Saturday, July 08, 2006

A UN report : Palestinian internal violence (Gaza Strip) increasing.

UN reports :
21 June: A bomb went off in a car driven by a member of the Fatah dominated Preventive Security Force (PSF) while travelling in Tel Al Hawwa quarter in Gaza city. Three persons in the car received shrapnel wounds.
21 June: Masked gunmen opened fire at two Fatah members when they were near their house in Gizan Najjar area south-east of Khan Younis . The two were taken to Nasser hospital after they sustained gunshot wounds to their legs. ...
23 June: A bystander was injured when members of the Hamas dominated Executive
Support Forces (ESF) attacked a house of a member of the PSF in Khan Younis .
24 June: A Palestinian man was severely beaten after being kidnapped by an unknown
group of armed men in Gaza City (Gaza Strip).
24 June: A PA Intelligence Service officer was shot in both legs after being kidnapped by a group of unknown group of armed men in Al Zahra city south of Gaza City (Gaza Strip).



. ( inter-fractional fights in Gaza 2 months ago )


24 June: Armed clashes continued between the ESF and PSF and one PSF member
was injured...
24 June: A Palestinian man was injured when unknown armed masked men opened fire
at him in Khan Younis.
28 June: Two members of a Palestinian family were killed (an 18 month old infant and a 26-year-old man) and four others injured when a bomb being handled prematurely went off in a house in Khan Younis . ..
3 July: A 16-year-old Palestinian boy was injured when an explosive device went off near his house in Khan Younis. ( Casualties related to Palestinian inter-factional fighting, family and community disputes and reckless use of weapons in the Gaza Strip are not included in the weekly figures in Section )


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Two UN reports, issued last weeks (21- June to 03-July 2006) presented amazing data regarding the inter-Palestinian violence inside Gaza alone. Every week tens of Palestinians are being shot, beaten, killed or even kidnapped, the UN reported.
The wide spread of weapons and the absence of the Palestinian security forces are all contributing factors. Most often, the guns that are used in these violence attacks are the 'resistance weapons'. It is obvious that we are moving very quickly into a situation where we have armed groups with different affiliations ( and external funding), fighting each other for authority and power. It is not far that we see these groups fighting for money and personal interests. What has happened in Iraq, Lebanon and almost any civil war might soon be seen here.

I believe that this report, together with other reports and findings of other human rights organizations is of utmost importance and priority. Although the Israeli operation in Gaza is taking all the attention, the consequences of what we are moving towards (as seen clearly from this report) will outweigh any tragic consequences Israel has ever brought about.


Who is to be blamed for this deterioration?


Should we always turn into blaming Israel for every mistake we do?


What can president Abbas do to stop us moving into a civil war?

55 Comments:

At 4:57 AM, July 09, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

Hmmmm. I did an analysis of the situation in Gaza and the foreign policy of Israel as relating to it for my uni about two years ago. My conclusions were that the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza would inevitably bring about a civil war. Moreover, I have speculated that this was Ariel Sharon's plan - he was hoping to defang the radical Hamas through more moderate Fatah. By weakening Hamas infastructure in Gaza on one hand and feeding centralized Fatah on the other hand, he was preparing a situation in which the relationship between Fatah and Hamas would deteriorate. And the power vacuum created by the withdrawal would naturally attract Fatah into traditional Hamas territory... and Hamas rhetoric against Fatah was stably growing more radical and violent since the moment they realized they might have Gaza all to themselves.

Of course, Sharon was hoping that Hamas would be vanquished by Fatah, and that the latter would devote their energy to settling their internal affairs and removing dissenters rather than attacking Israel. Fatah, however, did not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and left Gaza to rot.

Oh... and civil war is unstoppable, especially not by Abbas. His best bet would be stepping up attacks on Israel to force the latter to enter PA territory en masse; But this must be done visibly, and this would risk both his skin and his Swiss bank accounts. So he probably wouldn't do it. The immesurable cost in lives is probably not something that has even crossed his mind. Or maybe it did - the more Palestinians die, the more money PA gets.

Wow, I am really optimistic and philantropic tonight, ain't I?

 
At 5:25 AM, July 09, 2006, Blogger Osaid Rasheed said...

Raccoon :
What an interesting comment ! Really interesting !! You keep astonishing me man ! I will reply to you soon ! ( No religions againg plz )

 
At 10:10 AM, July 09, 2006, Blogger DesertPeace said...

-
Golani commander: IDF soldier likely killed by friendly fire -

screwups on both sides!

 
At 1:21 PM, July 09, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

The UN Human Rights Council

 
At 1:25 PM, July 09, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

Raccoon: "Of course, Sharon was hoping that Hamas would be vanquished by Fatah, and that the latter would devote their energy to settling their internal affairs and removing dissenters rather than attacking Israel. Fatah, however, did not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and left Gaza to rot."

The politics of war. You are very wise Raccoon.

The problem with all this is that Abbas is not a moderate.

 
At 2:58 PM, July 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abbas is not a moderate - but he's not a fanatic, either. Which makes his hugely preferrable to Hamas. Moreover, his chief interest seems to be acquisition of power and wealth. Ergo: he is rational and can be negotiated with.

 
At 3:57 PM, July 09, 2006, Blogger Tsedek said...

Abu Mazen may say what he has to say because sometimes you gotta go with the flow in order to gain confidence. But!! he is the ONLY leader in the middle east that i've seen tears flooding his eyes when he was asked once (when he was still Arafat's minister) about the situation with the Palestinian youth.

A man that has feelings. I trust those people because only people with feelings will do what's best for those hurt and can open up to the feelings of others.

Tse.

