Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cafe culture blooms in West Bank's Ramallah

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 08:04 AM
Original message
Cafe culture blooms in West Bank's Ramallah



RAMALLAH, West Bank While Paris's Left Bank is famous for its fine restaurants and bustling cafes, Palestine's West Bank is not. But that might be about to change.

The hilly city of Ramallah, which lies just to the north of Jerusalem, has undergone a massive boom in recent years on the back of Western donor support, with new smart eateries and bars mushrooming alongside a plethora of pristine office blocks.

Latest data says Ramallah and the adjacent town of Al-Bireh that it has utterly engulfed have more than 120 coffee shops and some 300 restaurants, with 50 new diners opening in 2010 alone.

"When I started, I was competing with three to four other places, now I compete with many," said Peter Nasir, who turned an abandoned family house into a bustling restaurant in 2007, which draws around 150 customers a day.

<snip>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42450613/ns/world_news-mide...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. Encouraging news!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Have you been to Ramallah?
Just curious. If so, can you share any insights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King_David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I was there many years ago


Before any checkpoints . I think its time to return.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. it's time to let people drive between Ramallah and East Jerusalem again
Palestinians should never have been hindered from visiting a Palestinian city.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King_David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. That hinderence saved many lives


as does the Wall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Did you feel that way about East and West Pakistan before Bangladesh split off?
There is no requirement for a sovereign nation to be forced to allow transit over its territory for those whose stated aim is the destruction of that sovereign nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. you are saying that Palestinians who want to travel through Occupied Palestinian Territory
to another part of Occupied Palestinian Territory are doing so only for the purpose of wanting to destroy Israel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. They're BOTH assuming that the ONLY reason a Palestinian would want to travel
Edited on Mon Apr-11-11 03:18 PM by Ken Burch
between East Jerusalem and Ramallah would be to kill people.

They refuse to accept that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are decent, ordinary human beings like anyone else.

This is all part of the refusal to recognize the humanity of Palestinians and other Arabs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I must differ with you and Douglas on that one
I think the inference here was more that if a 100 or a 1000 of Palestinians have to put though the check points system on a daily basis saves even 1 Israeli Jew from harm it is more than well worth it
at least that's the way I took it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. thats closer to the truth...
waiting in line, being inconvenienced etc is considered a lesser evil than getting people killed.

I assume by your post you disagree.....i guess its a cultural thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. '.i guess its a cultural thing' what culture are you talking about? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. different value system
i attribute to different values to different cultures.....for some people the checkpoints that can and do cause many lost hours to the Palestinians is of more importance than the bombs caught and lives saved.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #18
32. ok I've never thought of we're more important than them or more
we have the advantage over them so they have to live with it or what can they do about it? as a value exactly but to each his own, however this almost seems like one those self fulfilling prophecies, but if it wasn't what good would it be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. actually its more of:
we can try to stop some of them from trying to kill us by using various detection methods....those methods simply take time. It has nothing to do superiority and everything to do with maximizing limited resources....i.e. profiling.

and for the most part they seem to work, though not always
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. you really should stop demonizing us israelis..
they will take away your progressive credentials one day....

"its not nice to generalize about whole groups"...isnt that one of the progressive creeds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I was only talking about those two posters
Neither of whom, to my knowledge, actually lives in Israel(Progressive Professor, in fact, lives in Southern California and once lived in Hawaii, judging from the flag in his posts).

I wasn't talking about anyone but them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. i admit i was exaggerating...
not keeping to the facts, i'm trying hard to integrate myself to the local culture here....

but then again, so was your post....and exageration
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King_David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. I know you like to talk `for` whole groups of people BUT


kindly let me speak for myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. I wasn't stopping you speaking for yourself
I was simply responding to what you said when you spoke, or rather, posted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King_David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. 'Neither of whom, to my knowledge, actually lives in Israel' -(Ken Burch)


So tell us : Have you ever even been to Israel or the occupied territories or Ramallah or Jerusalem ,even ONCE before?


Where does YOUR 1st hand ''knowledge'' come from??





:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. As far as I can tell from your posts, you are an American
The Professor has repeatedly self-identified as an American.

