If you're not in the U.S., what's up in your part of the world? Showing 551-600 of 3,266

[J.]

History teaches two ways to end the cycle of violence.

The preferable way was exemplified by the Marshall Plan. It requires a victor to show not just mercy, but compassion to the defeated. You must bind their wounds and mend their fences. This is not a popular route from the POV of a populace which has suffered at the hands of the defeated.

As for the second way, there is a reason that only historians talk about Carthage.

[Papaphilly]

I cannot tell if you being serious or playing devil's advocate. Out of curiosity, which one is it? I am having a hard time you questioning Israel's legitimacy. You do not really believe that do you?

While it is commendable to shed tears for the Palestinians, remember they did it to themselves. They have this habit of shooting themselves in the foot and to prove their point they shoot themselves in the other foot and then scream it is Israel's fault. You want to feel bad, go ahead, but remember, they did it to themselves. Israel has been reactionary, not so Hamas.

As for the eviction, I went and looked it up. It evidently goes back to 1948 and it is about Israelis getting kicked off their land and trying to get it back. I could not really follow it and it is very complicated. It has been in court the entire time evidently.

As for my statement about Palestine being mendacious, it was not. It was totally factual. It is like saying Florida is part of the United States. It was never a separate country.

The world is moving on and the Arabs have had enough with the Palestinians. You want to say they have no choice? I disagree. They had their choice and made their choice and now they have to live with their choice. They burned their house to the ground and now cry they are homeless.

BTW, the rockets are Iranian made, that is not up for dispute. That is common knowledge. This is not a clandestine operation. The Israelis have captured more than on Iranian ship with the rockets on it.

[Ian]

Papaphilly, a mix of both. As for legitimacy, Israel was created by a UN vote following events outlined in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...
You can decide whether that was legitimate. One of the things it does not mention is that apparently certain Jews were encouraged to go to what was then Palestine to be a nuisance to the British - organised by one R Heydrich, he of impeccable credentials.

The question of evictions depends on which ones we are talking about. If what Nik wrote is true, this may actually be legitimate, although a trail of paperwork from the Ottoman Empire is needed to ensure no further sales. I have no idea what the real background of this is, BUT from al Naqba there have been many forced evictions. Do you really believe all the territory in Israel was acquired by paying the original owners money according to the value of willing buyer/willing seller? As an aside, Nik recommended that I watch the TV program Fauda. In series 3 there is a scene where a Palestinian prisoner is released, after, I think 20 years in jail, and he is driven past what he thinks should be someone's farm. "Oh, he was evicted to make room for settlers," comes the comment. Remember, this show is made by Israelis, so there is little doubt they thought that sort of thing happens.

Palestine may not have been a separate country, but it was a separate protectorate. NZ troops recovered there after being kicked out of Greece and Crete. Everybody at the time called it Palestine, and if it wasn't, what was it?

Yes, the Palestinians made choices that now look very bad and they have to live with them. What that means is now, in my opinion, they have almost no choice. If you were a Palestinian living in Gaza with the average wealth and average education, what would you do with the rest of your life? In my opinion, Hamas actually wants Israel to invade. They have no independence, and no future, or if they have one, feel free to let me know.

I find it hard to believe that Iran smuggled in 30,000 rather primitive rockets, but maybe they did. A rather spectacular smuggling operation if they did.

And yes, I am mainly playing Devil's advocate, with a bent towards the overall strategy of the players. The Israeli pattern is obvious and if anyone can't see it they have vision problems, but the other side rarely gets their perspective presented. The issue of sponsors you raise is interesting. If the Arabs, etc stop the funds then you will have mass disease and starvation there.

The Palestinians have certainly not shone, but in my view they did not have much in the way of choice. Everyone says they should live in peace, but with what they have left, how can they live, as opposed to exist and receive external support? How can an average Palestinian build a prosperous future for himself? This problem will not go away simply by everyone "being peaceful".

[J.]

Ian wrote: "I find it hard to believe that Iran smuggled in 30,000 rather primitive rockets, but maybe they did. A rather spectacular smuggling operation if they did."

Consider for a moment the amount of cocaine and heroin which manages to make it into the black markets of New Zealand. It wasn't grown there. It is constantly being smuggled onto your islands, in quantities large enough to satisfy the demand. Never underestimate the abilities of smugglers.

[Ian]

You may be right, J., but cocaine comes in moderately sized packages of white powder. These rockets are rather big to fly that far and carry a load. Of course the Iranians may have sent them as parts and maybe Gaza has sufficient engineering facilities to convert pipe into the shell.

[J.]

You really should watch a documentary entitled "Cocaine Cowboys". Shipments are not necessarily small. And illicit weapons shipments are common in the middle east.

https://www.guns.com/news/2021/05/10/...

[Ian]

The images in the link are definitely impressive. That was a lot of rifles.

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "The Palestinians have certainly not shone, but in my view they did not have much in the way of choice. Everyone says they should live in peace, but with what they have left, how can they live, as opposed to exist and receive external support? How can an average Palestinian build a prosperous future for himself? This problem will not go away simply by everyone "being peaceful". ..."

