Israel Chokes Gaza Despite Announced Easing

Pepe Silvia

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/15-6

Israel Chokes Gaza Despite Announced Easing

RAMALLAH - Israel has received international praise for its decision to ease its crippling blockade on Gaza following the country's deadly assault on a humanitarian flotilla trying to bring desperately needed humanitarian aid to the coastal territory. But according to the UN and human rights organizations, the easing of the blockade is insufficient in meeting Gaza's needs.


Palestinian women paint ships on a wall to show support for attempts to break the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza, at the sea port in Gaza City, Thursday, July 15, 2010.
(AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

"Even if the blockade is eased it remains illegal under international law as it is a collective form of punishment on a civilian population," Chris Gunness from the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) told IPS.

"Eighty percent of Gaza's population is aid-dependent. Allowing more aid in is perpetuating this dependency and not addressing the issue of self- sufficiency or the root causes of the crisis," added Gunness.

Israeli commandos shot dead nine activists aboard the Mavi Marmara, one of the flotilla boats, when they raided it in international waters at the end of May. The killings sparked international outrage but also drew global attention to the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza as a result of Israel's, and to a lesser degree Egypt's, hermetic sealing of the territory.

Following international pressure Israel decided to ease the closure. Towards the end of June the government of Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu issued a six-point plan to facilitate increased access for civilian goods entering Gaza and to expand economic activity, reports the Israeli human rights organization Gisha.

The plan stated that all commercial products -- other than a list of banned dual-purpose goods -- would be permitted entry to the strip; 250 daily truckloads of goods would enter; the entrance of construction materials would be better facilitated; and the movement of humanitarian cases and international NGOs would be streamlined.

Gisha reports that there has been a moderate rise in the volume of trucks entering Gaza and an increase in imports of consumer goods, but that this volume still falls way below pre-embargo days, and isn't sufficient to meet the daily needs of Gaza's 1.5 million civilians.

During the week after Jun. 20, 695 trucks of goods entered Gaza. This compares with 2,400 per week prior to the closure, and meets only 30 percent of Palestinian needs. Over the past three years 2,328 trucks entered Gaza on a monthly basis compared with 10,400 trucks monthly prior to the blockade.

Additionally, items which could be used for industry and manufacturing and which present no security threat are still being restricted. There appears to be "no change in the policy of inflicting economic warfare or by preventing entry of goods necessary for production," says the Gisha report. "Textiles, industrial-sized buckets of margarine, glucose, packaging boxes and other raw materials are still banned.

"Permitting mayonnaise and potato chips into Gaza is really irrelevant in dealing with the underlying issues," says Maxwell Gaylard, UN Deputy Special and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Middle East.

"What we need to see is an improvement in Gaza's water, sanitation, power grid, educational and health sectors. Gaza's economy is shot to pieces and its infrastructure is extremely fragile," Gaylard told IPS.

"What have not been addressed by the easing of the closure are the issues of exports as well as the limited number of crossings open to facilitate the flow of goods," said Gunness.

A major step towards helping to rehabilitate Gaza's economy would be permitting exports on which Gaza's economy is heavily reliant. A 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 2005, agreed to 400 daily truckloads of exports. In the last three years 295 export trucks have exited Gaza.

Gisha reports that "critical manufacturing sectors such as furniture, clothing and textile, and food production are dependent upon revenues acquired by selling their goods outside the strip."

The near collapse of these industries has been aggravated by restrictions on Gaza's banking ties with the outside world, making the legal transfer of money almost impossible.

These industries have been further decimated by the ban on the entrance of raw materials and spare parts.

"Operation Cast Lead destroyed at least 60,000 homes and structures which need to be urgently repaired and rebuilt. The easing of the blockade is not addressing this adequately," Gunness told IPS.

One of the biggest humanitarian issues remains the continued restrictions on movement, including Gazans trying to leave for medical treatment, to continue their studies, or to visit family in the West Bank.

In 2000, 26,000 Palestinian laborers traveled to Israel on a daily basis to earn a living and support large families. Revenue from Israel provided a major boost to Gaza's economy. In the last few weeks a daily average of 95 people have been permitted to pass through Gaza's Erez crossing into Israel. Students wishing to pursue their studies in the West Bank have been repeatedly turned back.