Further, you have the Microsoft logo in your posts, which is likely something only an American would do(people in other countries don't fetishize corporate logos in the same way Americans do).

And you don't have to visit Israel OR the Territories or Ramallah(which is in the Territories)to have the right to express your views on the matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King_David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Huh ??
'And you don't have to visit Israel OR the Territories or Ramallah(which is in the Territories)to have the right to express your views on the matter. '

But its important to you if we live there or not?

okie dokie.

(And Microsoft is a huge deal in Israel btw )

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. The only reason I referenced where you lived is that pelsar claimed
that I was making a sweeping comment about Israelis. I referenced where I believed you lived in order to bolster my point that I wasn't referring to Israelis at all, but solely to you and the Professor. OK?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King_David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. ok nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I was talking about 2 posters but is the reasoning different?
is protection for all Israeli's? I bet that's it right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. of course its for our protection..
and i know what i'm about to write is consider blasphemous but here goes:

follow the history, from no checkpoints, to lots of them to fewer.......if you can figure out the logic (and admit it), you might actually learn how things happen in the I/P conflict.....

nah......i'm just kidding, no one here likes to look at the local history to understand the actual events......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
36. Douglas already said it others have said it and I've said to you many times before
Israel can wall it self on Israeli soil but it's all kinda deja vu been here said that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. thats a discussion that never happens....its avoided like the plague....
this is where the 'conversation stops"....mainly because people here prefer simplistic solutions that have little to do with reality..hence your "put the wall on the 67 line"..as if that would solve anything.

see gaza for prime example of what may very well happen in the westbank......then get out a map and start measuring distances from the 67 line to jerusalem, TA, the airport....as the kassam flies

then pretend i never wrote this and you never saw this....as its a conversation you don't want to have
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. no it is a conversation we have had before
and a kilometer or 2 or 3 isn't going to make much difference in whether or not Tel Aviv or Jerusalem is reachable by the weaponry currently in use at least in Gaza
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. as i said....its never happened...
Edited on Tue Apr-12-11 11:14 PM by pelsar
because the reasoning is not the kilometer or two for the wall.....
Douglass actually "touched" on it, the realities of the settlements/wall and the IDF in terms of how they actually serve to protect the israelis interior, but was obviously uncomfortable in talking about it, so quickly left....

but he was the only one who actually was willing to go that far....you and the others here, wont even touch the subject. Its not a matter of disagreeing or agreeing its a matter of "avoiding the conversation" shutting down the conversation...and all of those others nice sayings that are meant to demonize israel when in fact its the left that is actually doing it.

example is right here......in your attempt to stop this little discussion by saying " we've all ready had it"...nope, its never been
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. I misunderstood you wish to discuss why Israeli nationalism and landownership
called 'security' here is somehow better or more necessary than Palestinian nationalism and landownership
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Simplistic? You mean what by that statement, and there is more than
ample evidence the placement of the wall is about a land grab but screw international law and believe
it is only about security.

Snip* On 15 September 2005, the Israeli High Court of Justice also dismissed the ICJ's ruling. Notably, it disagreed with the ICJ on the relevance of Israeli settlements to the legality of the Wall. Whereas the ICJ unanimously held that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, the Israeli High Court of Justice held, in a case concerning a part of the Wall surrounding an Israeli settlement, that:

The military commander is authorized to construct a separation fence in the area for the purpose of defending the lives and safety of the Israeli settlers in the area. It is not relevant whatsoever to this conclusion to examine whether this settlement activity conforms to international law.

There is a fundamental legal flaw to this argument. When a state violates international law, it is obliged to undo its illegal act, if physically possible. This means dismantling the settlements. With the settlements dismantled, there would be no conceivable reason to build the Wall on Palestinian territory in order to protect Israeli settlers.

Moreover, there is a clear link between settlements and the Wall, both of which participate in confiscation and ultimately annexation of Palestinian land. In a recent detailed study, Israeli human rights organizations B'Tselem and Bimkom showed that the route of the Wall in many instances coincides with settlement expansion plans. On 15 June 2006, the Israeli High Court of Justice issued a judgment rebuking the Israeli government for concealing such an expansion plan in a case relating to the route of the Wall. On 8 March 2006, then Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated that "the course of the fence - which until now has been a security fence - will be in line with the new course of the permanent border." In November 2005, then Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said that it will serve as "the future border of the state of Israel."