Ian, I respect New Zealand very much and what's done is done, but by comparison Israel is much more legitimate than the country you live in :) And Palestinians unlike Maori still have a chance to have a second country for themselves, after they already have a Palestinian Jordan emerging from split of Transjordan. If Palestinians deserve to have another state, certainly so do Jews.
Palestinians can live and prosper just as they are. In fact, the West Bank does flourish and it's mostly corruption of the Palestinian Authority that stands in the way.
If turned peaceful, Gaza can be a beautiful and prosperous place and a Med sea resort. Imagine what a gigantic investment hamas did into the network of underground tunnels for their combatants they call "metro", exposed now by the explosions? Instead, they could've invested that much into betterment of Gaza. And so much for producing and smuggling thousands of rockets.
Trump's plan, envisaged a huge investment for Palestinians, but Abu Mazen told outright that "it would eliminate a Palestinian problem", something he's apparently not interested in.
Of course, they have choices and each time they embrace hostilities and then whining about their plight. Many Arab countries ken the score and moved on..

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "I find it hard to believe that Iran smuggled in 30,000 rather primitive rockets, but maybe they did. A rather spectacular smuggling operation if they did...."

Not all get through. If you watch the news, the Israelis stop a ship quite often.

Ian wrote: "Palestine may not have been a separate country, but it was a separate protectorate. NZ troops recovered there after being kicked out of Greece and Crete. Everybody at the time called it Palestine, and if it wasn't, what was it?...."

Which proves my point using Florida as the example. It was never a separate country.

Ian wrote: "The Palestinians have certainly not shone, but in my view they did not have much in the way of choice. Everyone says they should live in peace, but with what they have left, how can they live, as opposed to exist and receive external support? How can an average Palestinian build a prosperous future for himself? This problem will not go away simply by everyone "being peaceful"....."

Your point is well taken, but 50 plus years of war has done them no favors and all they do is lose. Their direct choices led them to this point. It is nobody's fault but their own. Maybe trying the other way can set them on a different path. Everyone screamed when the Israelis built the wall and castigated them. Except, the bombing dropped to almost nil. Know why? Because the Palestinians cannot get to them. That is what is working. As for taking money, they do that now, so what changes with peace?

As for the UN vote, yes it was probably done with not the most altruistic motives. Yet it was their traditional homeland that already had a large Jewish population. There were pro-Jewish Arabs that were killed by their own people right from the very start. Not all Arabs with anti Jew.

[Ian]

Papaphilly, Most of the Jews who went there from about 1935 onwards had never had family there for 2000 years so it was hardly a homeland. Yes, there were Jews living there over the centuries but so what? There are Jews living in Iran right now. Living in the place is not the problem. Had the new immigrants purchased their land and property from willing sellers I would have no problem whatsoever, but when they acquire the land by driving the original owners out by force I do have a problem.

I also have a problem with those wretched politicians that sent in that number of Jews in the firm knowledge this was almost certain to happen, given the pre-existing terrorism of the Irgun and Haganah. Israel is unfortunately a state that shows terrorism did actually work once.

Yes, the Palestinians have done themselves no favours. Given the US power and the determination of the Jewish population in the US, and the way voting works, their best chance was to accept they were going to lose in 1947, recognize the inevitable, and negotiate for proper purchase of property. That just might have worked, although the size of the bill might have been frightening. Apart from that it has been lose lose for them, no matter what they did.

My point here is mainly, who paid what to previous owners for the property the Israelis now own?

[Ian]

Nik, in NZ some of the Maori business groupings are the richest in the country, and Maori get 20% of the rights to the fishing industry, for example, without even going to sea. I rather bet your Palestinians don't get that. You are correct that NZ was not settled with full altruism but there were two problems you may not recognize. Many of the Maori wanted the British to come because the country had been in tribal war for ages, but now Europeans had arrived and were supplying booze and muskets in exchange for whatever, and the muske4ts were being used to make one tribe or so far superior to the other. Those who were not pillaging and eating opponents with superior weaponry wanted someone to stop this. The second problem was the missionary Samuel Marsden. He wanted this treaty signed and since he knew both languages he was commissioned to write the Maori version, which unfortunately does not mean the same thing as the English version.

Trump's investment offered what looks like a large amount of money, but it would not have helped in the long run because of the economy problem - a shortage of resources and opportunities. Some facts about the economy can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...

The main productive industry is agriculture. To quote: Palestinian agriculture suffers from numerous problems, blockades to exportation of produce and importation of necessary inputs, widespread confiscation of land for nature reserves as well as military and settler use, confiscation and destruction of wells, and physical barriers within the West Bank. Therein lies one problem.

The exports quoted: Olives, fruit, vegetables, limestone, citrus, flowers, textiles Total : $720 million in 2011. That is not the amount needed to run a country.
GDP per capita $1924 (West Bank) $876 (Gaza) (Israeli GDP per capita at the same time was $22563)
Unemployment 27.5% (Q1 2013)
Population below poverty line 25.8% (2011 est.)
Apparenty 30% of engineering graduates are unemployed, and of those emplopyed a good fraction work in Saudi Arabia.
After 1997, "As a result of the Israeli blockade, 85% of factories were shut or operated at less than 20% capacity."

My point is the Palestinian economy cannot provide a reasonable life following this sort of military occupation, and as far as agriculture, the land confiscations have been carried out. It will take much more than some conscience salving dollars to give them a chance.