 
At 4:13 PM, July 09, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Anon 2:59 pm:

I would argue that in some ways Hamas is preferable. With Abu Mazen, you get a leader who lies and pretends to be a moderate, when in fact he is as radical as Hamas when it comes down to it. With Hamas, at least you know what you are getting, and there are no illusions.

 
At 4:47 PM, July 09, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

The anon was me. Sorry.

Miss R -

There is a major difference between someone driven by ideology and someone driven by greed. With greed you can negotiate. With ideology you can only fight.

Abbas will say whatever he thinks will be of greater benefit to him. If the Palestinian street will suddenly switch to Osaid's side and demand real peace, this is what Abbas will go with.

Hence, Abbas is preferrable to Hamas. There are no illusions with him either - he's an opportunist.

 
At 5:32 PM, July 09, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

And here's a little update on the up-and-coming Israeli civil war:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885951784&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Taha and his ilk should be tried, stripped of their citizenship and deported at best; tried and hanged for treason in wartime at worst. Unless the spineless, PC-riddled Israeli Government acts now, these morons will succeed in inciting the Israeli Arabs to massive violence.

"We may forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we will never forgive them for making us kill their children" - Golda Meir.

 
At 7:22 PM, July 09, 2006, Blogger Oleh Yahshan said...

Racoon,
That stuff will not lead to a civil war in Israel. It's not worth it, and we are smarter than that (usually). It does however raise the question of who we let in to our parliment, after Cutter made such a big fuss about it. I wonder if he/she would mind if a member of his parliment said it was ok to kill Italians and kidnap them. or would he/she be screaming up and down like the little kid he/she is.

I don't agree that he should be stripped of citizenship - just from MK status - After a trial (assuming he is found guilty of course). This is not a person who should be representing Israel, as I also doubt that he represents the Arab voice in Israel.

DP - I asked you a question on Chamsa site - you never asnswered!

Osaid,
Interesting Stats you bring here. It's sad that when it comes down to it you need Israel to Invade you in order for Hamas and Fatah to stop killing each other.
Untill you guys decide who is in control or that place you will never be Independant. BTW - Max Weber states that a state is only one when it has "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force" - this is Far from being the case in the PA today - nor was it ever - and we have Arafat to thank for that. What this means is that even if there were no more "occupation" the PA would not be able to declare a state till it cleans up it's internal Mess.

 
At 7:39 PM, July 09, 2006, Blogger DesertPeace said...

Oleh... one has to eat. I have no intention of starving over the boycott... think before you ask such questions.
As for demonstrating against the wall on HaGanah St.... believe me... I do my share of protesting.

 
At 9:11 PM, July 09, 2006, Blogger Oleh Yahshan said...

DP -
do you also have to surf the Net?? you are after all supporting Israel everytime you do that.

and you didn't answer me what you are doing, living in an area you would define as "occupied".

 
At 11:01 PM, July 09, 2006, Blogger DesertPeace said...

OK... why French Hill? Yes it is on the 'other side of the Green Line'...
I moved here twenty two years ago because it was one of the most mixed neighbourhoods in Jeruslem. It votes 'progressive'... always has.
My building has 9 Palestinians living in it... have been for years. There has NEVER been a problem of any kind because of that.
The shopping area is mixed as well, with shoppers and nank clients from neibouring Palestinian villages.
When my grandchildren visit the play outside with everyone... regardless of them being Israeli or Palestinian.
They will be the 3rd generation in my family to grow up without hatred for anyone.
I would not live in any other community in Jerusalem... Green Line or not.

 
At 11:56 PM, July 09, 2006, Blogger Oleh Yahshan said...

DP,
ok I agree with you 100%, although I have only lived here for 2 years, It feels very similer to Karmiel (where I grew up) where Life is very much the same in terms of Jews and Arabs, in one area.

Let me ask it this way - would you move out of here when the Palestinians come and say they want every last inch of the green line?? Do you consider it part of Israel?? I still don't get how you can boycott the Area you live in unless you work against yourself and your friends. After all every thing you do helps Israel - and I think that you do not want to see Israel Destroyed - so I will ask again how can you of all people support a Boycott (I would love to one day sit over a cup of coffee and pick your brain - after all we might actually live a building away :> )

 
At 12:39 AM, July 10, 2006, Blogger DesertPeace said...

Yes, I consider it a part of Israel. No, I do not want to see Israel destroyed. No, I do not think it will ever come to residents of French Hill having to 'chose sides', there is a history here that speaks for itself.
My boycott of Israel has nothing to do with where I live, it is mainly a boycott of Israeli goods in C'hul... no one expects us to starve.
Game just ended... I'm going to bed... Leila Tov!

 
At 4:29 AM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous Render said...

If the people that Osaid works with have their way...

KNOW
THINE
ENEMY,
R

 
At 2:08 PM, July 10, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

Off topic:

Osaid:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264964,00.html

Is that about "occupation" too?

What about the Intifada? The 1982 war, how about 1973? The second "Nakba" in 1967 where Israel survived another genocidal attack, what about 1956? How about first "disaster" of 1948 where 5 Arab armies closed in around israel with the proud declaration of a impending massacre. What about the 1920 riots and the Hebron massacre? What about 100 years before that when Jewish people were being massacred by 40,000 fellahin?

 
At 2:15 PM, July 10, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

Tse: "A man that has feelings. I trust those people because only people with feelings will do what's best for those hurt and can open up to the feelings of others."

Link

This is a parody and does not express my opinion, but it explains exactly what I want to say about "people who hurt".

 
At 4:08 PM, July 10, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

Hello Osaid, I left you a comment on the previous post.

Take care.

 
At 4:37 PM, July 10, 2006, Blogger Tsedek said...

Steven - 2:15 PM HAHAHAHAHAAAA


I'm in stitches LOL


But: no way - Jose! This got nothing to do with Abu Mazen and what I think of him ;-) Even not in a parody.

