PA unable to prevent Gaza land theft

[barb162]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1130954353662&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


More than two months after the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority seems to have failed in preventing many land thieves from laying their hands on the former area of Gush Katif.

PA officials here expressed fear over "increased transgressions" on the lands that used to belong to the settlements and called for immediate action against the perpetrators. They pointed out that some of the thieves belong to various branches of the PA security forces.

Shortly after the Israeli disengagement, the PA announced plans to build thousands of housing units in the former settlements with the help of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Some of the projects may now be postponed because of the land theft.

Alarmed by the phenomenon, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday paid a surprise visit to Khan Yunis and Rafah, where many families and gangs are reported to have illegally seized vast areas of land. Abbas was shocked to see that large areas had been fenced off by local families, gangs and individuals.
snip

[willing dwarf]

1. Failed Miserably is a perjorative which covers the truth

that the Palestinian people have had their land and culture ripped out from beneath them in the last century.

You can't steal the land the wealth and the dignity of a people and then turn around, hand it back to them and expect that they will be able to simply set up the system which others name as the one right system.

What B.S. this is.

[barb162]

2. It's clearly proving not to be simple

But I think Abbas and his government will straighten it out

[willing dwarf]

3. Do you see Palestinian rule moving to a new style with Abbas?

Or is it going to remain a matter of the Strong Man laying down the law?

Is there a name for the "strong man" model? It's certainly an older and more fierce type of rule, but in the old world it worked fairly well.

It seems like Democracy is sold to people round the world as simply an excuse to pry open new markets and create new streams of dept & dependnece guaranteeing future revenue. Though I don't see what wealth Palestine could provide.

[barb162]

4. I see Abbas as really weak but I hope the people rally around him

at least in some fashion. He's better to me than the alternatives such as Hamas and other non-secular parties/groups, where there will only be endless warring with Israel. If Abbas can get things under control more, such as implementing his plan for Gaza restructuring ( building the apts. the mosques, the parks, etc.) then the people will have a stake in economic success and it is hoped move away from the "hamasnik" thinking. That was a highly condensed comment I just made there.

"strong man" model? Ahh, Dictator? Yeah, sometimes societies can do extremely well under strong man rule. I am thinking of some European Renaissance governments, for example

[pelsar]

5. you've got to be kidding..

so your basically in favor of dictatorships?..do you prefer the shah of iran style or perhaps kohmenni...taliban?..N.korea?....Pot Pol?....Mao?

which flavor of facism do you prefer?

[barb162]

6. You're right. I would really hope

the Palestinians stick with democratic or republican government forms rather than some autocratic government form. I would also hope they can keep things as secular as possible.

[Fairlyunbalanced]

7. Societies have to progress through stages

in order to arrive at democracy. And even then you will of course have elements of the previous stages.

Really, in my amateurish take on history:

Governments and the societies of which they are a part seem to develop like hardwood forests. When you completely clear a patch of land, first some grasses will appear, then some shrubs, then some small soft wood trees, then some hardwood trees. And in most environments where the conditions are right for this whole process to take place, you will still have elements of each of the stages there, playing it's part in the ecosystem. Grasses, shrubs, softwoods, and hardwoods.

And occasionally you need a fire to clean out the detritus ;)

In terms of developing a democratic society, unless a stonger body like the UN goes in there and accelerates the process by setting up schools, businesses, etc., they will have to learn it the hard way.

And such efforts by an outside agent haven't been very successful in the past. Take a look at Africa. Many countries there are arguably crippled by all of the efforts at tweaking this cycle of growth along.

This idea that a self supporting nation of law abiding citizens with a sense of civic duty will suddenly spring up out of nowhere is pure fantasy IMO.

[pelsar]

13. or it may never happen....

there is no guarantee that a country will end up with a democratic govt.....they may have "growth" stages, or evolution, but they can always evolve into the taliban, iranian style of theorcratic govt, haiti, algerai etc

in fact the evolution to a democracy, which involves far more than mere elections, is probably the rare evolution...dictatorships being the norm.....which means the palestenians will go from one occupation to another (dictatorships have simply stolen the country from the people and use violent means to keep them down). The difference being that when the occupiers speak the same language as the people their occupying....its considered an internal affair.

