system of the Gaza Strip, and since February has withheld tax monies legally owed "

[pelsar]

16. yes the pullout from gaza...

did not meet all the requirements of all the various people/groups/countries/religious groups/UN/HR groups that are interested...and in fact i believe the martians believed it wasnt done as they would have liked?.....

if that is the attitude of the Palestinians and their supporters:

either do it 100% as we see it......or not only wont we acknowledge the attempt to "break the cycle of violence, to make a change", we'll simply use the change to advance our ability to attack and kill.

Not only is that an idiotic attitude, its self defeating (something what should be obvious by now....)

___

btw your out of date:
Israel controls all movement in and out of Gaza , with exclusive control over all crossing points between Gaza and Israel , and the ability to shut down the Rafah crossing to Egypt

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. that is why I specified that this was in reference to a conditions following the Gaza redeployment..

I realize elements of that 16 Nov 06 statement are dated.

But back to the original point....as long as settlements expand, expand and expand.

Nobody is going to believe that the Israeli government is serious about breaking the cycle of anything except expansion.

The minimum requirements for a two-state solutions are simply not that complicated. That is the minimum that will end the conflict -- A genuinely sovereign and independent, contiguous and viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its sovereign capital. I fail to see how these minimal requirements are the least bit unreasonable.

Besides, what on earth is the alternative? If relentless expansion becomes institutionalized and the two-state solution ceases to be a possibility; what will the alternative be then?

[Dick Dastardly]

25. You still dont explain

why there was an immediate increase in rocket attacks and such when Israel pulled out of Gaza. Israel pulls out and violence increases immediatly. Shouldnt it have diminished not increase. Why would Israel or any country for that matter do anything to ease up if it just results in increased violence against them not to mention they get the blame for it.

Israel pulls out of Gaza which gives the Palestinians more freedom and they use it to increase its attacks on Israel but this increase did not occur in the WB which if it was for all the reasons stated it would stand to reason there would be an increase in the WB too. The results of Israels pull out of Gaza does not give Israel any confidence in easing up in the WB. Its a lose lose for them because violence increases and they get the blame, the status quo is more tolerable as experience now shows them. Why should they have any trust in what the Palestinians will do.

[MaryCeleste]

27. You should consider separating Hamas/Fatah from the people in Gaza

Hamas and Fatah are externally funded groups who commit the violence and terrorism. The residents of Gaza are so poor and miserable that they really do not seem to have the will to fight for anything. Its too much of a scramble to survive day to day. One has to wonder if the militants lost access to arms and ammunition if peace would break out.

Where is the pan-Arab movement these days? Why do they send weapons and not food, medicine and energy to Gaza and embargo weapons. Is it possibly because they place no value on the lives of Palestinians preferring instead to use them as proxies to attack Israel and keep their own people safe and their hands clean?

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. It is fairly long standing U.S./ Israeli policy to arm Fatah and try to separate Hamas from their

their people

link:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=8109652

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/14/MNGIPMV3N61.DTL&type=politics


and this policy has failed misserably.

The vast majority of Israelis seem to recognize the necessity of talking with Hamas. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/27/world/main3882055.shtml

There have been numerous attempts going back decades to try and separate the Palestinians from their leaders -- in early times the Israeli leadership tried desparately to separate the PLO from the Palestinian people - As with all these attempts - the result always ends up the same - total failure.

As Uri Avnery put it in a recent article of his, "As always happens, when a liberation organization does not attain its objectives, another more extreme one springs up beside it or instead of it and wins the hearts of the people. Hamas-like organizations take over from Fatah-like ones. The colonial regime, which has not reached an agreement in time with the more moderate organization, is in the end compelled to come to terms with the more extreme one."

"What to do? To starve all of them? That has led to the collapse of the wall on the Gaza-Egypt border. Kill their leaders? We have already killed Sheik Ahmed Yassin and countless others. To execute the "Grand Operation" and re-occupy the entire Gaza strip? We have already conquered the Strip twice."

