Maybe not right now, but hopefully this would not last forever. I in no fvcking way want to be a part of Egypt. In fact, I'm trying to leave Gaza for the next 5 years or so and see how things end up.GazaAliGood idea. Until the "Palestinians" undertake a major shift in attitude, the status quo will continue.
Investigation reveals Yasser Arafat may have been poisoned
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Maybe not right now, but hopefully this would not last forever. I in no fvcking way want to be a part of Egypt. In fact, I'm trying to leave Gaza for the next 5 years or so and see how things end up.GazaAliwell , you tell me, is there anything beyond politics and bad blood seperating them? from what I see part of the reason why Hamas did better in Gaza was due to the more conservative and poorer nature of Gaza. and I doubt you would become part of Egypt, if I remember correctly, there were some talks between Begin and Sadat over wheter Egypt wanted Gaza back , Sadat threw it away like a hot potato, he didnt want to deal with it. and I doubt the Egyptians now (with the state their economy is in ) would want to deal with Gaza like they did pre 1967
[QUOTE="GazaAli"] By taming Hamas I don't mean military wise, although back in cast lead it was. By taming Hamas I mean to "integrate" them slowly into the world of politics and out of the rebel, revolutionist stereotype. After 5 years of Hama's ruling, they are used to the "rich" life style. Things are going well for them. They are making sh!t load out of tunnel, they have employees, they control things in Gaza strip, they have a police force...etc in short they feel satisfied. I live here and I know how things are, Hamas will in no way go back to the old rebel style, they got too comfortable.pie-junior
Let's go with your line of thought, for a second.
What does it matter to Israel if Hamas is in power and the Islamic Jihad (or the million other groups) are 'the Resistance', or if the Fatah is in charge and the Hamas is "the resistance".
With the establishment of PA and Fateh taking the lead, it was the time of taming Fateh. Now with Hamas winning the elections of 2006 and becoming a part of the PA, they are being tamed. Let's face it, on the Palestinian scene, if you managed to tame Fateh and Hamas then you have pretty much all you need.[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Maybe not right now, but hopefully this would not last forever. I in no fvcking way want to be a part of Egypt. In fact, I'm trying to leave Gaza for the next 5 years or so and see how things end up.Darkman2007well , you tell me, is there anything beyond politics and bad blood seperating them? from what I see part of the reason why Hamas did better in Gaza was due to the more conservative and poorer nature of Gaza. and I doubt you would become part of Egypt, if I remember correctly, there were some talks between Begin and Sadat over wheter Egypt wanted Gaza back , Sadat threw it away like a hot potato, he didnt want to deal with it. and I doubt the Egyptians now (with the state their economy is in ) would want to deal with Gaza like they did pre 1967 Well yea Gaza is a more conservative place yes, but that is changing too. We have some cultural differences, but it does not separate us whatsoever.
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] By taming Hamas I don't mean military wise, although back in cast lead it was. By taming Hamas I mean to "integrate" them slowly into the world of politics and out of the rebel, revolutionist stereotype. After 5 years of Hama's ruling, they are used to the "rich" life style. Things are going well for them. They are making sh!t load out of tunnel, they have employees, they control things in Gaza strip, they have a police force...etc in short they feel satisfied. I live here and I know how things are, Hamas will in no way go back to the old rebel style, they got too comfortable.GazaAli
Let's go with your line of thought, for a second.
What does it matter to Israel if Hamas is in power and the Islamic Jihad (or the million other groups) are 'the Resistance', or if the Fatah is in charge and the Hamas is "the resistance".
With the establishment of PA and Fateh taking the lead, it was the time of taming Fateh. Now with Hamas winning the elections of 2006 and becoming a part of the PA, they are being tamed. Let's face it, on the Palestinian scene, if you managed to tame Fateh and Hamas then you have pretty much all you need. things change though , from what I know, Iran is trying to distance itself from Hamas (due to them abandoning Assad), and are backing Islamic Jihad instead, what makes you think IJ wont end up being another serious rival?[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] By taming Hamas I don't mean military wise, although back in cast lead it was. By taming Hamas I mean to "integrate" them slowly into the world of politics and out of the rebel, revolutionist stereotype. After 5 years of Hama's ruling, they are used to the "rich" life style. Things are going well for them. They are making sh!t load out of tunnel, they have employees, they control things in Gaza strip, they have a police force...etc in short they feel satisfied. I live here and I know how things are, Hamas will in no way go back to the old rebel style, they got too comfortable.GazaAli
Let's go with your line of thought, for a second.
What does it matter to Israel if Hamas is in power and the Islamic Jihad (or the million other groups) are 'the Resistance', or if the Fatah is in charge and the Hamas is "the resistance".
With the establishment of PA and Fateh taking the lead, it was the time of taming Fateh. Now with Hamas winning the elections of 2006 and becoming a part of the PA, they are being tamed. Let's face it, on the Palestinian scene, if you managed to tame Fateh and Hamas then you have pretty much all you need. You sound like you want a more aggressive Hamas. Are you that twisted?
