Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza settlements - what do you think?

[donnie]

my feeling is that it is a bit of an empty gesture, since they continue their expansionist policies of extending settlements in the West Bank, and also continue to construct the wall which annexes yet more Palestinian land.But perhaps I am being cynical - what do other people think?

Janh - my last word on this as I don't wish to be drawn into a one-sided discussion (again) - the stuff from the website you are posting is inflammatory, racist and utterly distasteful.

It is in fact a fantastic example of Islamophobia.

Janh - I would not dare to call you anything - but put it this way - there are some people I don't want to have a political discussion with because of their unbalanced political views.

I can usually smell racism a mile away - and the website you have copied and pasted text from is exactly that - racist.

Could you recommend a neutral site PC?

MT - I don't know of any off the top of my head - but I think moondog had asked someone to post a site on the history of the region too - so should I take on the challenge ?

Sure - will look up a few perhaps from various universities and balanced newspapers and post them soon !

This is from the United Nations - has a good general overview of the issues plus history:
have a look at this

I would have thought that finding a site on this that has no political agenda would be a tough one.

FWIW, I am no expoert on this situation, however I would happliy say that there has been great wrong done on both sides of the argument.

But don't people think that at least this is a start and should be welcomed as such? If we cry foul at this, then the process might just end as people wonder, 'Well what is the point'

This isn't the end I'm sure but I think it can be seen as a start

This is from the UN website I have just posted interesting and a good counter argument to the website posted by Janh:

"The question of Palestine was brought before the United Nations shortly after the end of the Second World War.

The origins of the Palestine problem as an international issue, however, lie in events occurring towards the end of the First World War. These events led to a League of Nations decision to place Palestine under the administration of Great Britain as the Mandatory Power under the Mandates System adopted by the League. In principle, the Mandate was meant to be in the nature of a transitory phase until Palestine attained the status of a fully independent nation, a status provisionally recognized in the League's Covenant, but in fact the Mandate's historical evolution did not result in the emergence of Palestine as an independent nation.

The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory". This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of "historical connection" since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the "Diaspora".

During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close."

Unfortunately the hand of colonial Britain was involved in this tragedy too !!

HMB - I totally agree. I think giving Gaza back is an important step to show the good will of the Israeli people and I hope that the Palestinians will move back there and live in peace with their Jewish neighbours.

And I also hope that Hamas stop blowing up people.

Just an aside but has anyone here listened to Brian Eno's new cd 'Another Day on Earth'? It has a fantastic song on it called Bone Bomb. Title speaks for itsef. Possibly the most dramatic piece of music I've listened to in a very long while.

here are the lyrics anyway. One of the great uses of art

And I hope the Israeli army will stop killing Palestinian children.

Oh quite.

However the Iraealis have made a step in the right direction and if the Palistinians want more they have to make a move as well

Going to have a look at the website tomorrow Peachskin. Thanks!

MT - my info. on the region comes from books which I studied at university. I find the internet is not always the best source of respected academic works in history or politics.

I will try to dig out more reliable websites tomorrow

I have to disagree hmb - I really don't think withdrawing from the Gaza strip is much of a step in the right direction, when Israel is STILL building more illegal settlements on the West Bank and is still building the wall which steals Palestinian land. What do you think the Palestinians should do if they ' want more' ?You may not like Hamas, but the fact is Hamas is a legitimate political organisation , much like Sinn Fein, which is duly elected and which has built schools, hospitals and the like. Hamas is no more a terrorist group than the Israeli government, which in my opinion is a terrorist group. Their Prime Minister is a proven killer, and they boast terrorists among their earlier PMs - see my earlier post about Menachim Begin who was a bomber. Israel has broken more UN resolutions than any other nation on earth ( check the Amnesty website for details). And they have nuclear weapons too. The mind boggles....
I'm with you Peachskin.

donnie - excellent point re. the wall and continued Israeli restrictions. I watched Channel 4 news last night and there was a special report on what the Palestinians think about their return to the Gaza strip.