Tse.

 
At 5:03 PM, July 10, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

:)

Heya Tse

My point was that just because someone may be crying or may care about something does not mean they are worthy of trust. Hitler cries - all humans cry. Judge Abu Mazen by who he is and what he has done.

For a start: He has a degree in Holocaust denial. He heads a large terrorist organisation responsible for murdering Israelis and squandering aid to Palestinians.

He is a fascist - the press are currently using the absolute horror of Hamas in order to legitimise the PLO. Neither the Hamas/Al Fatah are legitimate or partners for peace. Just look at the charter of the PLO which still demands the destruction of Israel.

"Liberate all of Palestine" means destroy Israel as I will demonstrate by these four facts:

- In 1964 the definition of Palestine was the borders of Israel not including Egyptian controlled Gaza or the Jordan controlled Judea and Samara.

- In 1967 Israel faced a genocidal attack and captured the "disputed territories". Israel offered this land back in return for nothing but a promise of peace - the first time such a peace offer has been made in history. The Arabs refused.

- Resolution 242 demanded that Israel leave the strategic land captured in those areas without any assurance of peace.

- In 1968 the PLO changed their definition of Palestine to the new borders of Israel.

Note: This is the definition used to this day.

You can learn about these facts by reading this link at hirhome.com.

Please look up these facts and you will find that they are accurate.

Best Wishes.

 
At 6:25 PM, July 10, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

Are you absolutely sure that's parody, Steven?

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

 
At 6:39 PM, July 10, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

LoL Raccoon, yes it's a parody. :)

 
At 6:47 PM, July 10, 2006, Blogger Oleh Yahshan said...

steven,
let me point out that resolution 242 says first that there should be peace, then talk about withdrawing form Lands (not all of them).

First of all we are still not in peace with the Palestininas.
2. the 73 war was a HUGE vilation of this resolution - not to mention the Khartoom conference and the Famous 3 NOs from our dear Arab countries.

3. No where does it say that the Land is Palstinian.
4. No where does it say the Israel has to withdraw from ALL the land.
One can claim that Since Israel already has peace with Egypt and Jordan, and has withdrawn from lands in both Sinai, Gaza, Judea and Sumeria that it has fulfilled it's part of 242.
What we are seeing now is a post 242 era - since we have already withdrawn from the land.

As for Gaza today - there is a problem - since Israel Withdrew no one has taken any responsibility for the area - since only a country can be in control of land. And since the Palestinians have made it very clear that they refuse to see Gaza as a country, it's Int. Law Status makes it a "no Man's Land" therefore - in theory any country can claim it as it's own, and going into it does not violate any law since it belongs to no one.
If Israel wanted to it could declare it as such and if no one disputes it as their own (once again only a country can do so) Israel should get full rights to it.

I would like you comment to that Osaid.

 
At 7:25 PM, July 10, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

Heya. :)

Oleh: "let me point out that resolution 242 says first that there should be peace"

This is the text of the resolution.

I note the wishes for peace. The first decision made in that resolution, however is:

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".

This is obserd - as I stated above Israel offered all the land captured in a defencive war in return for nothing but peace, the response are three famous No's.

"No peace, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations."

So... Israel is attacked. She survives and captures enemy land. Offeres to return all that land in exchange for peace. Is rejected and given the three No's. Then the UN demands that Israel leave the "Lands" captured.

Also note how only Israel has made steps along resolution 242 while her enemies who have 5 times attempted to wipe her out have not.

*****

Oleh: "then talk about withdrawing form Lands (not all of them)."

Yes I know this and that point in my previous comment could be misleading. Thank you for making this clear. :)

****

Oleh: "the 73 war was a HUGE vilation of this resolution"

I considder resolution 242 to be immoral. Israel offered everything in exchange for nothing but peace but were rejected.

*****

Oleh: "No where does it say that the Land is Palstinian."

However as we see, when Israel signed the treaty with Egypt they did not want to take back Gush Katif and today it is "Palestinian". It is simply reality that this land will become either Israeli or Palestinian now.

*****

Oleh: "One can claim that Since Israel already has peace with Egypt and Jordan, and has withdrawn from lands in both Sinai, Gaza, Judea and Sumeria that it has fulfilled it's part of 242."

I agree, however it is still not solved because Resolution 242 was not specific - as such it is open to interpretation which makes it difficult to confirm it has been fulfilled.

Did you know the MB in egypt wish to have a referendum on the peace treaty?

Oleh: "What we are seeing now is a post 242 era - since we have already withdrawn from the land."

Not according to most of the world as 242 is not specific.

*****

Oleh: "As for Gaza today - there is a problem - since Israel Withdrew no one has taken any responsibility for the area - since only a country can be in control of land. And since the Palestinians have made it very clear that they refuse to see Gaza as a country, it's Int. Law Status makes it a "no Man's Land" therefore - in theory any country can claim it as it's own, and going into it does not violate any law since it belongs to no one."

That's very interesting. :) Regardless, we still have to respect the rights of the people living in these areas.

*****

Oleh: "If Israel wanted to it could declare it as such and if no one disputes it as their own (once again only a country can do so) Israel should get full rights to it."

The problem is the Arabs "Palestinians" have no country - this is a problem which needs to be solved one way or another.

*****

Thanks for the reply Oleh.

 
At 9:26 PM, July 10, 2006, Blogger Tsedek said...

At 5:03 PM, July 10, 2006, Steven said...

:)


===================================

Steven, I know - although I never went deep into it. I also know people can change and learn to compromise because there is no other choice. I saw real hurt in his eyes. I stick with my gutfeeling this time.

Tse.