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]They are sovereign-like because they don't have full sovereign powers. EG- they can't handle international relations. well , they seem to have no issues meeting with various leaders in the region . they arent at the UN , but they arent totally isolated either. mhm Let's translate it to the Israeli level: the Labour party meets with European politicians, especially the UK labour movement, all the time. That doesn't make it anywhere near sovereign. Not to mention, Hamas hasn't control over it's naval space or aerial space.slight correction , Hamas is not soverign like, they are the de facto government of Gaza, which in most ways, is already a state (it has its own army, its own police, its own government, etc)
Darkman2007
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]Maybe not right now, but hopefully this would not last forever. I in no fvcking way want to be a part of Egypt. In fact, I'm trying to leave Gaza for the next 5 years or so and see how things end up.GazaAliwell , you tell me, is there anything beyond politics and bad blood seperating them? from what I see part of the reason why Hamas did better in Gaza was due to the more conservative and poorer nature of Gaza. and I doubt you would become part of Egypt, if I remember correctly, there were some talks between Begin and Sadat over wheter Egypt wanted Gaza back , Sadat threw it away like a hot potato, he didnt want to deal with it. and I doubt the Egyptians now (with the state their economy is in ) would want to deal with Gaza like they did pre 1967 Well yea Gaza is a more conservative place yes, but that is changing too. We have some cultural differences, but it does not separate us whatsoever. Im assuming tribalism and the Chamulot (not quite sure of the exact Arabic term) arent a factor here?
[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="pie-junior"]With the establishment of PA and Fateh taking the lead, it was the time of taming Fateh. Now with Hamas winning the elections of 2006 and becoming a part of the PA, they are being tamed. Let's face it, on the Palestinian scene, if you managed to tame Fateh and Hamas then you have pretty much all you need. things change though , from what I know, Iran is trying to distance itself from Hamas (due to them abandoning Assad), and are backing Islamic Jihad instead, what makes you think IJ wont end up being another serious rival? Because people had enough of all these parties one way or another. IJ was never popular anyway. And for parties to become popular they need that fertile ground that does not seem to happen anytime soon.Let's go with your line of thought, for a second.
What does it matter to Israel if Hamas is in power and the Islamic Jihad (or the million other groups) are 'the Resistance', or if the Fatah is in charge and the Hamas is "the resistance".
Darkman2007
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] if people are actually sick of these parties (Im assuming youre including the main two), then why does nobody hear about that? i know that Hamas treats the people of Gaza in the way any Arab dictatorship treats its citizens (unless Ive been misinformed) but surely they can do something in the WB. the other question of course is whats the alternative? youre not left with much without these two.Darkman2007The PA doesn't permit true freedom of expression/speech, and virtually all media is government-owned/controlled. Of course things are even worse in Gaza than in the West Bank. I think Arabs just need decades and decades of more time to mature and evolve politically/socially. well, the PA isnt exactly Sweden in terms of human rights , but there are some freedoms it allows. trust me, by the standard of the region , its not quite as oppressive. Absolutely true, and that is entirely a consequence of the diffusion of culture from Israel. All advantages that the "Palestinians" enjoy over their Arab/Muslim counterparts can be attributed to cultural exchange from us.
well, the PA isnt exactly Sweden in terms of human rights , but there are some freedoms it allows. trust me, by the standard of the region , its not quite as oppressive. Absolutely true, and that is entirely a consequence of the diffusion of culture from Israel. All advantages that the "Palestinians" enjoy over their Arab/Muslim counterparts can be attributed to cultural exchange from us. its not a matter of cultural diffusion , its because the PA knows that generally, Palestinians are going to blame Israel for everything and anything, means less chance of the PA getting blame,d so they can deal with the occasional criticism. frankly, thats not a Palestinian policy , it was the general policy of the Arab governments to blame everything on Israeli/Zionist/Jewish plots[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"] The PA doesn't permit true freedom of expression/speech, and virtually all media is government-owned/controlled. Of course things are even worse in Gaza than in the West Bank. I think Arabs just need decades and decades of more time to mature and evolve politically/socially. kraychik
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] I think it's just the opposite. I know what you mean , but then , the difference here is that the Labour party doesnt control a chunk of Israel they dont control their aerial or naval space because they have no airforce or navy.kraychikNo, they don't control their aerial space or naval space because Israel controls it. As per the Oslo accords. Which is a consequence of their intransigence. I think it's just the opposite.
It will be curious to see what they find when they exhume his body. The symptoms he had before death apparently don't coincide with polonium-poisoning, but it's very suspect to find polonium. I wonder which isotope they found, since the half-lives are very different.
It would still be detectable on him, either in the parent polonium, or the daughter elements. They should be able to conclusively determine if he died from polonium or a related radioactive element.