[Nik]

Yes, many Jews had to flee the romans a couple of millennia ago and got scattered, but Israel surely remained their homeland as the indigenous people to this land. It became pretty popular in the world anyway that descendants can come back to their patria even centuries later. Don’t see a problem there.
In ottoman times and under Brits, all the property was bought and Rothschild, inter alia, spent a lot setting up Jewish settlements or would you think Brits would allow otherwise? The only properties confiscated are those left behind (abandoned) by those who left Israel. You can imagine how much more abandoned property of Jews was left in Arab/Muslim and other countries. Surely, enough to cover the value of refugees’ property 10 times over.
Blockade of certain imports to Gaza ? Well, I guess you understand why. Were they not hostile, no blockade would be needed.
Palestinians have similar economic figures as Jordan’s population. They don’t need to be isolated, but integrate economically with Israel - thousands Palestinians work in it anyway or Jordan and develop their own niche. If tiny resourceless countries can thrive, Palestinians can too. And the West Bank does pretty well.
There is no change in disposition in territories controlled by Palestinians for decades under Oslo agreements. Some settlements are considered illegal by Israel too and are being removed from time to time.
If you hold a referendum among Maori whether they want you there, I’m not sure they wouldn’t want you out, despite all the condescending perks :)

[Ian]

The fact that the Jews felt Israel was their homeland does not help the Palestinians. I have already said many times that Israel is there and there is nothing anyone can do to reverse that. Yes, property taken up by Jews prior to 1947 was almost certainly purchased. It is what happened in 1948 and after that is the cause of the concern to the Palestinians. And to argue that you can force Palestinians out of their property because someone else took the Jewish property is not exactly helpful to the Palestinians. They cannot go there and collect on it. There is no trade there.

I put the GDP figures for Palestinians in a post above. For Jordan the GDP per capita (2018, Wikipedia) was $4270, which is about 4 times that of Palestine. And Jordan has additional problems - about 25% of the government budget goes to sustaining Syrian refugees, so I would say the Palestinians are nowhere near Jordanians.

According to Wikipedia, "As of 30 January 2020, there are about 130 government-approved settlements, and 100 unofficial ones, which are home to around 400,000 Israelis in the West Bank, with an additional 200,000 Israelis residing in 12 neighborhoods in East Jerusalem."

Again from Wikipedia: "After the Six-Day War, in 1967, Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stated in a legal opinion to the Prime Minister: "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."[133]
This legal opinion was sent to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. However, it was not made public at the time. The Labor cabinet allowed settlements despite the warning. This paved the way for future settlement growth."

Read my comment on agriculture being hindered by the occupation above. It explains the Palestinian point of view. The settlements were made simply because it was cheaper. The same Wikipedia article notes housing is cheaper in the settlements. It would be if you didn't have to buy the land.

[Nik]

I don’t know, Ian, where your data is from. I read here https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/... that gdp per capita in West Bank & Gaza stand at 3560, similar to, say, Ukraine, while in Jordan - around 4400.
But what helps Palestinians? Does shooting rockets help in any way? Or would good relations be a key to prosperity, removal of limits on import of double use materials? Israel has plenty of jobs to offer. Their military adventures probably hurt the most their own population. Once there is a truce and hamas goes out of their hideouts, they won’t recognize Gaza. Was it worthy? Is it ever?

[Ian]

I gave the Wikipedia link, Nik. We roughly agree on Jordan, and variations depend on when the data were sourced.

Does shooting rockets help in any way? It might if the objective is to get the Israeli army to invade, but otherwise, apart from bringing the matter to everyone's attention, no it doesn't. On the other hand the Israeli bombing of the building housing Associated Press and al Jazeera probably won't help Israel either. The problem with these sorts of things is they get out of control.

Will there be a truce? Hamas will eventually run out of rockets, and then, as you say, they will have to decide whether it was worth it. My guess is, being fanatics, they will never bring themselves to say it wasn't. But unless something is done to get a more permanent agreement, give it some time and it will start off again.

I guess we have different views on what the end-game will involve. My guess is those 400,000 Israelis settling in the West Bank, and taking all the infrastructure and water, coupled with all the reserve land for the military and parks, will mean Palestine as an independent state will not be a viable option, and I cannot see Israel pulling the settlers back. But as I say, I would welcome a scheme that has a plausible and potentially workable plan to prove me wrong.

[Scout]

I'm pro Israel. I see them being attacked and responding, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Nik]

Thank you, Scout, I really value your unequivocal support!

[Ian]

One of the commentators on our TV stated the evictions were not the trigger for the rockets. It was the fact that al Asqa Mosque was stormed by Israeli police and a number of Palestinians were hospitalized.

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "One of the commentators on our TV stated the evictions were not the trigger for the rockets. It was the fact that al Asqa Mosque was stormed by Israeli police and a number of Palestinians were hosp..."

Yeah, yeah, the good guys just wanted to vent and found a pretext.
To go to a Mosque and pray is one thing, to go for a pray and throwing stones at others is totally another. Don't know what triggered the police to crack down and our police might not be the smartest or delicatest force in the world (btw, some of them also got hospitalized), yet nothing justifies shooting rockets...

[Ian]

Did they really throw rocks at each other in a mosque? I find that hard to believe.

Probably less news from Gaza now that Israel leveled the building containing al Jazeera and AP. I don't understand why - they say there were Hamas people in the building but they warned everyone to get out so all they did was smash a building.

Western governments are busy trying to negotiate something, but it can't work. Abu Maazen is so weak he cannot agree to anything and they won't talk to Hamas, and if they did I doubt Hamas is in a listening mood. "The Neverending Story".

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "Did they really throw rocks at each other in a mosque? I find that hard to believe.

Probably less news from Gaza now that Israel leveled the building containing al Jazeera and AP. I don't understa..."