[manic expression]

15. So their form of government

is justification for oppression? Are you even listening to yourself?

In case you forgot, Iran HAD a democratic government, but the US toppled it. Haiti has been trying for centuries, but FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS have been stepping in and imposing unjust domination upon the people. Remind you of anything? It should.

A strongman is not the best, but it is far better than foreign oppression. You fail to realize that the reason this is so is because Israel's actions in the area. Furthermore, Israel IS built upon land theft, so don't lecture anyone about dictatorships stealing land.

Oh, and you're wrong again. The British spoke the same language as the Irish, and how well did that go over?

[barb162]

16. Have to differ with you here

Yours "A strongman is not the best, but it is far better than foreign oppression."

I would have taken the Russians (foreign oppression) over Mullah Omar in Afghanistan any day.

snip "Under Mullah Omar's rule, a strict interpretation of Islamic law was imposed on Afghanistan under Taleban control.

Women were strongly discouraged from leaving their homes, denied schooling and jobs and forced to fully cover themselves.

Women found guilty of adultery were stoned to death, homosexuals crushed under brick walls, thieves' hands amputated and murderers publicly executed by victims' families.

Edicts from Mullah Omar included the death sentence for anyone converting to another religion, as well as the infamous orders to destroy the country's ancient Buddha statues at Bamiyan." snip


Have to differ with your other points too. Some of the land, prior to 1948, was already bought by Jews, some was already occupied by Jews for years, etc. 31 % of the British Mandate population in 1945 was Jewish, 8% Christian. And I will also mention I am not an expert on this and ask the others on this board to correct me factually where I am incorrect



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550419.stm

[manic expression]

17. First of all

Afghanistan was and is a fractured state, so you can scarcely call the Taleban complete rule. Another thing is that the Russian invasion brought loss of life. Even more interesting is that the invasion laid the foundations of the Taleban, as the former Mujahadeen set up the regime. We also find that the US was instrumental in giving power to the Mujahadeen, and in so doing, the Taleban. However, choose any warlord you want, no ruler of Afghanistan would have been "good".

All told, I do think that Afghanis would much more prefer the Taleban to Soviet rule. It's not about what WE want, it's about what the people want. Between the two choices, the former had much more support from the people, even if it's not saying much.

What alternative is there to the Taleban? Warlord rule. Not so much different. Furthermore, the situation has deteriorated in many ways. The country now relies on (opium) poppy growth for survival. What can we do to make the situation better? I dare say that building hospitals and schools would help (whereas Israel attacks them), and it is probably the most one can do.

SOME of the land was bought by Jews, and even then, Palestinians were evicted off that land after its purchase. Fighting had occurred between the Arabs and Jewish (terrorist) groups well before that point, so there was a lot of conflict even before then. However, al-Nakba was a blatant crime against an entire people, and very much epitomizes the policy of Israel against its neighbors.

[pelsar]

20. clarify this....

ignoring all your excuses for the whys...(not really relevant...just an excuse to protect a facist govt)

your saying that 'the people of afganistan prefered the taliban as the facist govt over the russians? (and over the present situation?)

and for iran your saying that the people prefer the present facist govt over the shahs "strongman"

did i get that?....and sudans indepenance?...hows that going. I'm guessing but you believe that present situation is probably better than any foreign occupation correct?

can i save this quote of yours?-....i love the logic
SOME of the land was bought by Jews, and even then, Palestinians were evicted off that land after its purchase. ....if i understand this correctly. If you bought some land to build a house or whatever, from someone...after buying it, you wouldnt build, because the former owner is prefers to stay-even after selling it? is this just for israel, this logic or is it a general philosphy of yours?...when you buy something, its not really yours.....

and just a small note?...your place of residence...who were the former owners?...and will you be returning the land to them as well

[barb162]

21. I call the Taliban a totalitarian rule when it was in power

I think the Afghan women with brains (the non-brainwashed women) would have chosen the Russians over slavery style living of the Taliban. If the women had any idea of Taliban rule, I doubt if one would have fought against the Russians.