Twenty-nine-year-old Fatma Sharif, a lawyer with the Gaza human rights organization Al-Mezan which is strongly critical of Hamas, had her application to enter the West Bank to study for her masters degree at Birzeit University near Ramallah turned down by Israel's High Court of Justice.

The decision of the judges was not based on Sharif being a security threat but rather that her application did not meet Israel's guidelines on travel restrictions imposed on Gaza's residents under the blockades.

rafie

The title of the thread is very mis-leading Pepe. I expect more from you. The article clearly states that since Israel announced the easing of the blockade, more trucks of aid have been getting in to the strip. The fact that some say it is not enough is another issue entirely.

Pepe Silvia

no, i think the title fits perfectly. while a small increase in imports has happened it STILL falls below their daily needs. not to mention the parts of the article that talk about their economy and manufacturing

let it sink in

Gisha reports that there has been a moderate rise in the volume of trucks entering Gaza and an increase in imports of consumer goods, but that this volume still falls way below pre-embargo days, and isn't sufficient to meet the daily needs of Gaza's 1.5 million civilians.

During the week after Jun. 20, 695 trucks of goods entered Gaza. This compares with 2,400 per week prior to the closure, and meets only 30 percent of Palestinian needs. Over the past three years 2,328 trucks entered Gaza on a monthly basis compared with 10,400 trucks monthly prior to the blockade.

Additionally, items which could be used for industry and manufacturing and which present no security threat are still being restricted. There appears to be "no change in the policy of inflicting economic warfare or by preventing entry of goods necessary for production," says the Gisha report. "Textiles, industrial-sized buckets of margarine, glucose, packaging boxes and other raw materials are still banned.

"Permitting mayonnaise and potato chips into Gaza is really irrelevant in dealing with the underlying issues," says Maxwell Gaylard, UN Deputy Special and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Middle East.

"What we need to see is an improvement in Gaza's water, sanitation, power grid, educational and health sectors. Gaza's economy is shot to pieces and its infrastructure is extremely fragile," Gaylard told IPS.

"What have not been addressed by the easing of the closure are the issues of exports as well as the limited number of crossings open to facilitate the flow of goods," said Gunness.

A major step towards helping to rehabilitate Gaza's economy would be permitting exports on which Gaza's economy is heavily reliant. A 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 2005, agreed to 400 daily truckloads of exports. In the last three years 295 export trucks have exited Gaza.

Gisha reports that "critical manufacturing sectors such as furniture, clothing and textile, and food production are dependent upon revenues acquired by selling their goods outside the strip."

The near collapse of these industries has been aggravated by restrictions on Gaza's banking ties with the outside world, making the legal transfer of money almost impossible.

These industries have been further decimated by the ban on the entrance of raw materials and spare parts.

"Operation Cast Lead destroyed at least 60,000 homes and structures which need to be urgently repaired and rebuilt. The easing of the blockade is not addressing this adequately," Gunness told IPS.

One of the biggest humanitarian issues remains the continued restrictions on movement, including Gazans trying to leave for medical treatment, to continue their studies, or to visit family in the West Bank.

In 2000, 26,000 Palestinian laborers traveled to Israel on a daily basis to earn a living and support large families. Revenue from Israel provided a major boost to Gaza's economy. In the last few weeks a daily average of 95 people have been permitted to pass through Gaza's Erez crossing into Israel. Students wishing to pursue their studies in the West Bank have been repeatedly turned back.

Twenty-nine-year-old Fatma Sharif, a lawyer with the Gaza human rights organization Al-Mezan which is strongly critical of Hamas, had her application to enter the West Bank to study for her masters degree at Birzeit University near Ramallah turned down by Israel's High Court of Justice.

The decision of the judges was not based on Sharif being a security threat but rather that her application did not meet Israel's guidelines on travel restrictions imposed on Gaza's residents under the blockades.



yeah, i'd say chokes fits

rafie

Once again, the article here critisizes the blockade as a whole and compares to pre-blockade days. The blockade was started for security reasons and because of the Gilad Shalit situation. I have no problem with the fact that you believe the blockade is unjust, I personally think that it is crucial for Israels security (fact is that rocket attacks from the Gaza strips have drasticly reduced since the start of the blockade). In my opinion, the title of this thread is mis-leading and implies that despite the fact that Israels leadership announced that they are easing the blockade they are in fact harshining it.