They said it was the first time their children had been allowed to swim in the sea since 1967. One big landowner whose lands had been confiscated by the Israelis in 1967 described it "as a son who had been lost and had now been returned to him".

They all had reservations about the return of Gaza though - they described it has having to live in a big "prison" because Israel controls all the borders of Gaza, including the sea and the airspace (Gaza International Airport - is international in name only). Palestinian fishermen are only allowed to go out up to 6 miles to fish and even then they are constantly watched by Israeli forces.

MT: I found a good interactive brief history of Israel on "The Guardian" website. You just click on the arrows and it shows you the maps of the region plus brief history. It's very factual, nothing very controversial !

look at this

Thanks PC, I've got that book marked already but didn't know whether to trust it (even as a liberal lefty pinko )

FWIW, I think it's possible to sling mud between the two camps till the cows come home. As we've seen in Northern Ireland politics, the Paisley strategy always diverts attention away from action or stops it in it's tracks, but somehow, miraculously progress has been made even with attempts to scupper it at every option.

This is because both sides agreed to a cease-fire and as the talking went on, however acrimonious, violence slowly but very surely stopped being a civilised option. In mainstream politics anyway.

In Israel and the Occupied territories both sides have committed horrific atrocities. It?s almost not worth discussing it in terms of who is most at fault. I'm sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but cannot condone their strategy of violence even when I can see where it comes from. Israel too only seems to understand only violence and hampers debate by demanding veto over the very language used. But take away the hardware and they mirror one another in their own utter desperation and loneliness.

There is a culture of violent hubris that teaches young impressionable men that to become a suicide bomber is the most glorious thing they can do for their cause. Mothers tears are scorned when their son's die. Women are intimidated into such an act with that ancient tool of oppression, misogyny. That's just as barbaric as the casual way the Israeli army eliminates Palestinians as obstacles.

"Hamas is a legitimate political organisation "

that's like saying Al Quaeda is a legitimate political organisation

In terms of influence they probably are Twig.

Hamas IS a legitimate political organisation as is Hizbollah. The Southern Lebanese Shia regard Hizbollah as their protectors. It is due to Hizbollah that Israel was finally forced out of its occupation of Southern Lebanon. Apart from their political activities, these organisation have helped build schools and hospitals.

Al Quaida WAS a legitiamte political organisation - its leader Mr Bin Laden WAS a legitiamte political leader for over 2 decades when he was armed to the teeth and trained by the CIA to fight the commi's in Afghanistan. He has now fallen out of favour because he has turned on his former masters. How many times have we seen this happen in the devleoping world ? A leader who was onced loved by the USA turn into a an enemy over night ?

Sinn Fein was also regarded as a terrorist orgainisation, and now it hob nobs with the great and mighty ! This just goes to show how quickly political organisations can change into what the world regards as "legitimate".

MT - the discussion is not about WHO has perpetratated greater atrocities - I agree. It is about trying to get a fair deal for the underdog. The reason I tend to support Palestine rather than Israel, is because Israel is supported, funded and armed by the greatest Superpower on earth, and the Palestinians are only supported by other Arab nations and various other developing countries. We are talking a huge imbalance of power here.

It does seem to me that we accept the Isalei action in Palestine because we recognise their weapons as the conventional weapon of war - tanks guns etc and they wear uniforms - meanwhile Palestinians attack is viewed as terrorist activity as tehir weapons are unconventional (weapons wghich we fear in our own country) suicide bombs, on a lesser front stones/bricks etc.

If Israel is fighting a war then so is Palestine as there is no such thing as a one sided war! Or both sides commit acts of terrorism. The tactics of both sides to attack innocent civillians would have me more likely lable the activity as terrorism. -- Not that I suppose it matters what you call it! However just trying to make the point that we can't lable Palestiains as the only terrorists in this situation just because they don't have big guns!

Hope I've made sense!

from Guardian interactive map recommended by peachskin as "It's very factual, nothing very controversial !":

From masada2000 website:

Racist propaganda?