Palestinians Tear Down Border Wall

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

Britain has no OBLIGATION to send food or fuel to the Irish. Britain has no OBLIGATION to trade with the Irish. Britain trades with Ireland because it has chosen to do so. During the early 1940's, Britain did not trade with Germany, for obvious reasons.

What are you talking about? I asked you whether the US government would have supported the UK if the UK had chosen to shut Southern Ireland off ie imprison the people and refuse to allow in any basic necessities because the IRA were bombing the UK.

The UK government did not do any of these things, even though we were regularly hit by terrorist attacks.

So why are you talking about Britain and obligation to Ireland? I was talking about the US governments hypocricy. When my country was being hit by terrorists the White House invited them to dinner but when Israel is hit by terrorist they support 'collective punishment'. I find that offensive on both fronts.

Originally Posted by bob x

Then Hamas cannot be considered a "government".

So the US government could not be considered a "government" during the years it could not control the KKK when they were murdering people in the street? The Sri Lankan government are not a government because they do not control the Tamil Tigers? The Egyptian government are not a government because they do not control the Muslim Brotherhood?

I wonder if there are any "govenments" in the whole world if the inability to control terrorists is a deciding factor?

Originally Posted by bob x

Egypt does not seem to want that kind of responsibility

I wonder why Mobarak is meeting with Hamas and Fatah tomorrow? Maybe they are going to play chess?

Also, why would Egypt want that responsibility? The last time they tried to work out a peace deal they were thrown out of the Arab league, their President was eventually assassinated over it and Egypt became seen as a US/Israeli puppet. Hey great idea, lets go down that road again!!

Originally Posted by bob x

(Israel expected to hand Gaza back to Egypt along with the Sinai, after the Camp David Accords; but Egypt refused to take it).

The Camp David Accords included Israel fully implementing UN resolution 242 and forward negotiations on establishing self government in the West Bank and Gaza? So having agreed to this why did Israel expect to hand Gaza to Egypt, why didn't they fully implement resolution 242 and why have they never allowed the Palestinians self governance?

After this Begin flatly refused to even discuss self government of Gaza or the West Bank. Palestinians are people, they have a right to decide who governs them and Egypt is in no position to say 'oh okay we'll have them', they want to govern themselves and they have every right to do so.

Originally Posted by bob x

that Egypt should go right ahead and supply Gaza, and assume the responsibility that this implies.

And where does that leave the Palestinians? What about their land? If this were to happen Egypt would have to take Gaza 'as is' and not back to the 1967 borders. How long would it take before bombs starting going off in Cairo? What would happen between Israel and Egypt when Islamic Jihad kept attacking Israel?

It would certainly be a workable solution if Israel would agree to return to the agreed borders and remove its settlements from that land. Without that the rest of the Arab world and I imagine the Palestinians themselves are never going to agree. Mobarak may be an idiot at times but he is not going to get into war with his Arab neighbours to ke the US and Israel happy - unless the Palestinians request that Egypt take responsibility for them and agree to give up their rights to that land.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I asked you whether the US government would have supported the UK if the UK had chosen to shut Southern Ireland off ie imprison the people and refuse to allow in any basic necessities because the IRA were bombing the UK.

For the UK to decide to go to war with Ireland, it would take more, like say an overt commitment by the Irish government to the UK's destruction, or rockets launched from Irish soil, with no co-operation by the Irish government in stopping it. If in whatever hypothetical situation the UK did go to war with Ireland, indeed it would be difficult for the US to remain neutral, and while it would depend on the details of your hypothetical, yes, I would think it probable the US would take the UK's side.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

So why are you talking about Britain and obligation to Ireland?

You were speaking as if Israel had an obligation to give charity to Gaza, or to be a conduit for other people's charity, or to trade with them. No nation is under any obligation to do anything for another nation: that depends on mutual trust and friendly relations.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

So the US government could not be considered a "government" during the years it could not control the KKK when they were murdering people in the street? The Sri Lankan government are not a government because they do not control the Tamil Tigers?

The US government hunted down and executed members of the KKK. The Sri Lankan government hunts down and kills members of the Tamil Tigers. How many of the rocket launchers have Hamas hunted down?