 
At 9:35 PM, July 10, 2006, Blogger Oleh Yahshan said...

steven,
I didn't mean for that entire comment to be addressed to you. But thats ok I don't mind.

As for your last comment about palestinians not having a country - I will say 2 things.
1. not every nation need a country. If we were to grant every Nation a country we would have over 1000 countries in the world.
2. (This is not PC!!) One can argue that the "Palestinians" are part of a region - an area called palestine - Just like the person in New-York is called a New-Yorker - this does not give the people on NY the right to a country! - I am not saying I agree with this statement just food for thought!

I think that enough for now I still want to hear what Osaid has to say about the previous comment.

 
At 9:37 AM, July 11, 2006, Blogger Osaid Rasheed said...

Hello Oleh..
Sorry for being late, I was away.

First of all, I am little 'impresses' that the term 'disputed teritory' was ysed by steven. This is a huge change !!

...
/..let me point out that resolution 242 says first that there should be peace, then talk about withdrawing form Lands (not all of them)/
Go and read the resolution again. !!!
When a country goes and captures another land ( note how steven said that :In 1967 Israel faced a genocidal attack and captured the "disputed territories"..What a contradiction steven, was it also disputed BEFORE your occupation !!! ), it has to get OUT of it before starting to talk about anything. If Saddam Hussein was given the chance to ask for what he wants before he was forced to get out of Kuwait, he would have not stopped asking for this and that until this moment. Israel's act is exactly the same as Saddam's invasion to kuwait. With the same UN resolutions, too! A democratic state would not do such acts, I am sure. I am sure there are differences between the 2 cases, but the principle is the same : occupation.

...
/First of all we are still not in peace with the Palestininas./
How can you be in peace with us while you are occupying us ?? Dont kid yourself for God's sake !!!
..
/2. the 73 war was a HUGE vilation of this resolution - not to mention the Khartoom conference and the Famous 3 NOs from our dear Arab countries.../
Ah, now you are talking about resolutions and using them for your case !!! I thought you once said the UN is biased and it does not mean anythging to you !!
This logic you are using now is the same logic Steven uses when asking me : look at what happening in Iraq and Saudi and Egypt and Syria, they are all nondemocratic and all ...bla bla ( of the true type of bla bla ! ).. He forgets the horrible mistakes his OWN government is making !! Fix your house before criticizing other people's houses.

...
/No where does it say that the Land is Palstinian.../
But it does CLEARLY says it is an occupied land. It was never urs.
The fact you 'captured it' in war ( defensive or offensive ) does not give you any legitimacy. You are violating the international law and the UN resolutions, very simple.
..
/One can claim that Since Israel already has peace with Egypt and Jordan, and has withdrawn from lands in both Sinai, Gaza, Judea and Sumeria that it has fulfilled it's part of 242.../
Go and tell that to a 4 years old kid, he MIGHT believe you. Israel has to withdraw to 67 borders. Very clear.

..
/ Law Status makes it a "no Man's Land" therefore - in theory any country can claim it as it's own, and going into it does not violate any law since it belongs to no one.../
I see that you are becoming an expert in international law !!! heheheh.. why dont you just stick to your part and END OCCUPATION NOW ??

Oleh :
We are here not to end the middle easts conflict. The arguments and discussions we make here help us understand what the other side has in mind.
Let me make it clear for you as for what I think : Jews surely have religious rights. In hebron for example there was a jewish minority that lived for thousands of years together with muslims. We never heard of any massacres before 1900's, this is because there were no zionists trying to change the history and the geography of the land. Only when the zionist movement appeared and started getting jews from all over the world to Palestine , did the arabs start to view themselves as being directly threatened, especially when they were exposed to the zionist ideas and beliefs which stated that the land is for the jews and arabs have to kicked out. Early writings of the zionist leaders were like Hamas's now !!

You and your government have to acknowledge our rights as humans to live and practice our life normally. The occupation and military operations all over the west bank and gaza has made it impossible for us to live normally. People found out that they have to have their freedom, let us all make it in the peaceful way.

The Israeli occupation of the west bank and Gaza is a crime itself. Stop killing more and more people, stop your daily violations and lets just start thinking about a better tomorrow where no one wants to kill anyone.


I hope that you dont take my words in any of my posts negatively. I am FREELY expressing my thoughts, and the thoughts of hundreds of tens of thousands of palestinians who share me such views.

good day

 
At 1:54 PM, July 11, 2006, Blogger Oleh Yahshan said...

"I see that you are becoming an expert in international law !!!"

I never said that - but I also didn't see you argue with the fact - go ahead look it up! Land that is not owned by ANY country is a no mans Land. check it out. see for yourself.

"Israel's act is exactly the same as Saddam's invasion to kuwait. With the same UN resolutions, too! "
Wrong! The operation against Iraq was Under Chapter 7 of the Un. Charter - after Iraq was declared an Aggressive country!! This is NOT the Case with Israel that Used self defence. Once again don't believe me - look it up - The resolution against Iraq included the "Use of force" of other countries, It does not say that
(I might not be an expert in Int. LAw - but I am learning about it)

"The fact you 'captured it' in war ( defensive or offensive ) does not give you any legitimacy. You are violating the international law and the UN resolutions, very simple."

No, Not so simple - since in it is not clear that getting land in defensive war is not legitimate! therefore not a violation of Int. Law.

As for the U.N. Resolutions - we already went over it - but you seem to have your opinion (4 Y/o child ETC)

In your last part what you are saying is that As long as the Jews here stayed a minority - it would have all been ok. Meaning you are Anti-immigration. You hate the Idea of people immigrating into other countries!
Or is it ok, as long as they stay the 2nd class citizens they were??
And what you are saying is that the trouble started with zionism and that is why it was ok to Massacre a population that was living in Hebron for 1000 years! I get it now!
How many Jews would have been ok in This place to keep you happy?? or is it any Jew that immigrated is Bad!