Pepe Silvia

rafie wrote:

Once again, the article here critisizes the blockade as a whole and compares to pre-blockade days. The blockade was started for security reasons and because of the Gilad Shalit situation.

this is just not true, at least according to israel....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/16/israel
"Israel's policy was summed up by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, earlier this year. 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,' he said. The hunger pangs are supposed to encourage the Palestinians to force Hamas to change its attitude towards Israel or force Hamas out of government."

collective punishment, pure and simple, which the geneva conventions prohibits

rafie wrote:

I have no problem with the fact that you believe the blockade is unjust, I personally think that it is crucial for Israels security (fact is that rocket attacks from the Gaza strips have drasticly reduced since the start of the blockade).

oh? because the blockade started in 2007 when hamas won the election...

according to israel from may 2006- february of 2008 there was only a single suicide bombing killing 3, in that same time frame only 4 israeli civilians died from rocket attacks. a total of 7 israeli civilians died in in over 20 months.

in fact according to israel attacks had been going down dramatically before the blockade





the argument that the blockade is because of security is laughable and a lie

in fact, israeli's need to be more worried about their own driving than palestinians:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/news.aspx/129092
As of Dec. 28, the number of road accident victims in Israel for 2008 stood at 444 – an increase of 4% over the year before. So reports the National Road Safety Authority. This is the first time in four years that the annual traffic casualty count has not dropped.

rafie wrote:

In my opinion, the title of this thread is mis-leading and implies that despite the fact that Israels leadership announced that they are easing the blockade they are in fact harshining it.

no, it suggest they are choking the residents of gaza, which they ARE doing. so they allow a small increase in the amount of items allowed in and yet that still isn't enough to meet their daily needs not to mention israel's actions only cause more palestinians to rely on aid instead of supporting themselves

rafie

As for the charts in the post above, they don't really have anything to do with the blockade. Almost all of the suicide bombers to ever make it in to Israel came from the west bank. That problem was taken care of with the security fence. Israels security issues with the Gaza strip (now that there is no Israeli presence in the strip) are the rockets fired on the southern towns and cites, and explosives placed along the security fence surrounding Gaza.

As for the Dov Weisglas quote, I've seen it before. I agree with you that it is in very bad taste. I would like to hear the original quote in hebrew (if in fact it was origionally said in hebrew) to be sure that nothing was lost in translation. Despite saying that, I do believe that Hamas is the main obstacle for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but they were elected by the citizens of Gaza (a fact that I am sure many regret today).

It is very easy to figure out how to make peace while sitting at home in front of the computer. In reality it is a bit more difficult. as the saying goes: "It takes two to tango". In order to achieve a lasting peace, both sides need to make sacrafices on thier beliefs. Israel has shown in the past that she is willing to do this, Hamas not so much.

Finally, as for the thread title, different strokes for different folks...

yosi

This is dumb. Rafie is clearly responding to the word "despite," which clearly implies that Israel is acting in a manner contrary to what they said they would do, i.e. they said they would ease the blockade but have in fact either done nothing or have increased the restrictions in place. Rafie is rightly noting that this implication is false, since Israel has objectively eased its restrictions. You, Pepe, are arguing that despite the less severe restrictions now in place the situation is still unsuitable. That's fine, but you may have wanted to title the thread "Easing Not Enough" or something like that.

bigdvs

In Spite Gaza builds a Shopping Mall out of thin air......

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/embarrassment-of-riches-in-poor-starving-chubby-gaza.html

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

This is dumb. Rafie is clearly responding to the word "despite," which clearly implies that Israel is acting in a manner contrary to what they said they would do, i.e. they said they would ease the blockade but have in fact either done nothing or have increased the restrictions in place. Rafie is rightly noting that this implication is false, since Israel has objectively eased its restrictions. You, Pepe, are arguing that despite the less severe restrictions now in place the situation is still unsuitable. That's fine, but you may have wanted to title the thread "Easing Not Enough" or something like that.

i guess i shouldn't be surprised the entire basis of this argument is semantics over if 'despite' is the proper preposition to use :roll:

too bad encarta says it is fitting

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/despite.html

preposition
Definition:

1. regardless of: although it might have been prevented by something
The mission blasted off today despite bad weather.