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I wonder why Mobarak is meeting with Hamas and Fatah tomorrow?

I would like to be a fly on the wall there too.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Also, why would Egypt want that responsibility?

If Egypt doesn't want to trade with or be charitable to the Gazans, why should the Israelis?

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Palestinians are people, they have a right to decide who governs them and Egypt is in no position to say 'oh okay we'll have them', they want to govern themselves and they have every right to do so.

It was Egypt, not Israel, who suppressed the independent Palestinian state in Gaza, in 1951, for very excellent reasons. It was Egyptian occupied territory until 1967, when Egypt launched the war that turned it into Israeli occupied territory. Egypt cannot pretend to have nothing to do with this.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

If this were to happen Egypt would have to take Gaza 'as is' and not back to the 1967 borders.

That IS their 1967 border.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

How long would it take before bombs starting going off in Cairo? What would happen between Israel and Egypt when Islamic Jihad kept attacking Israel?

This is why I say: Egyptians don't want the Palestinians either. Of course not, not until the Palestinians learn not to act murderously.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

For the UK to decide to go to war with Ireland, it would take more, like say an overt commitment by the Irish government to the UK's destruction, or rockets launched from Irish soil, with no co-operation by the Irish government in stopping it. If in whatever hypothetical situation the UK did go to war with Ireland, indeed it would be difficult for the US to remain neutral, and while it would depend on the details of your hypothetical, yes, I would think it probable the US would take the UK's side.

For a man so well read in history I am very surprised at you.

What hypothetical? It happened for over 30 years. Rockets were launched from Irish soil onto UK soil, snipers did shoot across the border, terrorists did explode bombs on UK soil both in Northern Ireland and UK mainland, many people were killed - including some friends of mine.

What did the US government do during this time? They invited the IRA (a terrorist organisation) to the White House and supplied finances for them.

Originally Posted by bob x

You were speaking as if Israel had an obligation to give charity to Gaza, or to be a conduit for other people's charity, or to trade with them. No nation is under any obligation to do anything for another nation: that depends on mutual trust and friendly relations.

I think you need to re-read my original post, as you clearly have the wrong end of the stick.

However, Israel has every obligation to provide for it's 'prisoners' in Gaza. The Israeli's keep them there, will not allow them to govern themselves and are blockading basic supplies from entering. It is one big prison and those that own prisons have an obligation to provide for anyone it holds there.

You speak as though Gaza can sustain itself, can trade with the outside world, etc and is asking Israel to give it charity? Israel is withholding Palestinian funds and now even basic food supplies. You are aware that Israel has control of Gaza aren't you??

Originally Posted by bob x

The US government hunted down and executed members of the KKK. The Sri Lankan government hunts down and kills members of the Tamil Tigers. How many of the rocket launchers have Hamas hunted down?

How many IRA members did the Irish government hunt down? Yet the White House supported them for decades.

Originally Posted by bob x

If Egypt doesn't want to trade with or be charitable to the Gazans, why should the Israelis?

You make is sound so easy. And what would happen to the Egyptian people if Egypt started sending food and supplies, resulting in Egypts loss of financial aid from the US? This is what the US have stated they will do. It is called a stranglehold I believe and is designed to shut off any help to Gaza, no wonder then that the people feel as if they are fighting for their lives.

Originally Posted by bob x

It was Egypt, not Israel, who suppressed the independent Palestinian state in Gaza, in 1951, for very excellent reasons.

You were not talking about 1951 you were talking about the peace accords in 1978. That is 30 years ago and Israel still has not fully implemented resolution 242 or allowed Gaza or the West Bank self governance - maybe the papers got lost in the post?

Originally Posted by bob x

when Egypt launched the war that turned it into Israeli occupied territory. Egypt cannot pretend to have nothing to do with this.

Sorry is that the war that Egypt launched by using Israeli bombers, flown by Israeli pilots, on the instructions of Israels government, to take out all of their airports in Egypt on the morning of 6 Oct 1967? Or was that a different war?

Originally Posted by bob x

That IS their 1967 border.

Sorry, I meant the 1949 borders.

Originally Posted by bob x

This is why I say: Egyptians don't want the Palestinians either. Of course not, not until the Palestinians learn not to act murderously.