I also find it funny how you always seem to try to ignore the 1990s... as if the Oslo agreement never happened. As if Israel wasn't talking to Arafat (while attacks were going on in ISRAEL) and not puling back - and giving you Independence - How many israeli soldiers were in Rammallah in 1995?? How many road Blocks were there?? How big was the "wall" back then??
Until you admit that the 2nd Intifadah is the Biggest mistake your people have ever made - and call a total End to it there Won't be peace - because Israel is not going to give you Anything when all it gets in return is more death!

 
At 3:36 PM, July 11, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

Oleh, Thanks for that comment. I had not thought of it that way before - it was definately "food for thought". :)

 
At 3:38 PM, July 11, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

"First of all, I am little 'impresses' that the term 'disputed teritory' was ysed by steven. This is a huge change !!"

Is this a huge change?

I have said this before to you in emails. It is not occupied it is disputed.

Nevermind. Osiad, please can you check that long thread over at CultureForAll - I gave you a last reply. If you want to leave me a message there I will check it next week.

Best wishes.

 
At 4:28 PM, July 11, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

Oh man. Osaid I have to defend my stance here, so here is another post.

This is a long post, but I put some time and effort into it so I would appreciate that you read it Osaid.

*****

O: "note how steven said that :In 1967 Israel faced a genocidal attack and captured the 'disputed territories'..What a contradiction steven, was it also disputed BEFORE your occupation !!! )"

The territories I am referring to are Gush Katif, Judea and Samarra. Before 1967 these were not disputed as they were not in Israeli control. After the 1967 war Gush Katif, Judea and Samarra were disputed territories. To be technical, so is all of Israel because the PLO and Hamas still claim rights to all of "Palestine" which is defined as the borders of Israel. In 1967 when these borders changed, the PLO simply changed their definition of Palestine.

*****

O: "If Saddam Hussein was given the chance to ask for what he wants before he was forced to get out of Kuwait, he would have not stopped asking for this and that until this moment."

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Please can you elaborate or use a different example.

*****

O: "Israel's act is exactly the same as Saddam's invasion to kuwait. With the same UN resolutions, too!"

Well, no. Israel was attacked by Jordan which happened to be "occupying" Judea and Samarra. Israel defended herself and kicked out Jordan. At the end of the war Israel offered to return the land in exchange for peace however the offer was rejected. This is nothing like Kuwait. Saddam attacked Kuwait for its oil. Period.

*****

O: "A democratic state would not do such acts, I am sure."

You have very odd ideas about democracy. A democracy means one thing and one thing only: that the people choose who leads them.

*****

O: "I am sure there are differences between the 2 cases, but the principle is the same: occupation."

No, the principle is not the same. Israel was attacked and captured land after defending herself. The Arabs rejected peace and instead chose the three famous No's.

No Peace.
No Recognition of Israel.
No Negotiations.

And Israel had offered them the best peace deal in history. All the land in exchange for a promise of peace. Nothing else.

I repeat, Israel is not an occupying power. That land is legitimately Israeli since the war, and since nobody is willing to commit for peace in exchange for that land it is still Israelis land.

It is odd, all Israel still wants is peace. "Land for Peace". Oslo, Camp David. But the majority of Arabs and the "Palestinians" (or at least their leadership) do not want peace with Israel. It is the Arabs who rejected the partition plan, it is the Arabs who have attacked Israel multiple times with the joyous declaration of an impending genocide, it is the Arabs who rejected peace agreements in exchange for the land captured after Israel defended herself.

*****

O: "How can you be in peace with us while you are occupying us?? Dont kid yourself for God's sake!!!"

As I have explained on multiple occasions, Israel is not occupying "Palestinian land". There has never been a Palestinian land as you are well aware.

Now the PLO defined a "Palestinian land" to mean Israel. Even when Israel's borders have changed the definition of Palestine changed with it. Therefore "Liberate all of Palestine" means "destroy Israel".

As I stated before, the PLO in 1964 specifically stated that the "West Bank" is not "Palestine". According to the PLO in 1964 then, there is no occupation of Palestinian land because the land captured in 1967 was not "Palestinian" in any way, shape or form.

*****

Oleh: “the 73 war was a HUGE vilation of this resolution - not to mention the Khartoom conference and the Famous 3 NOs from our dear Arab countries”

Osaid: “Ah, now you are talking about resolutions and using them for your case !!! I thought you once said the UN is biased and it does not mean anythging to you !!”

Ah, I see the problem. I am not Oleh. Try not to mix people’s quotes up together.

*****

Osaid: “This logic you are using now is the same logic Steven uses when asking me : look at what happening in Iraq and Saudi and Egypt and Syria, they are all nondemocratic and all ...bla bla ( of the true type of bla bla ! ).. He forgets the horrible mistakes his OWN government is making !! Fix your house before criticizing other people's houses.”

I wish I understood what you were talking about here.

When I refer to other countries it is in response to when a person states they are against a certain issue. For example - if you are against security barriers but only mention Israel, I feel compelled to mention that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have security barriers. If you are talking about democracy and only criticising Israelis political system, I feel compelled to tell you that your own government is run by a terrorist group, to highlight that you see no need to mention that Jordan is not a democracy and forbids citizenship to Jews, that the other Arab states political systems are far worse than Israel’s that they are incomparable. I highlight these other countries to demonstrate that you are only talking about Israel because it is Israel, not due to Israel’s political system or security barrier. If you cared about democracy you would be addressing these far worse systems and celebrating Israel as the best system which grants its citizens more rights than any of her neighbours. Comrade?