There was conflict and terrorism as the Jews were moving in on BOTH sides.

[pelsar]

22. were the women polled?

All told, I do think that Afghanis would much more prefer the Taleban to Soviet rule.

in this "poll" of yours....were the women also included?...you know the ones wearing the burlap sack with the "slit" to let air and light in.

i'm guessing but probably not, since they were allowed out of their homes, to talk to strangers, they probably wouldnt even know to answer the questions given that they werent allowed to be educated as well....


but yes, i'm sure they prefered that to having the russians there.....
___________________________________________
as far as your "what the people want"...so, your "people" i am guessing is probably the elite that run the country. Hard to imagine a simple citizen, who is stoned to death for adultry would prefer a facist theorcracy to a democracy...oh yea, does "your people" include homosexuals?, lesbians? women who want to wear blue jeans? watch hollywood movies?..guess not since they werent allowed in taliban afaganistan nor in present day iran.

tell me again..who are these "people" who prefer dictatorships?....we call them the ruling elite in simple english.

[occuserpens]

8. Yet another propaganda jewel

Here it goes, a classical neoconservative propaganda jewel. Usually, the term "land theft" is used by the Arabs to describe Israeli activities against the Palestinians. In this JPost article, it is used to describe situation under the PA control.

[barb162]

9. "land theft " term used by PA Info Minister

"The purpose of this visit is to check reports about land theft in the former settlements," said PA Information Minister Nabil Shaath, who accompanied Abbas on the tour along with Interior Minister Nasser Youssef, who is in charge of security."

[occuserpens]

10. The point is, same term completely changes its meaning when used in JPost

[pelsar]

11. how is that?

seems to me that if somebody takes land that doesnt belong to them....the phrase "land theft" seems to fit.

perhaps you could suggest a "softer term" for the description:....i got one, "land taken from the PA but its just fenced off by individuals but still belongs to the palestenain people.....

actually i believe your objection is simply facing the reality that the PA may not be doing so well, and since there is no occupation to blame, one doesnt want to be 'too harsh".

a further and more precise explanation is the attempt to use a lower standard to define the PA situation in Gaza......something which i find both insulting to the palestenain people as well as dangerous to the region as a whole. Seems i've read in several places all kinds of excuses as to why the palestenians either cant make a democracy, or that they shouldnt......all of them by the "progressive left"..which seems to me as the epitomy or racism

[manic expression]

18. What do you expect?

You think the PA should be able to step into a power vacuum and make everything right? They won't be able to. The wounds of the occupation are still very much with the people and the region.

Oh, and this is happening in spite of the PA, not because of it.

Oh, so pro-Palestinian people are now racist? :rofl: That's rich. Too bad we want them to have their own country and not be put under the thumb of Israel and its disgusting policies. I guess being occupied is better than actually having self-determination if the country won't be classified as a "democracy" by Israel. :eyes:

[pelsar]

19. pro palestenian or pro facist dictatorship?

to be "pro palesetenian" and claim that self determination even if it means a facist iranian/talibanina style dictatorship is absurd. -shall we ask some of the women of the past taliban govt?...or some of the iranian one (via their burlap sacks?)

to give the palestenains a lower standard....and say...well its "ok"...they cant/dont know how/etc to have a democratics govt, that includes civil rights is racist pure and simple......they should get along with a more 'customary dictatorship with pseudo voting or whatever "substandard democracy is disgusting to say the least.

the standard should be the standard...if they cant make it, the critisim should be there reguardless of the excuses.

There was no "power vacuum"...the IDF/israel left certain areas, the PA moved in...Most of Gaza has been on its own for quite some time now.....

but i'm not surprised....very few "pro palestenians" understand that the difference between living under a foreign occupation and a local one is that the local one has no external pressures on it..they're considered internal matters.