Again I say, the Palestinians are NOT chess pieces. They do not want to be part of Egypt or Israel or Syria, they want to govern themselves and live on the land agreed in 1949. Remember what happened when Syria annexed the West Bank - it was not pretty. You cannot just go around giving peoples land, homes and governance away and expect them to like it or accept it.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Rockets were launched from Irish soil onto UK soil, snipers did shoot across the border

Did the Irish government support the rocket-launchers and snipers, or try to arrest them? You act as if that made no difference to the UK's willingness to declare war on Ireland.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What did the US government do during this time? They invited the IRA (a terrorist organisation) to the White House and supplied finances for them.

Hosting Gerry Adams was a dubious decision (officially though, he was not "IRA" but "Sinn Fein"; I know that was a very thin cover). AT NO TIME did the US government supply finances to the IRA.
What we told Gerry Adams was that: Southern Ireland is only independent because it is not run by the IRA; the chance that the IRA would be allowed to control any territory anywhere was ZERO; Catholic parties could run in elections in Northern Ireland like any other, provided the violence stopped, completely; the chance that the IRA would be allowed to keep its arms and still participate in politics was ZERO; the chance that the UK would be asked to evacuate Northern Ireland was ZERO.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

However, Israel has every obligation to provide for it's 'prisoners' in Gaza.

Israel is not the occupying power anymore. It has no obligation whatsoever to allow anyone or anything to pass from Israel to Gaza unless there is mutual trust and friendly relations. Gaza can make its own arrangements with other nations, if it can.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

You speak as though Gaza can sustain itself, can trade with the outside world, etc and is asking Israel to give it charity?

They want to keep shooting at Israel and live off Israeli charity. That is insane. They can stop it; or they can fend for themselves; or they can trade with someone else.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

How many IRA members did the Irish government hunt down?

A large number.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

You make is sound so easy. And what would happen to the Egyptian people if Egypt started sending food and supplies, resulting in Egypts loss of financial aid from the US? This is what the US have stated they will do.

I have called the Bush administration's position "stupid". I don't know where you get the impression that I support anything whatsoever that Bush does.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

You were not talking about 1951 you were talking about the peace accords in 1978.

I totally opposed Begin's bad-faith policy of planting settlers. It was one of the sins I cited him for when I demanded, and received, his resignation, remember?

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

That is 30 years ago and Israel still has not fully implemented resolution 242 or allowed Gaza or the West Bank self governance - maybe the papers got lost in the post?

Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from "territories" (it does not demand a restoration of the previous borders; and Israel did withdraw from some territories-- the ambiguity is deliberate) in exchange for recognition by the Arab countries of its right to live in peace (it takes two to tango).
Gaza and the West Bank ARE self-governing now. They do not have full "independence" to be sure: that would mean having the right, like any other state, to import whatever they wanted, including arms. The Palestinians need to be show that they could be trusted with such a right.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Sorry is that the war that Egypt launched by using Israeli bombers, flown by Israeli pilots, on the instructions of Israels government, to take out all of their airports in Egypt on the morning of 6 Oct 1967? Or was that a different war?

The 1967 war was begun by Egyptian ships blockading international waters. That was an act of war, and Egypt is in no position to complain that the war quickly turned badly for them.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Sorry, I meant the 1949 borders.

Egypt's border stayed the same from 1949 to 1967. If Egypt took Gaza again, it would be exactly as it was from 1949-67.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Again I say, the Palestinians are NOT chess pieces. They do not want to be part of Egypt or Israel or Syria, they want to govern themselves and live on the land agreed in 1949.

The Palestinians refused to agree in 1949. They continued violating the cease-fire, until Israel threatened to call the whole armistice null and void. That and the assassination of the Jordanian king led EGYPT, not Israel, to shut down the independent Palestinian state, on grounds that they could not be trusted with self-government.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Remember what happened when Syria annexed the West Bank - it was not pretty.

You mean Jordan, I assume? It was better than letting the Mufti have it.