2. contrary to: indicates that something is done unexpectedly or unintentionally
She blushed deeply despite herself.

so, is this better?

Israel Chokes Gaza Regardless of Announced Easing

stop using these bullshit arguments that you have issue with a single word so the whole argument is invalid. it isn't saying it's not doing it, it is saying even with the easing they are still being choked

rafie

Pepe Silvia wrote:

yosi wrote:

This is dumb. Rafie is clearly responding to the word "despite," which clearly implies that Israel is acting in a manner contrary to what they said they would do, i.e. they said they would ease the blockade but have in fact either done nothing or have increased the restrictions in place. Rafie is rightly noting that this implication is false, since Israel has objectively eased its restrictions. You, Pepe, are arguing that despite the less severe restrictions now in place the situation is still unsuitable. That's fine, but you may have wanted to title the thread "Easing Not Enough" or something like that.

i guess i shouldn't be surprised the entire basis of this argument is semantics over if 'despite' is the proper preposition to use :roll:

too bad encarta says it is fitting

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/despite.html

preposition
Definition:

1. regardless of: although it might have been prevented by something
The mission blasted off today despite bad weather.

2. contrary to: indicates that something is done unexpectedly or unintentionally
She blushed deeply despite herself.

so, is this better?

Israel Chokes Gaza Regardless of Announced Easing

stop using these bullshit arguments that you have issue with a single word so the whole argument is invalid. it isn't saying it's not doing it, it is saying even with the easing they are still being choked

Pepe, I have no problem with your argument or your beliefs. My original problem was the title of the thread. I addressed all of your arguments since then in what I believe to be a direct fashion.

Changing the word despite to regardless in the thread title actually does sound better to me and in my opinion better relays what this thread is about.

Commy

80% of Gaza is aid dependent?



What world do we live in where a people can be so mistreated that most of them need help to survive? We are talking about millions of people.



Its criminal.

Commy

rafie wrote:

as the saying goes: "It takes two to tango". In order to achieve a lasting peace, both sides need to make sacrafices on thier beliefs. Israel has shown in the past that she is willing to do this, Hamas not so much.

eh not to nitpick but can you source this?


Because the reverse is actually true...in the past Hamas has shown its desire for peace, Israel not so much.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-04-28/n ... -gaza-city
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative


That was in 2002.

Considering Israel broke the latest ceasefire and have rejected the offer of peace, it would appear Israel's desire for land is stronger than its desire for peace.

rafie

Commy wrote:

rafie wrote:

as the saying goes: "It takes two to tango". In order to achieve a lasting peace, both sides need to make sacrafices on thier beliefs. Israel has shown in the past that she is willing to do this, Hamas not so much.

eh not to nitpick but can you source this?


Because the reverse is actually true...in the past Hamas has shown its desire for peace, Israel not so much.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-04-28/n ... -gaza-city
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative


That was in 2002.

Considering Israel broke the latest ceasefire and have rejected the offer of peace, it would appear Israel's desire for land is stronger than its desire for peace.

1) Peace with Egypt
2) Peace with Jordan
3) The Oslo accords
4) 10 years ago, then prime minister and current minister of defence, Ehud Barak offered Yaasir Arafat over 90% of the west bank and parts of Jerusalem striving for a two state solution. Arafat declined.
5) Current prime minister Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that he is interested in starting direct peace talks with no pre-conditions. Palestinian leadership has refused.


These are the ones that immediately come to mind. There are plenty more, but I do not have the energy at the moment to look them up.

rafie

Commy wrote:

rafie wrote:

as the saying goes: "It takes two to tango". In order to achieve a lasting peace, both sides need to make sacrafices on thier beliefs. Israel has shown in the past that she is willing to do this, Hamas not so much.

eh not to nitpick but can you source this?


Because the reverse is actually true...in the past Hamas has shown its desire for peace, Israel not so much.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-04-28/n ... -gaza-city
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative


That was in 2002.