"SO WHAT can we do that we have not already done?"

do what all occupation regimes have done in the end in all the countries where the population has risen up: to reach a political settlement that both sides can live with and profit from. And get out.

After all, the end is not in doubt. The only question is how much more killing, how much more destruction, how much more suffering must be caused before the occupiers arrive at the inescapable conclusion."

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1202631015

[MaryCeleste]

31. Arming Fatah is a more recent evolution

but the bulk of support for any of them has come from other Arab countries fueled by petrodollars over the long term. Without that external support I doubt that the leadership would have been that strident or so willing to shed the blood of their people.

I believe that if the rockets stopped from Gaza, Israel would lighten up. The Israelis are are imminently practical people. They will do what is necessary to get the rockets to stop, talking or killing. While they are willing to talk, they are clearly tired of getting attacked. The rockets have to stop before things will improve. Remember that Gaza can not ever be self sufficient, it needs to stop pulling the lion's tail unless it wants the mauling to continue.

The rocket crews shoot and scoot, unless a UAV can spot them ahead of time. The militants are often gone when the counter strike occurs. Hamas knows this, but presses the attacks. That does not sound like a leadership that cares for its people. There are also more stories of human shields, particularly youths making the rounds. One has to be skeptical, but some have been shown to be valid in the past.

At this point IMO the inescapable conclusion is that the rockets must stop. Either Hamas can do it or the IDF will. The addition of 122mm Grad rockets into the mix is a serious escalation, and will intensify the pressure for an rapid IDF based solution.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. I agree that the rockets should stop..but will that make the Israeli

government less strident about expansion in West Bank? I don't see a lot of evidence that would be the case. Settlement expansion increased by 90% between the signing of the Oslo Accord in 1993 and the Camp David Talks in 2000.

I don't know what you mean about Fatah being "strident". If they were any less strident they would lose whatever credibility they have left with the Palestinian people and either a much more militant faction would develop or Hamas would grow dramatically.

What other representatives of a colonized people have ever renounced their claim on 78% of their homeland as a point to start negotiations?
Talk of a generous offer.

There are charges and counter charges about what was and was not proffered at Camp David 2000 and at Taba in January, 2001. The closest thing available for neutral assessment of what transpired are the European Union notes which all sides agree are an accurate record of the discussions. It does appear that progress was made at Taba, Egypt in January 2001. However, Israel unilaterally broke off the talks on the Eve of their upcoming election. --- "Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election."*

link to the European Union notes which have been confirmed by the Israeli and Palestinian delegation as being an accurate record of what happened at Taba in January 2001:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html
*
"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."


link to European Union Notes:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

Unfortunately, Mr. Sharon vowed on a campaign promise to block Mr. Barak's compromises and stop the talks with the Palestinians. And Mr. Sharon settlement expansion programs over decades were designed to make the two-state solution non-viable. So far his predecessor has not indicated any willingness to pick-up those talks where they left off at Taba. And his government has chosen to continue settlement expansion unabated.

At the time of the Taba talks Ariel Sharon was at least 16 point ahead in all leading Israeli opinion polls to become the new Israeli Prime Minister. And the election was only days away. However, Mr. Sharon made it absolutely clear that he would not honor any such treaty with he Palestinians:

Sharon calls peace talks a campaign ploy by Barak
Likud leader says he won't comply with latest agreements
January 28, 2001
Web posted at: 1:42 p.m. EST (1842 GMT)

"Sharon leads Barak by 16 to 20 percentage points in opinion polls that have changed little in recent weeks." link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/28/mideast.01/index.html

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes." link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

--------

[MaryCeleste]

33. It will make them stop killing in Gaza

At this point Israel is going to keep the pressure on Gaza until the rockets stop. If more of the Grads (vice Quasams) are launched expect a much more violent and deeper raid, possibly a full reoccupation. All the rest of it really doesn't matter at this point. There will be no discussion of substance until then. The only thing that would impact that would be if Hezbollah got stupid.