Rocks at police, Ian.
Supposedly, there were hamas assets in the building.
Since it's not the first time, a ceasefire is usually brokered by Egyptian intelligence and holds as long as there is a deterrence, likely to erupt again some time in the future on Iranian orders or independently.

[Ian]

Nik, regarding "Supposedly, there were hamas assets in the building." I still don't see the point in leveling the building because they told said hamas assets to get out.

Meanwhile, in our morning news the UN has declared that relations between Israel and Palestine have his an all time low. Well, that was perceptive of them, but if that is the best they can do they should probably be better served by going back to sleep.

Again, from the limited news here it seems things are calming down, or each side is slowing down to see what happens next from the other. As for a ceasefire, hopefully you will soon be able to go about your life with no worries about stuff coming from the sky, at least until the next burst of trouble. While I would be very pleased if something happened that brought the parties to a permanent solution, I doubt it will happen.

[Nik]

Sure, a permanent peaceful solution would be the best. Hopefully, maybe - one day.
The best diversion from internal problems is an external war - it's an ancient trick. The scarier thing that we discuss with the friends here is that this conflagration comes just too perfectly timed for Bibi to derail a coalition against him to be random.

[Papaphilly]

What part of shooting rockets does not lead to peace do you not understand? You keep saying poor Palestinians, but they did it to themselves. Your land questions are fair and it is certainly worth studying. What you do not seem to understand is that from the very first, Israel was attacked and won every time. Why should they return land when they won it in war? As for the settlements, I have not argument with they are not helping and are probably illegal. Yet, the Israelis have removed settlements in the past and the Palestinians still attack them with rockets. Maybe it is time for "every time you attack that land lost is gone forever."

Once the Israelis cut a peace accord with Egypt, they returned Sinai to them and the peace held. Only the Palestinians keep breaking the peace under any pretext. Everything they have is a mess by their own hands. If you really want to feel bad, think about how the Palestinians are being played for chumps by the Iranians.

[Ian]

Nik wrote: "Sure, a permanent peaceful solution would be the best. Hopefully, maybe - one day.
The best diversion from internal problems is an external war - it's an ancient trick. The scarier thing that we di..."

yeah, there has been speculation here that either Bibi has had remarkable luck, or Hamas has somehow played right into Bibi's hand. I suspect we shall never know.

I don't think there will be an external war, though. With the US backing Israel, who would be stupid enough to start one?

[Ian]

Papaphilly wrote: "What part of shooting rockets does not lead to peace do you not understand? You keep saying poor Palestinians, but they did it to themselves. Your land questions are fair and it is certainly worth ..."

You ask why should they return land they won in war. The problem with that is the modern conventions of war lead to two outcomes when you occupy land: either you incorporate it into your own country and give the inhabitants citizenship (as happened, say with the people of Breslau, who became Poles) or you occupy it and follow the Geneva Convention (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevent...)
Israel did neither, and technically is against international law. To say the Israelis have removed settlements may or may not be accurate, but with 230 remaining and 400,000 Israelis in them (given the data accuracy) then any removal has been cosmetic.

Israel giving Sinai back to Egypt might be a model, but they have never given the Palestinians anything, and instead have taken land. I have agreed many times firing rockets won't achieve anything much, but on the other hand, what has been achieved since 1947? From the Palestinian point of view, everything gets worse. Sure, they did not shine in 1997, when there probably was a reasonable deal achievable, but was it then helpful for Israel to effectively bankrupt about 80% of Palestinian industry out of spite?

To say the Palestinians have made their own mess surely requires an alternative that they could have managed? What do you think they should do? If you think Israel has right of conquest, then why doesn't it take responsibility for everything and sort it out? As for the rockets, they have known about them. Why not send in their tanks and military, catch the Hamas people, destroy the rockets, and properly occupy Gaza?

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "I don't think there will be an external war, though. With the US backing Israel, who would be stupid enough to start one?..."

Gaza is an external war diverting attention from internal problems and effectively derailing alternative coalition government

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "Israel giving Sinai back to Egypt might be a model, but they have never given the Palestinians anything, and instead have taken land. ..."

That's just not true, Ian. Israel wrapped up all the settlements and pulled back from Gaza. It didn't take long for hamas to kill Fatah representatives and seize control of the enclave, which they rule without any Israel's involvement. As you can imagine this unilateral move is now regarded as a mistake, because we've got a hostile terrorist organization sitting there every once in a while attacking Israel.
Israel started Oslo process, helped establish Palestinian Authority and transferred to it a big chunk of the West Bank. Over 90% of the Palestinian population is totally self-governed. There is no spite towards Palestinian industry and no one (on Israel part) bankrupted it.
And generally speaking, the situation there is far from being as bad as they attempt to sell.

Ian wrote: "Why not send in their tanks and military, catch the Hamas people, destroy the rockets, and properly occupy Gaza? ..."

It's a possibility, but do you really want much more bloodshed of ground fighting in a densely populated urban area?
There is no interest in ruling Palestinians. They can and should stand on their own. Obviously, they prefer no deal over a deal where they need to concede something, as would have Israel too. Sad, but what can I say - suits them, suits us. Maybe at some stage they'll embrace a more realistic approach.

[Ian]

Nik, it is true that Israel pulled back out of Gaza, but why? It was not out of charity. In my opinion Gaza was more trouble than it was worth, and it was draining resources. Gaza is the least economically viable part of the problem. Maybe they hoped that it was a gesture that might help get some sort of deal with Fatah, but as you say Hamas took over. Part of the problem may well be the overall weakness of Fatah. In 70 years it has achieved very little.