I think Israel’s system needs to be changed as you well know Osaid – I sent you a massive email on the subject only recently - however, at the risk of rambling on this issue: if you pretend to support democracy and attack Israel all the time it is a little odd when you fail to see the far worse situation in your own “Palestine” which has no freedom of expression as you know…

O: “You should know that i am not in a position that allows me to speak freely about anything or anyone (u knonw wt i mean very well)"

*****

I can not identify the origin of your next quote:
“No where does it say that the Land is Palestinian”

But you reply to it by saying:

Osaid: “But it does CLEARLY says it is an occupied land. It was never urs.
The fact you 'captured it' in war (defensive or offensive ) does not give you any legitimacy. You are violating the international law and the UN resolutions, very simple.”

No, it is not occupied land. Perhaps you do not understand what reality is. When a sovereign nation attacks you and tries to kill you, and you defend yourself against the aggression. That land is yours.

Think about it, if you did not win the war, you would be dead. Why does that nation have a right to the land you captured in self-defence? They do not.

For an even grater claim. Israel offered to return that land in exchange for nothing but peace, but was rejected. That land is Israeli land. End of story. The Arab nations need to grow up. You can not try and kill someone and then complain when you loose.

*****

Oleh: “One can claim that Since Israel already has peace with Egypt and Jordan, and has withdrawn from lands in both Sinai, Gaza, Judea and Sumeria that it has fulfilled it's part of 242”

Osaid: “Go and tell that to a 4 years old kid, he MIGHT believe you. Israel has to withdraw to 67 borders. Very clear.”

I hope you don’t mind me replying here Oleh.

Osaid, why does Israel have to return to 67 borders? That would not “Liberate all of Palestine”, nor has Israel yet received an assurance for peace in exchange for that land.

*****

Osaid: “I see that you are becoming an expert in international law !!! heheheh.. why dont you just stick to your part and END OCCUPATION NOW??”

Clearly this is a very emotional subject for you. If you read my posts again perhaps you will start to understand why Israel’s presence is not occupation. Israel should not leave - at the very least without a guarantee of peace. I would suggest reparations from Egypt, Jordan and “Palestine Arabs”, but Israel is very strange and seems happy to return the land it captured in exchange for nothing but peace.

Notice how Israel is the only country in history to offer withdrawal from land in exchange for a promise for peace, but the “Palestine Arabs” are still not willing to meet this basic condition.

*****

You said to Oleh:

“We are here not to end the middle east conflict. The arguments and discussions we make here help us understand what the other side has in mind.”

I think we are here for more than that. Atleast I am. People go war due to their opinions. If we have it out over the internet rather than a battle field, we may be able to avert a war and thus save lives. There are thousands, if not Millions of people on the internet talking about this issue. It is known as an information war. People make the future and talking with people will affect the future. It is not an over exaggeration to say that winning the information war can change the course of the Middle East conflict.

I close by saying to you Osaid:

You and your terrorist government have to acknowledge our rights as humans to live and practice our life normally. Further more, you have to acknowledge the rights of your children to be taught for peace and not be subjected to hateful imams that preach death for Allah.

Until that happens any appeals to Israel to give up Israeli land should not be heeded.

 
At 4:33 PM, July 11, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

Correction:
As I stated before, the PLO in 1964 specifically stated that the "West Bank" is not "Palestine". According to the PLO in 1964 then, there is no occupation of Palestinian land because the land captured in 1967 was not "Palestinian" in any way, shape or form.

*****

I am sure you understood what I was saying here. According to 1964 the West Bank and Gaza are not Palestinian - however what some people call "Israel Proper" would still be "disputed", and it is still "disputed" to this day.

 
At 4:35 PM, July 11, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

One more correction:

For some reason I wrote "Comrade?" instead of "Comprende?" which basically means "Do you understand?"

 
At 6:49 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

Just went through the comments on both the blogs...

Conclusion: more respect is urgently needed.

Elaboration: what we believe to be the the truth depends on what we were taught. And in this particular case, the differences between perceived truths are tremendous. There is, of course, only one "real" truth - but as long as we have two conflicting versions thereof, we have a problem. Moreover, Osaid did explain some of his conflicting statements. It would appear that at least some of them are the result of faulty communication exacerbated by emotional style.

Conclusion: once again, I urge everyone to avoid emotion while pondering and discussing these issues. Pretty please, with tahini on top? :)

 
At 8:57 PM, July 11, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

An interesting point raised by AbbaGav:

http://abbagav.blogspot.com/2006/07/palestinian-goals-rational-questions.html

 
At 9:20 PM, July 11, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:46 PM, July 11, 2006, Blogger Osaid Rasheed said...

Hello Raccoon :

Thanks for your valuable replies and input.

The formal position of our 'terrorist' and 'insane' palestinian government ( talking about pre-hamas period ) was not supporting any terrorism. When the IDF invaded the west bank again the palestinian police and security forces was NEVER engaged in any military acts against IDF. This , I believe, was a very wise act.This also means that violence and using force IS NOT A POLICY that we use.

Oleh and Steven :
Stop calling palestinians and their leadership terrorists. You have been attacking Abbas and the PNA , ( to some extent I believe you made good points, though ) but at the same time ignoring the brutality and arrogance your government has been using as a policy with Palestinians.

As raccoon said, it looks like that the differences in views are related to different education. I would concentrate in the near future on more basic things like : what does the international law says and is it occupation or not. There are so many jews and Israelis who wrote about that, most of which are highly educated. I will have to go back to what they wrote and collect it.

There are huge differences between what we believe and what you believe. It is very wrong to attack us and say that we are the liars and terrorists. I acknowlwdge the fact that I am not very well prepared to go on with history arguments since I do not have an extensive background about it, but it does not take from me alot of effort to see that the 'occupation' and policies of your government are depriving us from our simplest rights.