[manic expression]

23. Pro fascist?

Look in the mirror. Just keep supporting ethnic cleansing and then tell yourself you're not fascist.

To demand self-determination for a people is just that. Nothing more. What evidence do you have to say it will become a Taliban-style government, especially in light of elections that went to the party opposed to Hamas? You are making baseless assertions, as Palestinians would be in control of their land and future, something denied them by the disgusting actions of Israel.

Ask Lebanon if they liked the Israeli oppression better, although you may need to watch out for those Israeli planes over their skies while doing so.

What are you talking about? All Israel has done for them is murder their people and steal their land. Palestinians deserve their country. Whether or not you approve of their choices is irrelevant to the highest degree. Using occupation to implement democracy is the definition of futile and self-defeating. The simple fact that you think Israel is trying to put democracy in place is laughable.

WHEN Palestinians put in place their own independent government, it will be a government they, clearly, agree with and largely support.

Your ludicrous claims of racism completely expose you for what you are: a hypocrite. By all means, continue to do so, as you make my side of the argument easier.

The standard is justice and self-determination. A Palestinian government, for the Palestinians, will make a change toward this. Israel has done nothing but break and make a mockery of any real standard one can imagine.

There is a power vacuum. When an occupation leaves, there is always a power vacuum. Israel's actions and the wounds that they have created are the reasons for Gaza's troubles. Gaza has been kept under the Israeli fist for "quite some time", and has continued to be treated that way.

The difference is that there is a future, there is control, there is decent treatment, there is hope. Israel has denied ALL OF THESE THINGS to the Palestinians. This will be changed with a real Palestinian government and the equally important factor of the limiting of Israeli aggression.

[pelsar]

24. how do you know?

WHEN Palestinians put in place their own independent government, it will be a government they, clearly, agree with and largely support.

are you claiming that the taliban enjoyed large support (include the women if you will)...and the present iranina govt...a direct line from the revolution (since they have no real voting)....they too enjoy real support?..how about the president of zimbabwa?...he too had "large support"....

what makes you so sure that the palestenain future govt will enjoy 'large support"...what emperical evidence suggest that?..more so,...if they choose a dictatorship, a move i understand you would support..what happens in 20 years when the palestenains are tired of it (as in iran)....dictatorships dont just get "voted out?

try to stay away from the generalizations and slogans......as i understand it...you would fully support a palestenian dictator if one arose?..yes?

[manic expression]

25. And how do you know the opposite?

Since Palestinians have been voting for their officials, it is a completely different situation from Afghanistan, Iran or Zimbabwe. This means there is accountability. Secondly, no people would stand for being oppressed twice.

The funny thing is that you have no empirical evidence to believe the contrary. When Palestinians have their own government, it will be much better than an occupation could ever be. The fact that you deny this is laughable.

Try to stay away from your petty delusions. I would fully support Palestinian independence. I fully oppose Israel's murderous occupation.

[pelsar]

26. i dont claim anything...

i just raise the possibilties...i dont live in a fantasy land....and who says that "no people would stand for being oppressed twice...

does this mean you claim the iranian govt is not an oppressive one? (shall we ask the homosexuals?)

for reasons unkown nor understandable you assume the palestenain govt will be "fair"..yet the only evidence you offer is "no people would stand for being oppressed twice"...which really doent mean a whole lot, since its simply not true (haiti, algeria, iran, afganistan(russians than taliban)...i could go on, but its pretty obvious that you either reject that taliban and iranian govt as being oppressive or ....your little theory doesnt work.

which one is it?

[manic expression]

28. Yes you do

Please, don't lie. It makes you look worse.

The Iranian government has more support than the Shah did. You can bet your bottom dollar on that. It is oppressive, but there is a large movement for more democratization that doesn't need the US' or Israel's support. Such support would mean the death of said movement. Shall we ask homosexuals in America about our government? Many would say that it IS oppressive (sodomy is illegal in some states, a Constitutional Amendment against gays is in the works, many states have banned gay marriage, Texas may forcefully take gay couples' adopted children away from them).