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4950.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-12-11 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. even more simplistic your argument.... as simple as it gets
by applying a single conclusion to define wall is a simple as it gets....the walls first and foremost objective was to save israeli lives....no matter where they lived.

the wall has proven that it can stop suicide bombers.....you might want to find a simple table or graph that has the number pre wall and post wall...(though i get the impression that is of little importance to you and others-this fact is preferred to be avoided at all costs)

its also been a 'land grab" in many areas as well...politics being what it is, many used the wall as an excuse to physically grab some more westbank land...other reasons for the walls placement has to do with geography as it requires certain minimum slopes etc.

____


hence the simplistic single argument for defining the wall is best used for the potential useful idiots whom you are trying to convince to join your side, who have a hard time with the more complex real issues.....(i.e. use it on someone else who knows less)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. The complexity factor, yea right. Your statement was void of ANY
reference to the fact that it is a land grab due to where it is. Nothing I stated nor posted suggested Israel should not could
not have one. Save your passive aggressive potential useful idiot bullshit line for someone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. read s l o w l y...(i shall quote myself)
i wrote:
its also been a 'land grab" in many areas as well

did you miss that statement?.......or did you prefer to ignore it?


not sure what a "passive aggressive" is....i believe i was just being aggressive on a simplistic argument that has no place in a discussion about the conflict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. You know darn well I am referring to the post of yours I responded to initially.
Oh I do disagree with your last statement, I believe that is evident in your posts here too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. ahh....now i understand.....
Edited on Wed Apr-13-11 08:35 AM by pelsar
you were referring to my post to azurnoir ....didnt know that.

that post was referring to the amazing one sided conversations here about israels security and the simplistic solutions such as put the wall on the 67 line and the attacks will stop, the wall is illegal therefor it must be torn down...its nothing but a land grab....

all of which have (may) some truth to them taken by themselves, but placed in the real environment of the conflict of the region, they are only a small part of the larger puzzle and none of which will insure the end to the conflict let alone the end to the attacks on israelis.

claiming its illegal does nothing to solve the problem of the suicide bombers that were only efficiently stopped (and reduced the checkpoints) via the wall....given a choice of being dead, crippled and a society living in fear.... or having an illegal wall...we go for the wall....that is the real discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. In your assessment that is the real discussion, at least lets be clear
on that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. yes we are clear...the discussion that is missing...
which clearly you dont want to enter, are the real limited options all of which have several different consequences....none of which are definite.

its those different consequences that no one here likes to discuss (i guess it would prove very disturbing to those with simplistic views?)......

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. It would be helpful if you would cease telling me what I will not, have
not discussed. I already posted for you several positions I support..that you do not agree with them is fine.
To suggest the conversation has never taken place is false.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. i must have missed them?
as far as i know you mentioned that the wall is illegal.....and i assume that means you would like it to be torn down (i'm just guessing here) and perhaps placed on the 67 border? (agains just guessing)

so then if that is your position, looking at the history when there was no wall, and the fact that the Palestinians are still attempting to bring bombs in, isn't it realistic to assume that the settlers exposed to the suicide bombers would then start getting blown up....as per the period pre wall?

and is that even relevant?


that is the discussion that never gets taken place:

i'm very familiar with the "i've already discussed that" ....its the same thing as saying" i dont want to go any further with the discussion...i stop here"

and people then complain about never having a "real" truth to power" conversation (and other such lame expressions).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. There was more info within the link but you may not have read it, and
this would represent a broader look at the concerns. The ICJ advisory ruling is not a small matter to dismiss imo.
This is a substantial legal body of which Israel ignored, their court's response you are well aware too. The wall, as already
stated is in and of itself not the main obstacle, but where.

* American Perspective
In a 30 July 2003 interview with Reuters, Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed concerns over Israel's efforts to build a fence that could impact Palestinian efforts to establish a state. President Bush, Powell said, has "concerns" about the fence. "He has a problem with the fence, as he said to the Prime Minister , if the fence is constructed in a way or continues to be constructed in a way that takes additional Palestinian land and sort of prejudges what might be left for a Palestinian state, or if it complicates our discussions going forward," Powell said.