The Israeli governments have never been much better than the Arab ones, believe me.

Oleh : thank you for your replies. Still, the points you are making are not strong enough for me. I will have to check for an experts opinion on this matter ( int law and UN stuff ). Fine ?

Regardless of all previous discussions : Israel is CURRENTLY engaged in acts that are directly depriving Palestinians from their rights. If your government keeps acting this way , and refuses to acknowledge our rights , and keeps taking wtever it can, this would not leave much hope for peace in the future. We are making stupid choices, I know, like these Kassams and other minor things... but your government is systematically depriving palestinians from their rights. I dont know for how long you will be able to keep doing what you are doing,, but believe me : time is NOT at your side. The 90's and the Oslo agreements were great chances to achieve peace. Your government PROMISED to stop building more settlements but it did NOT fulfil its promises and continued building settlements. Even Olbright that time ( your strong supporter and friend )criticized you for doing so. YOU have made it impossible to go on with those plans. The Pals on the other side had their mistakes, but our mistakes were nothing compared to your policies.

You will not be able to change the facts ,Oleh, nor will you be able to convince anyone of what you are saying. You want to talk about the 90's while you still do not agree that the west bank is occupied land. I think we have to keep talking about this occupation issue before we move to other points.

Good day all. And thanks a lot for your comments and time.

 
At 12:18 AM, July 12, 2006, Blogger Oleh Yahshan said...

Osaid,
first - you didn't answer my remark about immigration.

2. Are you telling me that you started the 2nd intifadah that left over 5000 people dead (on both sides) - over us building houses?? Wow had I known houses could be so deadly. I was thinking this whole time that Blowing up Buses is a bad thing - Thank you for "enlightening" me. I will think twice before I build my house - who knows thousands of people could die.
On a serious note - What you are actually saying is that Oslo failed because Israel continued to build in the West Bank. How does this make any sense?? considering Barak offered you land including the removal of Settlements - lots of them - and instead he went and started a war with us. and even when Barak Came back with an Even better offer - it was still turned down.
I really hope you dont really believe that, this whole situation came around because some Israelis built some houses.

Once again I will remind you (since you seem not to mention it) -
- -How many Israeli soldiers sat in the "Area A" zones?
How many road blocks were there?? Where were they??
How many Palestinians worked in Israel EVERY DAY - commuting back and forth - and making a decent living??
- how big was the Wall in 1995??
You seem to want to forget that period since it reminds you that Israel actually was trying to resolve the conflict and what it got in return was more death and more terrorism

oh and finally I will NEVER stop calling HAMAS Terrorists!! When they state over and over again that they WANT to Kill People, and that the more Jews one kills the better - I don't care what YOU call it - I call it terrorism. And please don't try to BS me and say that Israel is doing the Same - We work Over time to try and make sure that the minimum amount of people are injured when operating, and you will agree with me that if we wanted to we could have killed a lot more than we did in the past week. But we unlike you Govt. do not take pride and do not party when people die. We do not have people giving out candy when your people die.
And if you can justify Targeting civilians (like you Govt. does on a daily basis) then we really have nothing more to talk about

Good evening!

 
At 1:04 AM, July 12, 2006, Blogger Osaid Rasheed said...

Oleh
Lets not talk about imogration now.
It was the state of Israels policy to go on building settlements, not some homes built by someone here and there. The USA asked your government to stop but it never listened to anyone.
This was not the only reason for Oslo's failure.

Anyway..
to remind you : Israel did more than once violate its agreements with the world and the pals by infiltrating into area A zones many many times. MAny excuses were used most of which were to 'fight terror'. you cannot ignore that too.

good night now..

 
At 1:08 AM, July 12, 2006, Blogger Osaid Rasheed said...

Hey...
dont forget to check this link : just to remind you of your mistakes :

http://desertpeace.blogspot.com/2006/07/racism-is-alive-and-well-in-jerusalem.html

 
At 1:14 AM, July 12, 2006, Blogger Tsedek said...

Is there any timeline on this? Like:

This happened date
That happened date
Then this happened date...

so we can actually practically follow events (such as incursions into various Palestinian areas or suicide attacks chronologically mentioned)?

To me it makes a hell of a lot difference what came in reaction of what and who did it....

I always thought the events preceding the March suicidebombings which eventually led to the Jenin siege brought about the complete destruction of the Oslo-agreements.

Tse.

 
At 2:40 AM, July 12, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

Heya Osaid. :)

+++++

Osaid: “Stop calling Palestinians and their leadership terrorists. You have been attacking Abbas and the PNA...”

I don’t know what the PNA is so I may be making a mistake by assuming that it is the PA, aka. the PLO, aka. Al Fatah. Perhaps the “N” stands for “National”.

The PA is run by terrorists. Al Fatah and Hamas are terrorists. I do not compare these groups to all Palestinians though - even though many Palestinians do:

--- Quote ---
Once agian your not understanding what im saying. Let me make it very clear. There is no palistine Without Hamas or the PA ! thats just fact.

WHO do you think makes up hamas and the PA ?
IT is no other then the Palestinians Childred who are the natives of palistine in other words THEY are palistine. do you atleats understand what im saying bro?
--- End Quote ---

Maybe I am being irrational here by not agreeing with this guy, but I find it difficult to agree with him because my stance is that we can not have peace until Hamas and the PA are disbanded. I know all too well what Hamas and the PA are.

I still haven’t replied to him because I don’t know what to say. :-|

+++++

Osaid: “( to some extent I believe you made good points, though ) but at the same time ignoring the brutality and arrogance your government has been using as a policy with Palestinians.”