As for my comment on Palestinian industry, the word "spite was probably wrong - according to the Wikipedia link (which did not copy very well, sorry should be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy... the blockade was an effort to prevent terrorism and was apparently installed following failure of the talks and that was probably under the expectation that when rtalks failed, terrorism would resume, but however you look at it, Palestinian industry took a hit.

The following link
https://www.cairn.info/revue-a-contra...
gives a deeper look at the problem. The consequences of the occupation has been the de-development of Palestinian industry, and, incidentally, shows where our two contrary GDP figures came from - the Palestinaian authority lied and overstated things to make itself look good. According to that, Palestine os going backwards, and in any case it is nowhere near being ready to be independent.

The concept that the Palestinians have to give up something in a deal is interesting. There is little left for them to give up, other than historical claims. I still would like to see someone propose an option for them where they are better off, not counting times when they are being bombed.

[Nik]

So many misconceptions. You can’t dedevelop something inexistent in the first place.
There were times when Israel wanted to solve the problem - that’s why it brought Arafat from exile, gave him power and hoped to solve the issue bilaterally. Didn’t work. Sharon thought he could solve it unilaterally and pulled out of Gaza. Didn’t work. I guess Israel somewhat lost interest.
They don’t need to concede anything except for unrealistic hopes, like - millions of descendants of refugees returning to Israel or removing of big settlements. These are not gonna happen. The descendants can maybe get money, they can get swaps for settlements, but primarily they should at least want a deal, which apparently they don’t.
You say they are not ready for independence, but in all your posts you hint that Israel should stop occupation. And then you suggest to reoccupy Gaza?
Trump offered a beautiful plan, but they don’t want prosperity. They want to televise misery and bankroll it.
Being bombed? I guessed it’s Israel getting bombed, while going after terrorists to make them stop. Good that iron dome works quite well.

[Ian]

Nik, to get the conceptions straight:
1. In 1947 -48 The UN gave land in Palestine to form Israel. They did not own it.
2. A large number of Jews came to Israel and now occupy land there. As far as I can tell they did not purchase it from willing sellers.
3. The Palestinians wanted their land back - they were not going to get it. They probably had an opportunity for a two-state solution then but turned it down because they felt that would cement in the loss and injustice. What they did not realize was that this was the best deal they were going to get.
4. In 1967 Israel launched the six-day war, and thanks to general Arab and Egyptian incompetence acquired much territory.
5. Egypt recognized Israel and came to a peace agreement and received the Sinai back, All good there - the peace has been honoured.
6. Israel acquired the Golan heights and I believe incorporated that into Israel as conquered territory
7. The West bank and Gaza has remained as military occupied territory. Israel may have devolved certain administrative activities, but as occupying power it is merely farming out activities for which, under international law, it remains ultimately responsible.
8. Israel does not recognize certain aspects of the Geneva Convention on occupation, which leaves a lot of discussion and argumentative positions on (7).
9. Israel has since made a number of settlements on West Bank land, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, and did not purchase the land from willing sellers. The number of settlements run up to about 230 according to Wikipedia. If the number needs correction, feel free to correct it, but it makes little overall difference.
10. Hamas has taken control of Gaza. The West Bank Palestinians have no control over Hamas.
11. About 1997 or thereabouts, the US tried to broker a two-state solution and Israel stated it would accommodate such a solution. Palestinians showed no understanding of negotiation and walked away, but in their defence, the settlement question was not resolved. However, had they stayed and accepted everything provided that settlement issue was resolved we would not be where we are now. However, we have no idea whether the settlements were up for negotiation.
12. The basic Palestinian economy now depends heavily on Arab charity and in work in Israel.
13. While Trump recently offered a lot of money, the issue of what that could be invested in was not addressed. There are currently exports, but not enough, and there is insufficient available land and water to expand agriculture, the main one.

Is any of that substantially wrong, Nik? If there is to be peace, in my opinion there has to be either incorporation into greater Israel, or a two-state solution, but the latter must have enough resources to work. The settlements, and their infrastructural demands such as roads, water, etc have left insufficient land for agriculture and the educational levels do not offer too many alternatives.

However, I repeat my offer. If anyone can come up with any proposal by which Palestine could be economically viable, let's hear it.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "Nik, to get the conceptions straight:
1. In 1947 -48 The UN gave land in Palestine to form Israel. They did not own it.
2. A large number of Jews came to Israel and now occupy land there. As far as..."

It has to start with two gives by the Palestinians, first: they have to recognize the right of Israel to exist. Second: they have to stop the attacks and bombings.

Once you get them to do that, lets talk.

BTW, are they better off with the policy they have followed from the start?

[Ian]

Agreed they have to recognize Israel and they have to accept proper law and order in the agreement. There is no alternative to that.

As to whether they are better off, hard to say because we don't know what the real alternative was. The firing of rockets is stupid - it is like you or me deciding to take on Mike Tyson at boxing. We just get smashed to bits for no good purpose. However, what they could have done is less clear.

The big point is they have to give up claims to property in Israel, but that does not mean that some form of compensation should not be on the table. And something has to be done about the settlement pox.

[Papaphilly]

This argument between the Arabs and Jews are ancient and go back to the far past. At what time did the Arabs decide to be called Palestinians? It actually matters. Why do you think the Palestinians are really angry?