Have you even read this? You should educate yourself on the subject before quoting random internet sources that actually hurt your argument.
In the first link the spokeman pretty much says if Israel gives us everything we want, then we will stop military actions against Israel. Where is the compromise in that?
As for the second link (which directly adresses the remarks in the first link In the second paragraph), I quote:

Hamas
From its inception in 2002, the Initiative deeply divided the organization.[7] Hamas' official covenant advocates the destruction of the state of Israel and its replacement by a theocracy run under Islamist principles with Jerusalem as the capital.[45] As stated before, members of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing, committed the Passover Massacre on same day as the peace Initiative's adoption.[3] At that time, Hamas rejected not only peace with Israel but even negotiations with it.[17] The official administration of Hamas never recognized the Initiative, which alienated it from members of the Arab League, especially Jordan and Egypt.[46] One of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' conditions of forming a national coalition government with Hamas after the 2006 election was that Hamas had to recognize the Initiative, but he was unsuccessful.[46]

Hamas' spokesman Ismail Abu Shanab told The San Francisco Chronicle in April 2002 that the organization would accept it, saying "That would be satisfactory for all Palestinian military groups to stop and build our state, to be busy in our own affairs, and have good neighborhood with Israelis."[45] The newspaper reporters who interviewed Shanab questioned whether or not he truly spoke for the administration and could not corroborate his story.[45] Hamas' foreign minister Mahmoud al-Zahar said in June 2006 that the organization rejects the initiative.[7] Prime Minister Ismail Haneya said on October 2006 that the "problem with the Arab peace initiative is that it includes recognition of the state of Israel, the thing that the Palestinian government rejects" and dismissed it.[47] That month, Mahmoud al-Zahar declared unequivocally: "Hamas will never change its position regardless of the pressure's intensity" and "We will never recognize the Arab initiative."[48]

After the revival of the initiative in March 2007, Hamas continued a policy of ambiguity with many officials giving negative responses while some gave neutral or hopeful responses.[24] Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum told Haaretz that "the issue is not a 'yes' or 'no' by Hamas regarding the initiative. We respect the Arab efforts to attain Palestinian rights and we will act within the Arab consensus. Nonetheless, the Zionist enemy continues to reject the initiative and we will not determine our position in reference to it before it has been accepted."[24] Haaretz sources in Palestine state that Hamas wanted to oppose the initiative outright but did not do so because it did not want to break with the Saudi Arabian government.[24] Hamas figure Khaled Meshaal ridiculed the PLO pro-initiative ad campaign, saying “The rights of Palestinians can be achieved only through resistance, not advertisements”.[16]

Time stated in January 2009 that "In the Arab world, only Hamas and Hizballah, with the backing of Tehran, reject the Arab peace initiative."[1] Left-wing Israeli commentator and former Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin also said in January 2009 that "Hamas considers its adherence to the three "nos" of Khartoum from 1967, which the entire Arab world abandoned in adopting the Arab peace initiative, to be its primary distinctive feature Fateh. Even a prolonged battering by the IDF will not bring Hamas to make this change."[49] The Khaleej Times editorialized in December 2008 that "The Arab peace plan remains the best and most pragmatic solution to Palestine-Israel conflict.... Even though Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not prepared to accept anything short of the entire Palestine occupied in 1940s, if the plan is accepted by Israel and US, the Arabs could possibly persuade Islamists to embrace it too."[50]

TriumphantAngel

rafie wrote:

It is very easy to figure out how to make peace while sitting at home in front of the computer. In reality it is a bit more difficult. as the saying goes: "It takes two to tango". In order to achieve a lasting peace, both sides need to make sacrafices on thier beliefs. Israel has shown in the past that she is willing to do this, Hamas not so much.

in case you hadn't noticed, there is only one side occupying the other.

pretty much the whole of the rest of the world is calling for a two state solution. Hamas has accepted that. the problem is that Israel refuses to abide by international law and cease expansion of settlements, which i am sure you are aware of but for some reason are chosing to ignore that FACT. they just keep on doing whatever they want regardless of the consequences. they refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinians have legal rights to a state.

this is what Norman Finklestein has to say on resolution 242. now you can love him or hate him, that's irrelevant. what has he said here that's not the truth? nothing.

'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.

bottom line Rafie, is that Israel is the only one with the power to bring about the two state solution. all the bullshit semantics that you are trying to pull is really, at the end of the day, just another ploy that is used to divert attention from Israel's crimes, and to try to distract people from the real issue.