I appreciate that. Thanks. Regarding brutality and arrogance, Israel has to improve a lot - but I won’t blame Israel for targeting terrorists, nor do I blame them when civilians die as a result of these strikes. The Israeli government are certainly not exempt from criticism. I am a huge critic of the Israeli government and some of its policies though.

I don’t know if this reply is good enough for you, but that is where I stand. Until the terrorist groups sort out their situation I will be defending the Israeli government as she is the lesser of two evils.

+++++


Osaid: “As raccoon said, it looks like that the differences in views are related to different education. I would concentrate in the near future on more basic things like : what does the international law says and is it occupation or not.”

Good call. Keeping it in small bite size chunks in the answer. Personally I would not assume that modern International Law is correct, but instead try to look at events in history one by one and judge for ourselves. It is only through knowing our history that we can understand how we got to where we are today, and where we are heading in the future.

+++++

Osaid: “I acknowlwdge the fact that I am not very well prepared to go on with history arguments since I do not have an extensive background about it”

That doesn’t matter; we all have lots to learn. The history is the key to the conflict today. :)

+++++

Osaid: “but it does not take from me alot of effort to see that the 'occupation' and policies of your government are depriving us from our simplest rights.”

Israel is in that region not to deprive you of your rights but to protect its own citizens. As soon as Israel is guaranteed peace in exchange for the land captured in the 1967 war this will be history.

Take care.

 
At 5:29 AM, July 12, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

Uhm. For the time being, I would like to address only one point (which Steven touched upon) - namely, the Israeli violations of Palestinian rights.

Of course Israel is violating the rights of the Palestinians. We are at a de-facto state of war. In wars, people get hurt... and war is by DEFNITION a violation of assorted rights.

Do not forget that rights are earned, not given. And even universally accepted rights (universally accepted by the West, that is - see http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html ) can be taken away with due reason (like if you're a murderer, for instance).

I am rambling a bit, so I'll try to pull my points together:

Israel is left with no choice but to violate the rights of the Palestinians, since the latter are attacking the former. And when not attacking, abetting the attackers. And when not actively abetting, passively supporting. This is unacceptable. In such a case, violation of rights is justified, and is normally called "responsibility".

Moreover, Israel is doing its best - and as I said before, this is a superhuman effort hithero unseen in human history - to perserve the rights of its openly declared enemies.

 
At 5:33 AM, July 12, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

Oleh Yashan - please note that Osaid Rasheed is NOT the Palestinian people. He's a person who happens to be a Palestinian. He is not an officially empowered spokesman for the aforementioned people. Nor is he their ruler.

Ergo, addressing him as if he is PA, the Palestinian people or someone who singlehandedly decided the actions of various Palestinians is counterproductive. Please stop.

For further clarification compare Osaid's picture with a satellite photo of PA and note the differences ;)

Thank you. And shanti shanti...

 
At 5:37 AM, July 12, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

Oh... and a little conclusion to my ramble about the rights of enemies at wartime, especially as it applies to Palestinians...


"We may forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we will never forgive them for making us kill their children" - Golda Meir.

She might have been an unsuccessful Prime Minister in many ways... but she sure had a marvellous way with words.

 
At 5:41 AM, July 12, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

Osaid -

I would like to engage you with a little question... why do you think "Israel did more than once violate its agreements with the world and the pals by infiltrating into area A zones many many times"?

You say that fighting terror is an excuse... what is the real reason, then? And please remember that the Israeli people do not take kindly to the death of their children - those that you know as soldiers. Why would Israeli government risk public outrage and political disaster by operating in A zones?

I would really like to know what you think.

Thank you.

 
At 7:53 AM, July 12, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

About Israel being as bad as the assorted Arab/Islamic states... this is utter and complete nonsense. Just check the facts, mate. Israel is better in virtually every respect by such a huge margin that no comparison is possible. It's like comparing North Korea to Japan.

There is a little mind game I like to present whenever such discussions get too technical...

Q1: What would happen were all Israelis to become utter and complete pacifists?
Q2: What would happen were all Palestinians to become utter and complete pacifists?

A1: 5 million dead Jews within a week or so, with the remainder enslaved.
A2: Peace and prosperity.

Simple.

 
At 11:05 AM, July 12, 2006, Blogger Oleh Yahshan said...

racoon,
When I said "you" to Osaid I was reffering to the Collective you not him personally -
Just to be Clear I have nothing against Osaid - I think he is a very nice person, and I am glad to be able to have a civil conversation - despite our worlds of differences in opinion.
There are not many people out there who can have a civil conversation (when I say people I am talking about any of the 5 billion in the world today).
So I will continue to use "you" sometimes when talking to osaid about the palestinians - and to be clear I mean Colective!

 
At 5:06 PM, July 12, 2006, Anonymous The Raccoon said...

About the open act of war on Israel by Syria and Iran through their proxy Hizbollah -

"Cry 'Havoc'
And let slip the dogs of war!"

It's long past time to match the technological capabalities of Iran and Syria to the epoch their mindset is stuck in; namely, the 7th century AD.

 
At 5:05 AM, July 16, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

War is apon us.

 
At 2:06 PM, July 16, 2006, Blogger Osaid Rasheed said...

Yes Steven..
What is happening now, which is very sad and unfortunate, should mean something to you and to us all. Israel should work to seek peace with all its neighbours : the fact that even a small organization like Hizbollah could inflict all that challenge and horror to a great military power like israel means that Israel should not keep acting with the usual arrogance. It is very sad

Civilians are being killed, this is not a good event for anyone.

 
At 11:03 PM, July 16, 2006, Blogger Steven said...

Israel is really holding back at the moment.

 
At 10:11 PM, February 19, 2017, Blogger Halı Yıkama said...

Halı Yıkama
Halı Yıkama Fiyatları

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Google PageRank Checker Tool


Free Page Counters!

mesothelioma attorney