In the press conference following the meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Abbas, the President said he thinks the "wall is a problem," and he has discussed the matter with Prime Minister Sharon. "It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel with a wall snaking through the West Bank. And I will continue to discuss this issue very clearly with the Prime Minister. As I said in my statement today, he has issued a statement saying that he is willing to come and discuss that with us."

In August 2003 the Bush administration was reported to be looking for ways to press Israel to halt construction of the fence, and that one option was reducing the nine billion dollar loan package approved by Congress for Israel earlier this year to help it cope with the economic effects of the Iraq war. At a news briefing, State Department spokesman Philip Reeker reiterated US concern about the fence project and said administration officials are pleased that Israeli officials have said they are taking US concerns into account. As to the loan package, he noted that the relevant legislation already provides for deductions for Israeli settlement activity and acknowledged that linking US loans to the fence project was under discussion. Secretary of State Colin Powell said a nation is within its rights to build a border fence. But he said when a fence "crosses over onto the land of others," and is built in a way which makes it more difficult to move forward on the "road map" to Middle East peace, this as he put it, "causes us a problem. (end)


What is clear pelsar, imo, is that Israel's objective is to have the West Bank for their state and the cost burden to fall on
the Palestinians not able to have a viable state.

* The purpose of confiscation is also reflected in the difficulties that Palestinians behind the Wall face in accessing their lands between Israel's internally accepted borders and the Wall (the "seam zone"). An Israeli permit is required to reach these lands and, according to UN OCHA, in July 2005 38 percent of the applications for a permit were denied. There is an increasing tendency to grant permits only to registered land owners and their direct descendants, thereby excluding most of the workforce in the labour-intensive Palestinian agricultural sector. Those who manage to obtain a permit face several further obstacles - gates are few and far apart, have limited and irregular opening hours, and farm vehicles or tools are frequently not allowed to pass. As a result, there is an increasing tendency for land in the seam zone not to be cultivated. In addition to the severe restrictions on the exercise of basic human rights, this situation facilitates Israeli land confiscation under laws allowing areas not cultivated for three consecutive years to be declared as "state land." In the past, the "state land" technique has been the main means of Israeli land confiscation in the West Bank. According to UN OCHA, much of the land in the seam zone has already been declared "state land" by the Israeli authorities.



Your concern is the protection of the settlers, ok, but again, they needed to be removed and ignoring the ICJ just made
that issue more concentrated, more fixed, did it not? You do realize objectively what these actions look like to the rest
of the world? They look like what I said earlier, Israel wants the West Bank for their state or do you truly believe that
most of the world is against these actions of Israel's for some random reason? There is no credibility shown imo when you
claim this is mainly about security.

*
On 15 June 2006, the Israeli High Court of Justice issued a judgment rebuking the Israeli government for concealing such an expansion plan in a case relating to the route of the Wall. On 8 March 2006, then Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated that "the course of the fence - which until now has been a security fence - will be in line with the new course of the permanent border." In November 2005, then Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said that it will serve as "the future border of the state of Israel." (end)


* The Israeli actions on the ground and statements by Israeli officials indicate that de facto land confiscation is a major motivation behind the construction of the Wall. It is pertinent to recall that two years ago the ICJ held that:

The construction of the wall and its associated regime create a "fait accompli" on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal characterization of the wall by Israel, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation.( end )


How is it likely the violence will end when there is little chance for a Palestinian state? What does human nature teach us about
oppressing people? The votes are consistent, the UN General Assembly, 164 nations in favor, 7 against( Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States)

Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine; http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/cd358b22995a4b07852...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. my concern is the actual real events on the ground...
Edited on Wed Apr-13-11 05:11 PM by pelsar
Your whole argument is merely politics....that in fact are nothing more than BS. Remember the berlin wall?...Walls can be torn down, remember gaza? settlements can be removed. Remember Gaza? that was also part of "greater israel, that israel "wanted" and then israel left. (same was said about Israel invading lebanon as well).

those little facts and history make your above argument nothing more than political hot air (de facto? fait accompli)....all proven wrong in the events of the past years.
______________________
a judgement saying the law is illegal without having a realistic alternative is a useless ruling as far as i am concerned....the wall saves lives, removing the wall endangers lives....
saving lives takes precedent over rulings from europe.....at least i believe so.


you made a single statement concerning the immediate potential victims of removing the wall:
they needed to be removed

since the settlers are not going anywhere in the immediate future your statement that they needed to be removed is devoid of all reality. Perhaps since the settlers are not going anywhere soon you would like to readdress their concerns if the wall is removed?