The Israeli idea of a two state solution is that they stay on their side of the fence and leave Israel alone. However that solution is the death of Gaza and maybe the West Bank as well. I personally don't buy into the concept of the two state solution being viable at a practical level. Pre 1967 the Palestinians were either Egyptians or Jordanians. Neither area is supportable as an independent country economically. In the long run Egypt with have to take Gaza back, or at least support it. The West Bank will have a similar long term fate with Jordan.

Today the Palestinians like Hezbollah are used as a front by other nations as a proxy to attack Israel. They need food, medicine and fuel, and they are given weapons instead. Weapons that will lead to more death and tragedy. Particularly in Gaza, the Palestinians may be being mauled by the IDF, but they are being raped by their so called Arab brethren and due that their blood covers the sands and no peace is possible.

I see no way forward outside of reunification with the pre-1967 nationalities or total annexation by Israel. Both will be hard for many to swallow, but its the only practical way forward.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. the West Bank annexation by Jordan was never recognized either

either internationally or really by the West Bank Palestinians. The Gazans did not even have Egyptian citizenship. And roughly 40% of both have family origins within the 1948/49 Israeli border.

All Arab states for quite some time have supported a two-state peace agreement which would include full recognition for a full withdraw and a complete end to the conflict. Syria is the only Arab state that provides some support to Hamas. Most Arab states are certainly encouraging Fatah to support the two-state solution as well. In exchange for a withdraw from the Golan which would include international monitors - even Syria would almost certainly come along.

There is simply no way that the Palestinians will accept nor will the region or the international community accept a return and re-annexation of the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. And there is no way that either Jordan or Egypt will accept this because of their own domestic reasons. And the unresolved issue of Jerusalem alone would keep the conflict going. This approach is simply not going to happen.

As far as annexation of the West Bank and Gaza to Israel...if that included full and equal citizenship rights and voting rights..that would probably be acceptable to most Palestinians and even most the broader Arab world. This is not far from the position held now by a number of Palestinian intellectuals, but only a small handful of Israelis. Because this would mean a Palestinian majority in only a few years. And most Israelis would have even a bigger problem with that.

There are also proposals for a federated-binational state in which cultural, religious, municipal, education and other affairs are managed by the respective communities. Some compare this to a Belgium or Swiss model. But again demographic reasons and fear of an emerging Palestinian majority currently makes this unacceptable to most Israelis.

[MaryCeleste]

35. Regardless of the borders, its clear that a Palestinian state will not be a functional country

The raw material, ports, infrastructure is just not there. Gaza dependence on Israel today is not going to change in the near future. The discussions that Egypt could supply their power are just talk, unless its funded externally.

I disagree about Syria being the only one supporting Hamas etc. Iran has been a major weapons supplier to Hezbollah and into Gaza. Private sources of funding is also in play.

In the end, practicalities will rule. When the rockets stop, the killing will stop. The muddled statehood will continue since its not possible to be a stand alone nation. Annexation is the only practical solution in the long run.

[Vegasaurus]

36. While Syria may be the only Arab state to support Hamas

it is not the only Muslim one. Iran is the big player.

[MaryCeleste]

37. There is also "private" funding from many sources including the House of Saud

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. as far as private funding from the Saudis- what your saying was probably true a few years ago

but the tide has turned on that. I can say from first hand knowledge that the official media turned dramatically anti-Hamas which is in part due to a belief as pointed out by Vegasaurus of an Iranian connection. Part due to a strong desire of the Royal family to position itself as a moderate on international issues and a supporter of the peace process between Israel and the Arab world. And part due to the strong pragmatism of King Abdullah which quickly became evident upon his ascension to the throne. And no doubt partly due to pressure from Washington and the international community and media. And part due to a dramatic loss of political influence wielded by the hardline fundamentalist Imams following September 11, 2001 and the subsequent Al-Qaida terrorism within the Kingdom. As a group the wealthy private interest in the Gulf tend strongly to be western educated and oriented, fiercely pragmatic and quite secular.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. probably

Its hard to say how much Iran is a player. But they are almost certainly a player. This actually greatly de-legitimizes Hamas among most of the Sunni-Arab world (which is the vast majority in every Arab country except Iraq) - most of whom are extremely weary of the Iranian regime, to put it mildly.

