| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
 Posted - 06/16/2007 : 12:22:28
|
My understanding is that Olmert's "idea" is for an international force to merely police the Gaza-Egyptian border.
It sounds to me mainly a ploy to draw attention to the Egyptian failure to police the border properly, and maybe pressure them into doing somewhat better.
In addition it allows Israel to reply to any criticism of its Gaza policy from European countries in particular by saying "OK, how about your soldiers helping to police the border then?".
As for the three state solution, neither Gaza nor the West Bank have any real viability as states.
If the West Bank can be politically/ideologically peeled off from Gaza then the West Bank would fit most naturally as an autonymous region of Jordan, with Jordan responsible for security and foreign policy. Given that the majority of Jordan is ethnically Palestinian this seems the most viable solution to me.
So that solves the West Bank. Not bad for a morning's work.
I'll solve the Gaza problem after lunch. 
|
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 12:51:02
|
I've heard that the ancient Philistines were mostly located in what is now Gaza. Does that help?
|
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 15:30:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I've heard that the ancient Philistines were mostly located in what is now Gaza. Does that help?
Probably not. "Palestine" gets it's name from the ancient Philistines, but I don't believe the Palestinians are actually descended from them.
A three state solution can be advantageous for Israel because if Abbas and Fatah cooperate, Israel can punish Hamas in Gaza for its intransigence while simultaneously rewarding Fatah in the West Bank for cooperating. And the worst that can happen for them is essentially the status quo. |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 19:17:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
While the three-state idea is interesting, and has been tossed about, I doubt it will happen because while Fatah might have been a partner you could sign a treaty with, Hamas is not, and never will be. At least Fatah pretended that they were willing to live along side Israel. Hamas is outspoken in that they will settle for nothing less than all of Israel being pushed into the sea.
That's exactly why I am so drawn to the three-state solution. As you said, "Fatah is a partner that you could sign a treaty with, Hamas is not, and never will be." The way I see it, we are living not in 2007, but in 1977. Gaza is Syria and the West Bank is Egypt.
In the late 1970s when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat sought to gain Western influence and aid and regain the territories it lost in 1967 (it had no interest in regaining Gaza, of course) by recognizing Israel and making a seperate land-for-peace deal at Camp David despite heavy criticism from Syria and other non-moderate Arab states.
The major difference is that Ehud Olmert is not as popular as Menachem Begin was and Mahmoud Abbas is not the visionary that Anwar Sadat was. Furthermore, Abbas has a strong personal reason for not walking in Sadat's footsteps because, like Sadat, he may be targeted for assassination by his own people if he does. |
Edited by - GHcool on 06/16/2007 19:22:44 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 06:22:53
|
It isn't as simple as that, unfortunately. To use your comparison, Fatah is more like Egypt and Hamas is more like Syria. But Abbas doesn't have the backing from enough of the population to be a Sadat. The big difference is that they're both stuck in the same geographic area and there isn't one independant person who can unite everyone. Right now, the best thing to do is wait and see and, as we say in Hebrew, not put a healthy head into a sick bed.
|
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 06:57:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
It isn't as simple as that, unfortunately. To use your comparison, Fatah is more like Egypt and Hamas is more like Syria. But Abbas doesn't have the backing from enough of the population to be a Sadat. The big difference is that they're both stuck in the same geographic area and there isn't one independant person who can unite everyone. Right now, the best thing to do is wait and see and, as we say in Hebrew, not put a healthy head into a sick bed.
I agree completely. At this moment, Abbas is not anything close to what Sadat was, but everyone was shocked when Sadat proved he was serious. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 08:21:06
|
Perhaps to people outside of Israel it was shocking, but here we saw it coming. I'd say it was far more shocking that Begin was willing to give back the Sinai than that Sadat was willing to make peace with us. But it was more amazing than making peace with Jordan. Still, I wouldn't say we were "shocked" by it here.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 12:33:00
|
Isn't Gaza quite low-lying? Might global warming sort out the problem?
 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 13:15:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Isn't Gaza quite low-lying? Might global warming sort out the problem?
Um... God knows!
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 14:52:24
|
| Sadat was willing to make peace with Israel only after his predecessor was dealt a crushing - and utterly humiliating - defeat at the hands of the Israelis, who left the invading Egyptian army as a smoldering pile of rubble in the Sinai desert. |
Edited by - Downtown on 06/17/2007 14:55:49 |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 18:07:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Sadat was willing to make peace with Israel only after his predecessor was dealt a crushing - and utterly humiliating - defeat at the hands of the Israelis, who left the invading Egyptian army as a smoldering pile of rubble in the Sinai desert.
Well, yes, but Sadat also led Egypt through the Yom Kippur War before Camp David. Egypt lost that war in the sense that it did not regain the Sinai or destroy Israel, but it was great for Egyptian public relations because it proved that Israel wasn't invincible and that Egypt was still the leader of the Arab world even after Nassar's blunders.
As for the shock of Sadat's peaceful intentions, I wasn't yet born when the Camp David Accords took place, so I don't have first hand experience of a shock or lack of shock. From what I've read in history books, Sadat and Israel had been secretly planning for months Sadat's famous peace initiative to speak in front of the Knesset in Jerusalem. From what I understood, this was a moment that shocked the world. It would have been like Sadaam Hussein getting off a plane in Washington DC and speaking to Congress about his hopes for the future and grievences with United States foreign policy. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 06:47:12
|
I was in Israel when it all happened, and I remember it not being all that shocking for us here - but it was amazing to witness.