Israel has chosen war and occupation.

rafie

TriumphantAngel wrote:

rafie wrote:

It is very easy to figure out how to make peace while sitting at home in front of the computer. In reality it is a bit more difficult. as the saying goes: "It takes two to tango". In order to achieve a lasting peace, both sides need to make sacrafices on thier beliefs. Israel has shown in the past that she is willing to do this, Hamas not so much.

in case you hadn't noticed, there is only one side occupying the other.

pretty much the whole of the rest of the world is calling for a two state solution. Hamas has accepted that. the problem is that Israel refuses to abide by international law and cease expansion of settlements, which i am sure you are aware of but for some reason are chosing to ignore that FACT. they just keep on doing whatever they want regardless of the consequences. they refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinians have legal rights to a state.
......

bottom line Rafie, is that Israel is the only one with the power to bring about the two state solution. all the bullshit semantics that you are trying to pull is really, at the end of the day, just another ploy that is used to divert attention from Israel's crimes, and to try to distract people from the real issue.

Israel has chosen war and occupation.

How exactly has Hamas accepted the two state solution if since it's founding they have refused to recognize Israels right to exist?
As for the settlements in the west bank, most of the building done there are for natural population increase. For example, someone who has lived in one of these settlements his whole life and recently got married. This person wants to keep living in the town he has lived in his whole life but can not build a home for his family? Or the building of day care centers for the increasing number of children in these settlements. The building in these settlements is very rarely for new residents that are moving there from out side of the west bank.

As for the bottom line you stated, you do realize that in order for a two state solution to happen, both sides need to sit down at a table together, discuss the issues and make sarafices. As I wrote above, the Palestinians have recently refused several Israeli invitations to start direct peace talks with no pre-conditions.

Commy

rafie wrote:

How exactly has Hamas accepted the two state solution if since it's founding they have refused to recognize Israels right to exist?

Why should Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist while Israel refuses Palestine's right to exist? Shouldn't that be a mutual agreement between both parties? Why is that only Hamas must make the concession?

rafie

Commy wrote:

rafie wrote:

How exactly has Hamas accepted the two state solution if since it's founding they have refused to recognize Israels right to exist?

Why should Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist while Israel refuses Palestine's right to exist? Shouldn't that be a mutual agreement between both parties? Why is that only Hamas must make the concession?

Haven't the continued efforts for peace since the oslo accords, giving them full control over extensive areas in the west bank and the such, been a recognition for the Palestinians right to exist?
Or are you implying that this has just been some kind of stall tactic?

You really need to start backing up your statements with facts and not just illusions.

SoonForgotten2

rafie wrote:

As for the settlements in the west bank, most of the building done there are for natural population increase. For example, someone who has lived in one of these settlements his whole life and recently got married. This person wants to keep living in the town he has lived in his whole life but can not build a home for his family? Or the building of day care centers for the increasing number of children in these settlements. The building in these settlements is very rarely for new residents that are moving there from out side of the west bank.

Yeah, heaven forbid Israeli's ever have their human rights stripped away like the Palestinians' have been.

Pepe Silvia

rafie wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

rafie wrote:

It is very easy to figure out how to make peace while sitting at home in front of the computer. In reality it is a bit more difficult. as the saying goes: "It takes two to tango". In order to achieve a lasting peace, both sides need to make sacrafices on thier beliefs. Israel has shown in the past that she is willing to do this, Hamas not so much.

in case you hadn't noticed, there is only one side occupying the other.

pretty much the whole of the rest of the world is calling for a two state solution. Hamas has accepted that. the problem is that Israel refuses to abide by international law and cease expansion of settlements, which i am sure you are aware of but for some reason are chosing to ignore that FACT. they just keep on doing whatever they want regardless of the consequences. they refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinians have legal rights to a state.
......

bottom line Rafie, is that Israel is the only one with the power to bring about the two state solution. all the bullshit semantics that you are trying to pull is really, at the end of the day, just another ploy that is used to divert attention from Israel's crimes, and to try to distract people from the real issue.

Israel has chosen war and occupation.