The melting pot seems to be calling the kettle black when it boils over.... (-Sage Francis)

The Palestinian government will not murder countless innocents. The Palestinian government will not restrict movement or trade. The Palestinian government will not throw people off their land, commit ethnic cleansing, wall people off from their own land, destroy people's houses, destroy their ways of life. I cannot believe I actually have to say stuff like this.

Haiti and Iran have tried to have democracy more than once. Uncle Sam didn't approve, and so look what we have. The same can be said of many, many other nations (El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico...and that's just in Latin America!).

You STILL have not commented on the fact that Iran's popularly elected Prime Minister was toppled by the US, replaced by a dictator.

It seems the US and Israel have been producing the oppression we speak of. Palestinians will have their country and their future, and to oppose this is to further suppress and injure them.

[pelsar]

27. what do you support

I would fully support Palestinian independence. I fully oppose Israel's murderous occupation.

so would you support a independant facist palestenian republic as in the style of iran or the taliban?

i'm not saying it will be, but i am not ignoring the possibility....you are......so would you?

[manic expression]

29. Would it be that hard

To ask this in your first response? Anyway....

I would support Palestinian independence regardless.

"...republic as in the style of iran or the taliban?"

Hoo boy. First of all, a REPUBLIC is a form of government that is indirect rule by the people through elected representatives. Like what the US has...in theory, anyway. That is a democratic style of government. Afghanistan was not a republic, while Iran is a republic with theocratic institutions. Try to not contradict yourself. Secondly, both of those countries were by-products of US intervention. The Taliban was funded and supported by America, and the Islamic Revolution happened because people were fed up with the Shah, who was (guess what?) supported by America. Before the Shah, there was a Parliamentary Republic with fully elected officials, but the US didn't like it, so they installed the Shah, which led to the revolution.

Palestinians, when they have the chance, will form a government that their people support. That is enough for me, and it should be enough for you as well.

[pelsar]

30. which means

you will support whatever style govt they create (correct?) and that would include a facist dicatorship-but no i do not support dictatorships under any guise-you seem to think that its ok to support such govt

more interesting is your avoidence of the original question of your theory:

that the "people" wouldnt stand for a second oppression".. its pretty irrelevant who is funding or supporting the "oppression" or supporting the "new revolution" (but if you want to get into that, as you mentioned the US can be found on both sides)

both in iran and talibans case they were oppressed, revolted and received a second and its easy to argue a far worse type of opression....or do you not agree with that their "revolutions" werent oppresive in the end?.....(or is placing women in burlap sheets not "oppressive in your definition?)

again, I'm asking you to clarify: either you believe that iran and the taliban werent (arent) oppressive or you're theory doesnt hold up to that "the people wont stand for a seond opressive govt.....i dont need the history lessons....i was being sarcastic with the use of "republic" as so many use "democratic" etc in their definitions)

stick to the question....its quite simple.

[manic expression]

31. Which means

I support Palestinian self-determination. There is no government to not support at the moment, so why are you so obsessed with a hypothetical situation?

Hey, if the US president ate babies, would you support American independence? :eyes:

At any rate, the Palestinian government will be supported by the people, and since there is already representative government, this will continue. EVEN IF there was a strongman (worst case, and unlikely, scenario), the government would not make a mockery of freedom of movement, or destroy houses and lifestyles, or murder indiscriminately, or commit ethnic cleansing.

Like it or not, the Iranian government is supported by the people. They may want to change the way some things work, and there is progress being made, but that is wholly different from oppression. It is myopic and insipid to pass judgements on a country and its choices, as well as the utterly fallacious endeavor of using occupation and war to change it. Don't believe me? Look at Iraq. Thanks a bunch.

Iranians revolted against US-instituted oppression. They got what they wanted, a Theocratic Republic. It's not for you to decide what's best for them.

Afghanistan is a completely different bag of chips. Why? Because even when the Taliban was in place, warlords ruled much of the country. Now that the Taliban is gone, warlords have most of the power (there's a reason why our puppet is aptly named the "Mayor of Kabul").