Of course, it wasn't all hearts and flowers here. Much like the experience you all witnessed with Gaza's settlers, the people living in the Sinai weren't happy campers. There was one town in the Sinai called Yamit that was very much opposed to giving the land back to them. There were riots and protests and things of that ilk, and lots of unsavoury behaviour. I think seeing that was more shocking than the peace treaty.
|
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 07:58:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Of course, it wasn't all hearts and flowers here. Much like the experience you all witnessed with Gaza's settlers, the people living in the Sinai weren't happy campers. There was one town in the Sinai called Yamit that was very much opposed to giving the land back to them. There were riots and protests and things of that ilk, and lots of unsavoury behaviour. I think seeing that was more shocking than the peace treaty.
What's sad is that many of the Sinai settlers became Gaza settlers, and the Israeli government literally evicted the same exact families twice in two generations. The news did not cover this aspect of the 2005 Gaza withdrawl very clearly and I had not even known about it until recently. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 12:06:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Of course, it wasn't all hearts and flowers here. Much like the experience you all witnessed with Gaza's settlers, the people living in the Sinai weren't happy campers. There was one town in the Sinai called Yamit that was very much opposed to giving the land back to them. There were riots and protests and things of that ilk, and lots of unsavoury behaviour. I think seeing that was more shocking than the peace treaty.
What's sad is that many of the Sinai settlers became Gaza settlers, and the Israeli government literally evicted the same exact families twice in two generations. The news did not cover this aspect of the 2005 Gaza withdrawl very clearly and I had not even known about it until recently.
I think you misunderstood. While I'm sure there were some Sinai settlers that moved to Gaza, I wouldn't say they made up most of the people there. Different types of people entirely went to Gaza than those that went to the Sinai. Gaza got lots of religious people, trying to make a statement about God and the land, blah, blah, blah. Sinai got mostly people who were just trying to find cheap housing and work towards a better life - people from the lower income strata who couldn't afford the prices in the cities. While I'm sure some of them had political reasons for going to the Sinai, most were there for economic reasons. It was only just before the Sinai pull-out that some religious groups trapsed in and squatted to make their point, did a good deal of rabble rousing and caused trouble.
But I would be willing to bet that those late-comer squatters in Sinai who did move to Gaza, were probably at the heart of the opposition to the pull-out in Gaza as well. I have no sympathy for those who fought the Gaza pull-out. They were offered sufficient advance notice, very reasonable compensation, a period of free housing, special non-interest, long-term loans to help them find new apartments, help with finding jobs and/or relocating their businesses, and lots of other things to help them. But they only got that if they agreed to leave peacefully. The guys who cried and ripped their garments and put on sacloth and ashes and injured the soldiers that were trying to take them out, were doing it for effect and to garner international sympathy, and they got little to nothing in compensation. Nor did they deserve anything. Frankly, I don't really care how hard their lives are today, since they brought it on themselves.
(And I doubt they're starving anyway. These types of people know how to get back on their feet just fine, trust me.)
|
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 16:53:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Of course, it wasn't all hearts and flowers here. Much like the experience you all witnessed with Gaza's settlers, the people living in the Sinai weren't happy campers. There was one town in the Sinai called Yamit that was very much opposed to giving the land back to them. There were riots and protests and things of that ilk, and lots of unsavoury behaviour. I think seeing that was more shocking than the peace treaty.
What's sad is that many of the Sinai settlers became Gaza settlers, and the Israeli government literally evicted the same exact families twice in two generations. The news did not cover this aspect of the 2005 Gaza withdrawl very clearly and I had not even known about it until recently.
I think you misunderstood. While I'm sure there were some Sinai settlers that moved to Gaza, I wouldn't say they made up most of the people there. Different types of people entirely went to Gaza than those that went to the Sinai. Gaza got lots of religious people, trying to make a statement about God and the land, blah, blah, blah. Sinai got mostly people who were just trying to find cheap housing and work towards a better life - people from the lower income strata who couldn't afford the prices in the cities. While I'm sure some of them had political reasons for going to the Sinai, most were there for economic reasons. It was only just before the Sinai pull-out that some religious groups trapsed in and squatted to make their point, did a good deal of rabble rousing and caused trouble.
But I would be willing to bet that those late-comer squatters in Sinai who did move to Gaza, were probably at the heart of the opposition to the pull-out in Gaza as well. I have no sympathy for those who fought the Gaza pull-out. They were offered sufficient advance notice, very reasonable compensation, a period of free housing, special non-interest, long-term loans to help them find new apartments, help with finding jobs and/or relocating their businesses, and lots of other things to help them. But they only got that if they agreed to leave peacefully. The guys who cried and ripped their garments and put on sacloth and ashes and injured the soldiers that were trying to take them out, were doing it for effect and to garner international sympathy, and they got little to nothing in compensation. Nor did they deserve anything. Frankly, I don't really care how hard their lives are today, since they brought it on themselves.
(And I doubt they're starving anyway. These types of people know how to get back on their feet just fine, trust me.)
Firstly, I said "many," not "most," of the Sinai settlers became Gaza settlers immediately after.
Secondly, while I was and am personally against the settler movement, I have deep sympathy for anyone forced to leave their homes. The withdrawl from Gaza, in my opinion, was one of the most difficult things Israel ever had to do ... and unfortunately, many Israelis and Israeli sympathizers abroad are ambivalent about the results of this trauma, even those of us that were in favor of the withdrawl like myself. On the other hand, you are 100% correct when you said earlier something to the effect of "Thank God that Israel evacuated those idiot settlers [I wouldn't have called them idiots, but that's beside the point] before Hamas took power." |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hamas enlists "Micky Mouse"