________________________
the wall is not about ending the violence or the war ending, its a defensive measure to stop the immediate attempts at killing...a measure that was not needed 10 years ago. Suicide bombing was a strategic decision made by various Palestinian groups in an attempt to kill israelis, the wall is simply the consequence for those actions....as history has shown. As far as the additional hardship on the Palestinian farmers, etc, thats also part of the consequences

all actions and non actions have consequence, the suicide bombers and their initial success resulted in a much harder life for their fellow Palestinians
_________

a note about UN votes...i'm not much in to groupthink...nor do i buy the theory that a majority vote on anything means they are right, hence you can spare the bytes, it doesn't convince me of anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Very telling, thanks for sharing The facts on the ground
are a direct result of Israeli policy. The majority rule in and of itself I agree does not equate with appropriate. In this
case, the conclusions of the ICJ is based on the merits and should not be ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. thats it?
you ignore the most basic consequence of 'removing the wall"..what would most likely continuation of the suicide bombers that were so successful pre wall?.....and probably on the most vulnerable group of israelis...i.e. the settlers?

it could be you believe that they "deserve it" ...some sure do, if so just come out and write it......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. I haven't ignored anything, quite the contrary. I have read your response
to the serious meaning of the ICJ advisory ruling, we do not agree pelsar. It seems you believe violence will end via the Palestinian side regardless of the continual force of Israel to make it as close to impossible for them to have a viable state? The evidence that was
brought to bear before the ICJ determined the nefarious root of Israel's objectives.

You also dismissed the proposal below without anything convincing to offer for the rejection. I say to you again, I am
not ignoring anything, that would be Israel. You know as well as anyone the wall would not come down in a day, the process
itself, the movement toward it is essential.. but there is nothing remotely resembling that happening is there?

Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/cd358b22995a4b07852...

Israel has taken no measure to act in good faith to address their land theft all these years, I previously stated
to you what Israel needs to do about the settlers, it is their choice. I'd appreciate it if you would not suggest I could believe
the settlers deserve to be dealt with violence.

To answer your question more directly, "is that it?". We our unlikely to convince each other, I believe we would agree on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. i am not interested in convincing you...i am interested in
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 11:13 AM by pelsar
getting a further understanding of "your side".....

in all of the years that i have either been here, on other sites or having discussions with one of my brothers (classic professor in an elite university)....there are things that i don't understand.

We, us israelis, look at history, (the short one), we compare our actions to what you claimed we "should do"..... we see the results, the consequences and wonder why you dont see those very same consequences?

olso? gaza?

our views are far less religious and more event based as one can see by who we elect....yet "your side" seems to stick to the same formula irreguardless of what happens in the field.
_____

and example:
Israel has taken no measure to act in good faith to address their land theft all these years,...my reaction: what the f*ck was leaving gaza all about?
we left the sinai, when offered a peace agreement from egypt. we left gaza as well to an unstable PA govt, but left never the less...

wasnt "your side" screaming that its the settlements, that we'll never leave gaza, that all we have to do is do something of "good faith" to prove our intentions.....and then we left gaza, destroyed settlements, removed settlers....(got 30 kassams that very night) and i see the very same claims against us as if leaving gaza and the sinai never happened

care to explain why leaving gaza wasn't an act of 'good faith" to prove intentions? what happened to leaving the sinai, that too doesn't count as toward our flexibility? and if that wasn't good enough what would be?...and to whom would it be "good enough".



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Sharon epeatedly said Gaza withdrawal would help consolidate Israel's control in the West Bank
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 11:49 AM by Douglas Carpenter
Mr. Sharon repeatedly justified the withdraw on the basis that it would help consolidate their their position in the West Bank



Officials: Robust Growth in W. Bank Settlements



Friday, August 26, 2005

JERUSALEM An Israeli government official said Friday the population in its West Bank (search) settlements has grown by more than 12,000 in the past year, reinforcing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's goal of strengthening large settlement blocs while withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.

snip:

Israel this week completed the evacuation of all 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza (search) and four isolated enclaves in the West Bank. About 9,000 settlers were removed from their homes.