[Tao_Equus]

Bob,

On the subject of Ireland, the IRA and America you can technically be called correct. But its like saying technically Reagen did not arm and fund the Contras. America did not, despite repeated requests from the UK, shut down NORAID, the American fund raising outfit that held many high profile events attended by very many of the movers and shakers in American politics. Without American funding the IRA would have never been able to mount any significant threat. As for Eire, the hunting down of wanted IRA members and their prosecution or extradition was entirely dependent on which party was in power. It is false and misleading to think there has been anything like full cooperation between the London and Dublin throughout the troubles.

On Palestine. Your education on the detail and history of events is impressive. But again and again I see you have a tunnel vision and this impressive knowledge of yours becomes moot because of it. You harp on about the fireworks Hamas or Jihad fires over the wall into their own occupied land yet the most noticeable thing in all your posts on this subject is your fundamental disregard for the innocent Palestinians that die daily from Israeli assaults. Your posts give me the impression that to you these people are subhuman, irrelevant, a pest to be eradicated. That they should be interred in this concentration camp, denied basic provisions and starved to death. Your tunnel vision on this, your inhumanity toward such a large group of people, is something you have to live with. I could not sleep a restful sleep with your thoughts.

Tao

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

On the subject of Ireland, the IRA and America you can technically be called correct. But its like saying technically Reagen did not arm and fund the Contras.

There is no "technical" sense in which that could be said: the money for the Contras was 100% government money. NORAID was 0% government money: it raised its funds in bars and at concerts. I had a knock-down drag-out argument with an otherwise good friend (a feisty green-eyed colleen) when I refused to go hear the pipes because $1 out of everyone's cover charge would go to that purpose. NORAID ought to have been prosecuted as a criminal enterprise much earlier than it was, I agree.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

As for Eire, the hunting down of wanted IRA members and their prosecution or extradition was entirely dependent on which party was in power. It is false and misleading to think there has been anything like full cooperation between the London and Dublin throughout the troubles.

I did not know this. If the non-cooperation had ever gotten so thorough that the UK undertook economic sanctions or cross-border military strikes, I would of course have been on the UK's side under such circumstances, and despite the political clout of Irish-Americans, I suspect the US government would have also.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You harp on about the fireworks Hamas or Jihad fires over the wall into their own occupied land

Damned straight. It is wanton murder, evil with no redeeming purpose of helping anyone. And no, I do not consider Sderot to be "their own occupied land"; it belongs to the people who bought homes there.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

yet the most noticeable thing in all your posts on this subject is your fundamental disregard for the innocent Palestinians that die daily from Israeli assaults.

DAILY??? You exaggerate grossly. Most days go by without any killings. Those who are killed are usually murderers. Innocent civilians do get killed, to be sure, and way too often: Israel shows minimal concern for bystanders, seeking only to minimize its own casualties without worrying about "collateral danger", and that is to be condemned, certainly; but it is not at all comparable to the Palestinian behavior of seeking only to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Your posts give me the impression that to you these people are subhuman, irrelevant, a pest to be eradicated. That they should be interred in this concentration camp, denied basic provisions and starved to death.

The responsibility for feeding them is *theirs*. There used to be foreign investment in Gaza, but when the Israelis left, masked gunmen from Fatah and Hamas extorted money until the businesses shut down; many Gazans used to work in Israel, or export produce to or through Israel, but the collective decision has been made to shoot at their neighbors rather than trade with them. If they are impoverished, it is because they have chosen to contribute nothing but destruction to the world. And they go on having large numbers of children, although they have no means to support them, expecting the world to feed them. What would happen if they got more land? Would they turn it into waste and still expect to live on charity?

If Egypt wants to trade with them, or give them charity (hopefully only until they can get back on their feet and make a living for themselves), that is fine with me, and I repudiate the current administration's policy of urging Egypt to re-seal them off. But I reject as absurd any notion that Israel has some duty to feed the people who are shooting at them. And if the Egyptians have severe reservations about dealing with the Palestinians as if they were to be trusted, that is understandable. *I* didn't raise the prospect of "bombs in Cairo", Muslimwoman did: of course that didn't happen when Egypt occupied Gaza before, because Nasser would have squashed them like bugs, and you know it.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by bob x

The Palestinians can screw it all up by smuggling some bombers through the Sinai (Egypt most decidedly does not want to be held responsible for that!), but so far, they have not done so; maybe some conception of what is actually in their interests is sinking in.

It seems I spoke too soon.