[Nik]

Ian, except for 5 & 6 they are all wrong. I see you assume it’s a Palestinian land, which it isn’t. You can likely assume it’s Ottoman (Turkish), British, who ruled the place, whoever. Most centuries - the land belonged to those who ruled it. Is Kurdish land Kurdish or of the states it’s divided between? Is Transylvania, populated by Hungarians, but being a part of Romania - Hungarian or Romanian? Think about it. If your assumption is it’s Palestinian because they are indigenous there, then it’s equally Jewish, because they are too. You can start earlier - from British mandate that got to rule the place since 1918, if I’m not mistaken, inter alia according to Balfour declaration - to establish ‘a national home for Jewish people’. As of property rights - what was privately owned - most certainly was purchased under willing transactions. Btw, how much of Maori land was willingly purchased for a reasonable consideration? How much of the world in general? More conquered than purchased, for sure.
Anyway, although most Jews were dispersed by Romans, some remained and lived in Israel throughout the centuries. The return of Jews from diaspora en masse started at least 150 years ago under Ottoman Empire and in trickles even earlier since 1700.
UN cannot give anything even from a legal perspective alone - only recognize. They offered a partition plan that Israel accepted and Arabs rejected and that was the 1st opportunity missed. Jews fought for independence, which was announced and recognized by the UN, USA, USSR and later by the entire world, except for some of Muslim countries.
Gaza isn’t occupied. In fact, it fully answers an international law definition of a country. It’s entirely self-governed and so is Area A of the West Bank. They are economically viable and if anything - tens if not hundreds thousands of Palestinians work in Israel enjoying its high salaries. The life there is not ideal, yet it’s possibly better than in all neighboring Arab countries.
I sent you a reference to a White House site with Trump’s plan a while back. It’s super detailed and includes specific investment projects, but you won’t look at it - instead you repeatedly ask that anyone show you a plan.
There is a dispute about certain parts of the West Bank and very little desire on the part of Palestinian leadership to solve it. I guess, Israel is in no hurry too..

[Ian]

Papaphilly wrote: "This argument between the Arabs and Jews are ancient and go back to the far past. At what time did the Arabs decide to be called Palestinians? It actually matters. Why do you think the Palestinians..."

For the purposes of this discussion, I am calling Palestinians all the people who lived in the territory called Palestine, at least by maps in laces like Wikipedia, less the Jews who lived there, because they will now call themselves Israelis, which is fair enough.

I think the people I am calling Palestinians are angry because a very large number of them were driven off their land and out of their houses in 1948 to make way for the influx of Jews. The UN gave Israel the land, they did not own it, and they specified that Palestinian citizens should not be moved out, but they were. Since then, the situation has become heated, and from experience a military occupation where there are live munitions being fired around tends to make you feel angry. Walking down a road, minding your own business, and wondering where that machine gun firing is being aimed at does not make you feel peaceful.

[Ian]

Nik, I am assuming that the non-Jewish people who were living in the territory labelled Palestine on maps in 1946 could legitimately be termed Palestinians. I am referring to those who owned or resided in property and had farms, or workshops, or whatever could call themselves Palestinians. There were Jews there, but the population was predominantly Muslim.

As for the UN, I refer to UN resolution181, in 1947. If that did not give the land to Israel, who did? The flood of Jews that came to Israel all purchased the land? al Naqba is a fairy story?

As an aside, land in NZ was purchased from the Maori. The trouble was that the chiefs tended to take the money and run, but that is another story not relevant to this.

We discussed Trump's plan. A lot of money, but without land redistribution and the removal of the settlements it is nothing. You cannot say a country is independent economically if it fails if the huge amounts of sponsorship give out, and so much of the income comes from working in a neighbouring country. An economy is not prosperous when 30% of its engineering graduates are unemployed.
Trump's money, without industries would be of no long-term benefit. Read Sectoin six - The Trump Economic Plan. It is a lot of non-specific platitudinal stuff. I copy some below:

By developing property and contract rights, the rule of law, anti-corruption measures, capital markets, a pro-growth tax structure, and a low-tariff scheme with reduced trade barriers, this initiative envisions policy reforms coupled with strategic infrastructure investments that will improve the business environment and stimulate private-sector growth. Hospitals, schools, homes, and businesses will secure reliable access to affordable electricity, clean water, and digital services. Billions of dollars of new investment will flow into various sectors of the Palestinian economy. Businesses will have increased access to capital, and the markets of the West Bank and Gaza will be connected with key trading partners, including Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. The resulting economic growth has the potential to end the current unemployment crisis and transform the West Bank and Gaza into a center of opportunity.

As a business person, I do not find that compelling unless I had a good project held up only for money and stability. So what are the projects? There is a section on agriculture, but note irrigation has to be done by loans and private investment, with no clue as to where the water comes from, There is investment for the infrastructure for manufacturing, but manufacture what? The plan says explore for oil, but that is unlikely to fly in today's greenhouse emissions reduction strategies. The economic plan is simply too vague. I did not request a detailed plan - I simply want to hear what is plausible that is not there now.

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "There were Jews there, but the population was predominantly Muslim...."

So? What difference does it make?

Ian wrote: "As for the UN, I refer to UN resolution181, in 1947. If that did not give the land to Israel, who did? The flood of Jews that came to Israel all purchased the land? al Naqba is a fairy story?...."