How exactly has Hamas accepted the two state solution if since it's founding they have refused to recognize Israels right to exist?
As for the settlements in the west bank, most of the building done there are for natural population increase. For example, someone who has lived in one of these settlements his whole life and recently got married. This person wants to keep living in the town he has lived in his whole life but can not build a home for his family? Or the building of day care centers for the increasing number of children in these settlements. The building in these settlements is very rarely for new residents that are moving there from out side of the west bank.

As for the bottom line you stated, you do realize that in order for a two state solution to happen, both sides need to sit down at a table together, discuss the issues and make sarafices. As I wrote above, the Palestinians have recently refused several Israeli invitations to start direct peace talks with no pre-conditions.

oh? are you sure about that??

http://www.btselem.org/english/Settleme ... ration.asp
Encouragement of migration to the settlements

The Israeli governments have implemented a consistent and systematic policy intended to encourage Jewish citizens to migrate to the West Bank. One of the tools used to this end is to grant financial benefits and incentives to citizens - both directly and through the Jewish local authorities. The purpose of this support is to raise the standard of living of these citizens and to encourage migration to the West Bank.

Most of the settlements in the West Bank are defined as national priority areas (A class or B class). Accordingly, the settlers and other Israeli citizens working or investing in the settlements are entitled to significant financial benefits. These benefits are provided by six government ministries: the Ministry of Construction and Housing (generous loans for the purchase of apartments, part of which is converted to a grant); the Israel Lands Administration (significant price reductions in leasing land); the Ministry of Education (incentives for teachers, exemption from tuition fees in kindergartens, and free transportation to school); the Ministry of Industry and Trade (grants for investors, infrastructure for industrial zones, etc.); the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (incentives for social workers); and the Ministry of Finance (reductions in income tax for individuals and companies). In 2003, the Ministry of Finance cancelled the income tax reduction that residents of settlements previously received.

The Ministry of the Interior provides increased grants for the local authorities in the territories relative to those provided for communities within Israel. In the year 2000, the average per capita grant in the Jewish local councils in the West Bank was approximately sixty-five percent higher than the average per capita grant in local councils inside Israel. The discrepancy in the grants for the regional councils is even greater: the average per capita grant in 2000 in the regional councils in the West Bank was 165 percent of that for a resident of a regional council inside Israel.

One of the mechanisms used by the government to favor the Jewish local authorities in the West Bank, in comparison with local authorities inside Israel, is to channel funding through the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization. Although the entire budget of the Settlement Division comes from state funds, as a non-governmental body it is not subject to the rules applying to government ministries in Israel.



http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peac ... docid=2175
The general package of incentives provided to settlers is described in detail in a report by Israel’s premier human rights organization, B’tselem, entitled “Land Grab” (chapter 5, pp.57-67). B’tselem notes:
“…all Israeli governments have implemented a vigorous and systematic policy to encourage Israeli citizens to move from Israel to the West Bank. As shown in this chapter, one of the main tools used to realize this policy is the provision of significant financial benefits and incentives. For the purpose of this discussion, a distinction will be made between two types of benefits and incentives granted by the government: support granted directly to citizens by defining settlements as ‘national priority areas,’ and support granted to local authorities in the West Bank (i.e., to the settlements) in a manner that favors these settlements in comparison to local authorities inside Israel.”
With respect to the settlements’ designation as “national priority areas,” B’tselem notes that “national priority areas” are, at least in theory, supposed to be principally places where “the scope of opportunities of citizens residing in the peripheral areas is in many respects limited by comparison to that in the center [e.g., near Tel Aviv].” However, many settlements located in decidedly non-peripheral areas – i.e., near Jerusalem, close to the Green Line, or in close proximity to Tel Aviv or other Israeli population/employment centers – are designated as “national priority areas.” B’tselem concludes that “it would seem that the factor determining the inclusion of most of the settlements on the map is not the ‘limited opportunities’ available to the settlers due to the distance from the center of Israel, but rather the desire to encourage Israeli citizens to move to the West Bank for political reasons.”