[MaryCeleste]

40. Are you aware that Syria and Iran announced closer ties today?

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. that would not be the least bit surprising

Syria was Iran's only significant Arab allie during the Iran/Iraq War in the 80's. Also the Bathist regime of Assad had to some extent built its mixed economy on a Middle East version of the old Eastern European Soviet model which is largely stagnant. They need aid from somewhere and Iran is willing to provide it.

From the Syrian point of view their attempts to reconcile with the West have been rebuffed whenever they sought to cooperate. And they no longer believe that Israel will ever willingly return the Golan.

There is a side religious issue that the Assad family are neither orthodox Sunnis or orthodox Shiites, but followers of a sect known as Alawis which feel more affinity with Shiites than Sunnis even though the country is majority Sunni and the government is secularist.

A number of factors have increasingly alienated Syria from most other Arab countries especially the Gulf states.

Again most importantly with Syria unable to reconcile with the West and there is no longer the Eastern block to help them with some aid, Iran has become an essential source of financial and material support.

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. well first of all I don't think the rocket attacks are a good thing

either morally or politically for the Palestinians - so I have no inclination to defend it. I certainly completely agree that its counterproductive

But the conditions in the Gaza remained miserable and heavily restrictive after the Gaza redeployment. Any increased freedom or benefit certainly did not improve life for the vast majority of Palestinians. And settlement expansion continued unabated and even increased in the West Bank - which certainly does not create any impression whatsoever that Gaza was a first step toward a full withdraw.

Gaza and the West Bank are very different places. The most militant factions empowered by utter desperation have long held far more sway in the Gaza.

But broadly speaking - only a full comprehensive peace settlement must include the cooperation of all major Palestinian factions. Just as it must include the cooperation of all major Israeli factions. Only a broad peace settlement will bring peace. There is no other alternative.
And if expansion continues - the two-state solution will cease to be an option in the not too distant future. If that happens. What alternatives are left?

[MaryCeleste]

4. Your source is not exactly fair and balanced

[subsuelo]

5. What source is fair and balanced?

I found nothing inaccurate in the article however -- did you?

[MaryCeleste]

6. It was mostly tone, the ignoring of other key facts, and the

assumptions of rights and responsibilities that are not generally accepted.

Couple of quick areas:
- Israel has no obligation to help Gaza and the West Bank link up, any more than India did with Pakistan
- The right of a sovereign nation to control its borders is well recognized. Israel and Egypt have no obligation to let anyone from any country or territory into their countries.
- The abdication of responsibility for the rockets and raid into Israel.
- Ignoring that Egypt is a full partner with Israel in Gaza
- Ignoring the lack of support (other than the furnishing of weapons) from other Arab nations.
- The ignoring of the example of the peace Egypt with Egypt in favor of continuing strikes into Israel.

[hifalutin]

29. There are more than just a few

things I don't understand here....

I get it that when Israel pulled out of Gaza Hamas started firing more rockets into Israel.
Why?
Were they upset that Israel left?

Why is the Gaza-Egypt border closed?

Most Arab countries are among the richest in the world, why don't they do more to help the Palestinian people?
Don't they care that innocent people are suffering?

I get it that Arafat stole millions of foreign aid sent by the world to help the Palestinian people and that his wife still has it. Why has she not returned any of it?
Does she not care?

What is happening with all the millions supposedly being sent there now?

Does anybody care?
It is all so very, very sad!!!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. wouldn't it be great if all reporting and analysis were done by non-Arabs and non-Jews? nt