UN resolution offered a partition plan. The UN cannot create states. It can recognize them, which is important, but not create. In a popular language: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-40803430
Israel's statehood started from Declaration of Independence. Naqba? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Ar... If you haven't read or noticed, Israel was immediately invaded by all the neighboring Arab countries. Yet, it won the war against all odds and prevailing forces. Some Arabs stayed and live in Israel, some fled - happens in times of war. Didn't remember you being bothered by Syrian refugees, for example, that much and by Assad killing his unarmed population.
Trump's economic plan offers specific details, incl. land swaps, building a tunnel for inter-connecting West Bank with Gaza, allocates funds for refugees' descendants. I'd say, it's quite concrete.

[Ian]

"What difference does it make?" Prior to 1947, apart from religion, not much. After 1947, the Jews were welcome to stay and retain their property. They didn't have to leave. That is some difference.

If you think the UN declaration was nothing, why did all those Jews suddenly come to Israel without visas? And who declared independence? The Palestinians?? I think not.

The Naqba saw about 3/4 million Palestinians flee or be ejected, and by the early 1950s about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel. The first war did not last all that long before a ceasefire was negotiated; the West bank was acquired, as i recall, in the 1967 war which Israel started.

Trump's economic plan certainly had a lot of details, on all sorts of things for setting up a state, but it skipped the important thing: what sort of things could the new state produce, and what would happen to the settlements and their infrastructure. Thus it was prepared to give a loan for irrigation schemes, but from where was the water to come? Recall the settlements' demand for water.

[Nik]

Ian wrote: ""What difference does it make?" Prior to 1947, apart from religion, not much. After 1947, the Jews were welcome to stay and retain their property. They didn't have to leave. That is some difference..."

Ian, if you looked at UN plan, they were offered a state too, but instead they refused and chose to attack Jews. They lost the war, but could've stayed and lived peacefully instead.

Ian wrote: ".... about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel...."

Of course, that's what Israel was created for, inter alia. Not only Jews - anyone who has any connection to Jewry up to - 3 generations above can come and claim citizenship, to counter the nazis that were exterminating those who had any connection.

Ian wrote: ".... what sort of things could the new state produce...."

It's the same desert in Israel like in the West Bank or Gaza and no mineral resources. High tech, tourism, construction can be an answer..

Ian wrote: ".... from where was the water to come?...."

Don't worry, Ian, we'll give them water, as we supply to Jordan under a peace accord with them :) And like we keep supplying Gaza with electricity despite the rockets.
There are different theories, how to combat aggression and alleviate grievances and many believe that prosperity or at least a reasonable economic well-being is the best cure :)

[Ian]

Nik, I agree that in 1947 the Palestinians should have recognised the inevitable, even it it was unfair, and negotiated, but they didn't and there is nothing we can do about that now. Of course something had to be done for the Jews persecuted by the Nazis, but that was hardly the Palestinians' fault or responsibiity. As it happened, I know a number of them were accepted and offered a new life in NZ and Australia.

Hi tech is an interesting possibility, but in my opinion the chances are the educational background for Palestinians will be inadequate. To set up a venture, you need to provide something the market wants and at a cometitve advantage. If the Trump plan had wanted to get Palestinians into that market it should have specified how the US would help by locating what could be made there, and how to generate a competitive advantage. I agree the Trump plan was very broad, but it was very opaque on how Palestine would have the taxes to sustain the infrastructure.

Maybe these difficulties could have been got around through negotiation but it seems Palestinians don't understand the difficult art of negotiation. There is no point in having bottom lines that cannot be accepted by the other side, and you can't go in filled with anger. On the other hand, you have to be able to walk away and the other side has to know it. The Palestinians have got that last condition right, but their problem is everyone thinks that is their first resort, not their last one.

If Israel put water availability on the table and did something significant about the settlements, coupled with financial aid as Trump suggested, that should be critical for the Palestinians. If the Palestinians are going to turn to agriculture, they need enough money to buy and develop[ land. The Palestinians, in turn, have to recognize Israel and concede what is done is done, apart from the settlements. I am somewhat skeptical about high tech. Israel managed it because the immigrants frequently had good educational background and North America provided the necessary finance, but I suspect these are missing from the Palestinians.

[Nik]

We can speculate what can work and what wouldn’t. To get a chance of bettering a situation, someone needs to start doing something. It requires courage. Sadat was assassinated by extremists for making peace with Israel. They know that whatever peace they broker extremists will call them traitors. Plus personally the leadership doesn’t lose or gain much from misery or prosperity of their people. Arafat died as a multimillionaire or a billionaire, his widow inheriting his fortune and living comfortably btw Malta & France. Life is good.
Israel has an acute need for construction workers. A friend of mine, who’s in construction, says the most unqualified Palestinian gets around 150 bucks a day and if he’s actually experienced in something - much more. A lot do construction.
There is a shortage in high tech too filled through outsourcing to India, Ukraine and other places. See no reason why Palestinians can’t take part.

[Ian]

I see no reason why the Palestinians are not currently taking part, and according to your friend, some are. Some people are doing something, but clearly it is not enough, and the people are in the wrong place. Probably the biggest problem is that the Hamas leaders are the wrong people to be in leadership but how you get the right person is another question. Fatah leadership seems to be little better than a joke at sorting this out, but then again they don't have the power to deal with Hamas.