B’tselem provides a detailed description of how, under this designation, settlers are granted benefits and incentives from various government ministries, including:
• the Ministry of Housing and Construction (providing, among other things, financial assistance to help people purchase or build in settlements, including in some cases loans which convert partly into grants after a set number of years);
• the Israel Lands Administration (providing discounts on land);
• the Ministry of Education (providing incentives to teachers and subsidizing education costs);
• the Ministry of Trade and Industry (providing substantial grants and tax benefits (corporate and individual) to “approved enterprises” as well as underwriting the costs to establish and maintain industrial zones);
• the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (providing benefits to social workers similar to those provided to teachers by the Ministry of Education); and
• the Ministry of Finance (providing, until 2003, substantial income tax breaks to settlers, with most settlers getting a 7% income tax break).
In addition, benefits and incentives are provided through local authorities – municipalities, and local/regional settlement councils. Looking at this basket of benefits, B’tselem concludes, “The research shows that throughout the 1990s, the Israeli government favored the local authorities in the Occupied Territories (and in the Golan Heights) in comparison to local authorities in Israel. Per capita financial transfers were 150 percent higher… As a result of the considerable government contribution, the residents of local authorities in the Occupied Territories were required to independently fund (through self-generated income) twenty-five percent less than the national average, and ten percent less than the average for development towns. In total, the per capita budget available to the local authorities in the Occupied Territories was more than forty percent higher than the national average throughout the 1990s, and approximately thirty percent higher than the average for the development towns.”

Tax breaks for settlers were further detailed in an article in Ha’aretz entitled “Decades of tax breaks for the settler population,” published September 25, 2003. That article noted:
“The annual report on state revenues for 2001 is the first - and so far the only - publicly accessible document…to provide a detailed description of the income tax benefits granted over the years to the settlers (and also to residents of northern Israel and the Negev). The document also notes that these benefits are granted for ideological reasons…Israeli governments have justified providing tax breaks to certain communities that are located in outlying areas or lack a solid socioeconomic foundation. This is not always the case with the settlements. Many of the Jewish communities in the territories are located close to the center of Israel (‘Five minutes from Kfar Sava,’ ‘Five minutes from Jerusalem’) and their economic situation is sometimes much better than the national average. The report for 2001 states that the total income tax benefits for settlers that year was NIS 130 million. The number of taxpayers in the territories was 36,320, including 34,430 in the West Bank and 1,980 in the Gaza Strip. The average benefit per taxpayer in the West Bank was NIS 6,456 a year (or about NIS 540 per month), compared to NIS 8,834 a year (about NIS 750 per month) in the Gaza Strip.”

For the most part these incentives have not changed, other than the cancellation in 2003 of the 7% income tax break that most settlers have traditionally enjoyed. This 7% income tax break is still relevant to the discussion of quality-of-life settlers, since most of quality-of-life settlers moved to the settlements when the tax break was still in effect (and was expected to remain in effect).

n addition to these traditional benefits and incentives, a new subsidy was recently announced. On January 1, 2007, the Israeli mass circulation newspaper Ma’ariv reported that the government of Israel has allocated special funding in the 2007 budget to compensate Israeli industry and agriculture in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Golan Heights. The funding is intended to compensate settlers for commercial losses that may result from a European Union policy that excludes goods produced in settlements from the tariff-free status that Israeli products enjoy under commercial treaties Israel has signed with the EU. The EU had threatened to impose a tariff on all exports from Israel if the government of Israel did not agree to clearly mark products coming from settlements as such. With these new Israeli government subsidies, the government of Israel (and Israeli taxpayers) is making sure that the settlers do not suffer from this European “discrimination.” This funding totals 26 million New Israeli Shekels (NIS) [around $6 million], of which NIS 20 million will be allocated by the Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Labor (to compensate factories and industrialists), NIS 1 million will be allocated by the Agriculture Ministry, reportedly mainly for farmers in the Jordan Valley and Golan Heights, and the remaining NIS 5 million will be allocated by the Finance Ministry.



:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:




oh and hamas has said they will recognize israel if they move back to the '67 borders but we all know israel will never do that

rafie

Pepe, despite the articles you posted above, I live in Israel, and I assure you that very few people actually migrate to the settlements in the west bank.

As for the withdrawing to the 1967 borders, I personally do not believe Israel should do this. As I stated numerous times above, A lasting peace is achieved by both sides making concessions. Withdrawing to the 1967 borders is Israel making all the concessions while the Palestinians make none (as far as land goes).