What I find ridiculous is that you insult countries for placing women "in burlap sheets", while Israel places them in morgues.

I would also like to point out that Saudi Arabia has similar cultural customs, so should we occupy that country as well? Didn't think so. Thanks for playing.

Do you want to talk about women's rights? I find it telling that women's rights have not changed a single bit since the US invasion and occupation. I also find it VERY telling that women's rights in Iraq have GREATLY DETERIORATED since the US invasion and occupation. That is an understatement. Still want to use occupation as a vehicle for "rights"? Don't, because the opposite usually happens.

Iran is a government that is supported by the people. Furthermore, it was a reaction to oppression supported by the good ol' USA.

You DO need a history lesson, badly:

"In 1953 Iran's elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies (dubbed "Operation Ajax"). Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mosaddeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Politics

[pelsar]

32. not up to date....are you....

Gaza today.....in complete control of the palestenians:....their govt.....

so i understand that if there is a facist dictatorship (the word "strongman" btw is raping the word-(was the shah "strongman").....use the proper terminology-dictatorship

you would be for it?...translated to real world scenarios: the "strongman", i.e. dictator does:
restrict freedom of movement, kill, murder etc...thats why they are the "strongman."

and this you would support?....

er...irans govt is supported by the people? they got what they wanted?...do you mean the "left liberals" etc that helped with the revolution and then were promptly hung?...those people?..and the homosexuals?...and the kids who want to listen to western music?...would you be more precise in "who got what they wanted?".....outside of those who were islamic fundamentalist...and what percentage were they?


and yes i insult countries for placing women "in burlap sheets" .....i find it fascintating that you think that "thats just fine"......covering over 50% of the population, giving them less than their male counterpart in terms of civil rights, getting them stoned for adultry...and you support that, becuase there was a revolution and a "strongman" took over...so what your saying is that "some peoples" prefer to live under fascist govts, where their civil rights are severly restricted, fair trials are not needed, disapperances with those against the govt is fine with you etc......how can you tell who these people are?....just a thought: amnesty international should avoid certain countries because their views are not really relevant?

i'm confused about the taliban....did you support them or not?..your not very clear, they did get the oppressive russians out....its kind of a yes and no type of question.

can i safely assume then, you support zimbabwaws dictator? pol pot?(past)...lets reverse it, what dictator DONT you support?

(you make far too many assumptions about my views here-iraq is not the subject), and i am hardly obssesed with a hypothetical situation: I am very concerned for a real possibility and its consequences....for those of us who actually do live in the "real world" where actions have consequences, ignoring events that lead to different policies and actions is rather foolish...its like putting ones head in the sand and pretending it wont happen. In fact a quick look shows that most revolutions end up with facist dictatorships (though you like the word "strongman"...for reasons that arent clear to me)....so its a real possibility, but then i understand if a pol pot takes over...you're ok with that? he was after all a "strong man"

[eyl]

12. Are you saying

Nabil Sha'ath is a JPost stringer?

[barb162]

14. Gaza youth killed in clashes over settlement lands

Gaza youth killed in clashes over settlement lands
19 Nov 2005 14:49:59 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Nidal al-Mughrabi

GAZA, Nov 19 (Reuters) - A Palestinian teenager was killed in clashes between police and gunmen from a large Gaza Strip clan in the first violent confrontations over land ownership in former Jewish settlement blocs, police said on Saturday.

The 17-year-old boy, a bystander, was shot on Friday in a gunbattle outside a police station in the southern town of Khan Younis where members of a prominent Gaza family had gathered to demand the release of two relatives held in a land dispute.

The relatives were arrested for fencing off land they say is theirs in the former settlement of Neve Dekalim, where squatters have moved onto land left vacant after Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip in September following 38 years of occupation.

snip


Angry members of the dead boy's family, from a separate Gaza clan, later attacked the police station overnight after he died of his wounds. They set fire to vehicles and offices.

snip

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L19384105.htm