Sharon has repeatedly said the withdrawal would help consolidate Israel's control over large settlement blocs in the West Bank, where the vast majority of Jewish settlers live. New figures from the Interior Ministry show robust growth in these blocs.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167143,00.html






In West Bank, Israel Sees Room to Grow
Government Moves Swiftly to Capitalize On Pullout From Gaza Despite Criticism


By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 28, 2005

MAALE ADUMIM, West Bank -- In the tan hills a few miles east of Jerusalem, construction cranes dangle over a string of red-roofed neighborhoods that make up the largest Jewish settlement in the West Bank. It is here that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is reengaging with his electoral base following Israel's efficient but divisive exit from the Gaza Strip.

Enjoying a moment of international sympathy, Sharon's government is moving swiftly to capitalize on its unilateral withdrawal and ongoing demolition of 25 Jewish settlements. The government's efforts are focused largely in the West Bank, land of far more religious and strategic importance to Israel than the remote slice of coastline it has left behind.

A little more than 31,000 Israelis live in Maale Adumim, a suburban settlement built on land captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. Israeli officials say it will grow to more than 50,000 people and eventually touch the edge of East Jerusalem, even though the U.S. government and Palestinian leaders have said that such growth would severely complicate efforts to establish a viable Palestinian state.

Last week, as the world watched settlers being hauled from their homes in Gaza, government officials ordered the confiscation of 400 acres of West Bank land for a barrier that will separate Maale Adumim from Palestinian-populated territory. Just east of the main settlement, where construction plans had been frozen because of U.S. opposition, Israel will soon break ground on a new police headquarters serving the entire West Bank.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #59
62. wow...so insulting?
i don't recall anybody here claiming that not only must israel remove the settlers but that when they do so, they must take into account the sensitive]y of the Palestinians so that they don't get insulted....and consequently get so unnerved that they and incapacitated that they only thing they can do is try to continue to kill more israelis....

is that not your conclusion?


I 'm sorry Douglas but this has got to be one of them most lamest excuses i have ever come across.......

(btw..there was no exponential growth in the westbank, after the withdrawal...hence is was just yellow journalism making up an excuse for the Palestinians and their supporters to save face after the withdrawal.

this might help:
http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/israeli-west-ban...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. thanks for the chart
Edited on Fri Apr-15-11 01:29 AM by Douglas Carpenter

http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/israeli-west-ban...


and for the excellent article you linked to:



The critics are right. West Bank settlement population has indeed increased every single year. But what's really surprising is that the general trend has not changed significantly even when Israel was intensely negotiating a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. This implies that Israel has never actually been serious about a two-state solution.

http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/israeli-west-ban...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. so you believe in the "all or nothing" viewpoint....
Edited on Fri Apr-15-11 03:04 AM by pelsar
so clarify, from what i take from your point of view....its all or nothing, there is no room for small steps. Israel has to vacate everything, before the PA/hamas has to react with anything other than trying to kill israelis

that is EXACTLY what you are claiming...which directly contradicts the "confidence building measures" mantra.



_______________

if you want a more reasonable, more serious reaction to intl relations, just look at egypt and jordan.....

with the peace with egypt:
egypt also forbids all professionals to work with israelis
egypt also in its govt controlled newspapers constantly attack israel
egypt has no tourist in israel, etc
____

jordan has a peace agreement with israel
jordan also forbids its professionals to work with their israeli counterparts.
_____

obviously not perfect but, hardly a "all or nothing" mentality as what appears to be your point of view.

I think what we are going to discover with the discussion if it continues is that despite the various "mantras" regularly mentioned here, we're going to discover that you all expect israel to vacate everything, the PA/etc have to offer nothing in return no matter what israel does and what comes after that is simply irrelevant. (and that is the key disagreement....what comes after, which is crucial to israelis and of no real consequences to most others-the events happening around the arab world shows the folly of such naivety.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top