Unfortunately, the corruption you refer to is common among the poor people approaching statehood. Nobody is saying there is no productivity in Palestine. All I am saying is that there is not enough to run a nation with the current situation. My criticism of Trump's plan is that once the money ran out, taxable wealth would be seriously insufficient to support the infrastructure Trump's plan designed. He wanted to show what a viable Palestinian state would look like, but he did not make it viable.

[Scout]

So, Ian, would you say that Israel is wrong to defend itself against attacks in the current situation? Please don't give me a history lesson. What would you have Israel do at this point?

[Ian]

What would I have Israel do? Good question, Scout, and since I have been trying to goad others to answer, I suppose I can't duck this one.

The first rocket was an act of war. I send in the armour and infantry, collect Hamas, and get rid of them. What I don't do is bomb the Qatari Red Crescent building, kill Qataris and thus seriously annoy the Qataris because I am going to need them and others in the not too distant future. I also refrain from bombing where civilians are likely to be, because for every one I kill I probably generate another two or three Hamas guys for the next round, and unless something inspired happens, there will be another round. Then, as an example, I fire the most brutal of the police who would be seen by the Palestinians as having initiated this fracas.

I then declare martial law over the Palestinian territories and say I shall make a two-state offer when I can find someone who can demonstrate they are legitimate leaders of the Palestinians and are willing to negotiate. I am prepared to help with elections if this helps. I then go around the world with the begging bowl - Trump's $50 billion would be useful here but I have to assume that is off the table. Nevertheless I have to try to see what I can get because the next bit is going to be expensive.

The offer now is Israel will abandon the settlements if an agreement can be reached, with the buildings left as compensation for those families who have claims to Israeli territory. It may not be complete, but it is what it is and that part will not be negotiated - take it or leave it. If any current settler makes any attempt to degrade the property he will be left to the Palestinians to do with as they please.

I then have to rehouse the settlers in Israel, and I have to provide as much economic help as I can afford, including water, electricity, training, and design for buildings and industries. Palestine has to generate its own police force. All of this requires a transition period, and the police will be trained during this period. I have to make this as attractive as I can afford, and hope the Palestinians will accept. They have to recognize Israel, of course, abandon all further claims, and it is a one-off offer, although borders, etc are negotiable.

I know. Some will say this won't work. Maybe, but what has?

[Nik]

Not a bad suggestion, Ian.
As of "I send in the armour and infantry, collect Hamas, and get rid of them." It's on the cards every time they start to shoot, but it'll exact an extremely high price among military and especially - civilian population, so it's dismissed up until now. The outcry would be so big, that international community, including Israel's friends, won't back the move. Another reason is who would assume governance of Gaza after hamas? Yeah, a military command and martial law is an option, but that's a return to occupation. I too argue that we have enough terrorists in our prisons to prepare a decent alternative leadership for the day after :)
"I am prepared to help with elections if this helps." They were slated to have elections this month for the first time in over a decade, but they were called off by Abu Mazen, primarily because hamas was expected to gain a lot on Fatah, if not overtake it completely.

"Palestine has to generate its own police force." It has one in the West Bank, trained by European and US instructors, and it works relatively well.

[Ian]

Nik, the thinking behind using the military is that it is the only real way to get rid of Hamas, and if you don't, it will erupt again. I am not sure the rest of the world would object provided it was accompanied by a proper end position with a Palestine. What will probably happen now is it will quieten down, then they build up to the next one, and every time you kill a civilian you probably recruit at least one more Hamas agent. And yes, the weakness of the likes of Abu Mazen is a real problem. Israel needs someone they can deal with, but they can't appoint him, or her, for obvious reasons. The absence of a Palestinian that will actually lead might be an insurmountable problem - and it certainly would for the scheme I outlined (which would need a lot of minor details added).

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "Nik, the thinking behind using the military is that it is the only real way to get rid of Hamas, and if you don't, it will erupt again. ..."

True, the cycle went its way a few times again to prove it.

Ian wrote: "....every time you kill a civilian you probably recruit at least one more Hamas agent ..."

It's naive to hope that hamas will start caring about their population and losses, but I hope the population and most importantly - Gaza's elite will ask hamas the day after this cycle is over - what was that for and why they put Gaza and its inhabitants in the harm's way. Even in Gaza I'm sure most know that civilian casualties and collateral damage are unintentional on Israel's part. But then again, some probably just embrace the ideology and wanna be martyrs.
For a comparison, in Lebanon there are hot heads too that seek a clash with Israeli army these days, but Lebanese army stands in their way before the border for their own sake and the sake of Lebanon

[Ian]

In my opinion, it is too much to expect that anyone in Gaza will stand up to Hamas, let alone ask, "What was that for?" The more the damage, the more people need whoever is ruling to help, and Hamas are the boys with the guns so they rule. If you want this to stop, either you have to deal with them or get rid of them. Hoping they will go away or see reason won't work - or at least it hasn't so far and there is no reason to expect it will, The average Gazan will depend to some extent on charity, and Hamas controls the distribution of that.

Lebanon is quite different. It is a separate country with an army/police that is prepared to enforce government law. Gaza has no such institution, at least not that I can see.. Gaza is also physically separated from the West Bank, so they cannot do anything, even if they had the ability to oppose Hamas, which I doubt.

[J.J.]

Ian wrote: "Gaza is also physically separated from the West Bank, so they cannot do anything, even if they had the ability to oppose Hamas, which I doubt..."

Speaking to Nik's point about occupation and "what next," why not force them to accept West Bank rule and grant a right to travel between the two portions in whatever peace treaty they would come up with?