Which is a consequence of their intransigence. I think it's just the opposite. You're saying restrictions imposed on the "sovereignty" of Gaza from the Oslo Accords aren't there because of a history of violence from Gaza? They are restricted because history shows us they can't be trusted with full freedom.[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] No, they don't control their aerial space or naval space because Israel controls it. As per the Oslo accords.pie-junior
[QUOTE="pie-junior"]I think it's just the opposite. You're saying restrictions imposed on the "sovereignty" of Gaza from the Oslo Accords aren't there because of a history of violence from Gaza? They are restricted because history shows us they can't be trusted with full freedom. They are restricted because in the treaty the PLO signed with Israel- Israel kept control of the aerial and naval spaces in the west bank and gaza. Israel never gave that up and never displayed any intent on forsaking that control. With or w/o palestinian violence.[QUOTE="kraychik"] Which is a consequence of their intransigence. kraychik
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] I think it's just the opposite.pie-juniorYou're saying restrictions imposed on the "sovereignty" of Gaza from the Oslo Accords aren't there because of a history of violence from Gaza? They are restricted because history shows us they can't be trusted with full freedom. They are restricted because in the treaty the PLO signed with Israel- Israel kept control of the aerial and naval spaces in the west bank and gaza. Israel never gave that up and never displayed any intent on forsaking that control. With or w/o palestinian violence. tbh, I have a feeling Israel will want any future Palestinian state to be totally demilitarised, and I think the Jordanians/Egyptians would want the same thing.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] I think it's just the opposite.pie-juniorYou're saying restrictions imposed on the "sovereignty" of Gaza from the Oslo Accords aren't there because of a history of violence from Gaza? They are restricted because history shows us they can't be trusted with full freedom. They are restricted because in the treaty the PLO signed with Israel- Israel kept control of the aerial and naval spaces in the west bank and gaza. Israel never gave that up and never displayed any intent on forsaking that control. With or w/o palestinian violence. Why does Israel want that control? Just for the hell of it? Use your head - all control Israel exerts over these territories is a consequence of intransigence from the Arabs. They cannot be trusted with these freedoms given their commitment to mass murder and terrorism, which has been proven time and time again with their actions and rhetoric over the past century with us here in this land.
[QUOTE="kraychik"] Why does Israel want that control? Just for the hell of it? pie-juniorWhen has that not been a reason? who doesn't want more control and leg room to work in? Israel controlled those spaces before the 2nd Intifadah or the Hamas regime. I don't understand how you can deny the palestinians have any legitimate claim to said territories, and then deny Israel would exert control over parts of those territories w/o the risk of violence. I don't really care much for "legitimate claims", because their legitimacy is only adhered to among in the in-group of the respective societies. Controlling these territories isn't free, and isn't without its risks. Israel does so out of necessity, not for any other reason. This is elementary.
When has that not been a reason? who doesn't want more control and leg room to work in? Israel controlled those spaces before the 2nd Intifadah or the Hamas regime. I don't understand how you can deny the palestinians have any legitimate claim to said territories, and then deny Israel would exert control over parts of those territories w/o the risk of violence. I don't really care much for "legitimate claims", because their legitimacy is only adhered to among in the in-group of the respective societies. Controlling these territories isn't free, and isn't without its risks. Israel does so out of necessity, not for any other reason. This is elementary. What're the risks or the costs?[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Why does Israel want that control? Just for the hell of it? kraychik
[QUOTE="kraychik"]I don't really care much for "legitimate claims", because their legitimacy is only adhered to among in the in-group of the respective societies. Controlling these territories isn't free, and isn't without its risks. Israel does so out of necessity, not for any other reason. This is elementary. What're the risks or the costs? Consider the military presence across the Green Line and the need to monitor and and preserve quick deployment forces for Gaza. It's much more desirable to have a peaceful neighbour, you know.[QUOTE="pie-junior"] When has that not been a reason? who doesn't want more control and leg room to work in? Israel controlled those spaces before the 2nd Intifadah or the Hamas regime. I don't understand how you can deny the palestinians have any legitimate claim to said territories, and then deny Israel would exert control over parts of those territories w/o the risk of violence. pie-junior
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="kraychik"] I don't really care much for "legitimate claims", because their legitimacy is only adhered to among in the in-group of the respective societies. Controlling these territories isn't free, and isn't without its risks. Israel does so out of necessity, not for any other reason. This is elementary.kraychikWhat're the risks or the costs? Consider the military presence across the Green Line and the need to monitor and and preserve quick deployment forces for Gaza. It's much more desirable to have a peaceful neighbour, you know. It's not costly to maintain aerial control over Gaza, eg, with the distances we're talking about. Additionally, It costs a lot more money to protect and maintain the settlements in the W.bank, than it would have to militarily control the territories without them. If the interests of security and finance were alone- you would have had a settler free W.bank.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment