Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index

Hamas v Israel

  • Posted on
  • by bbauska
User avatar
rickyp
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Sep 2014, 9:00 am

ray
It appears as if you don't understand Freeman's argument. Why don't you look at it again?

Oh I understand it.
Its an arguement about per capita water consumption and Danivon has argued with him on it effectively. And they can't agree.
User avatar
bbauska
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 26 Sep 2014, 9:02 am

Can someone help me understand some things?

Both Gaza and West Bank are Israeli territory, and the water is provided by wells dug by Israeli developers. If Palestine had it's own country would it be required to dig wells for Palestinian use, or would Israel be required to provide water as well? (pun intended).

Again, I am all for Palestine having it's own land. Give them all of Gaza, and all of the West Bank except for Jerusalem. Let them have full autonomy and responsibility for their people. If there are rockets, treat them as an act of war.
User avatar
Ray Jay
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Sep 2014, 9:56 am

bbauska wrote:Can someone help me understand some things?

Again, I am all for Palestine having it's own land. Give them all of Gaza, and all of the West Bank except for Jerusalem. Let them have full autonomy and responsibility for their people. If there are rockets, treat them as an act of war.


It's a reasonable starting point. I don't see either side agreeing to it. The Palestinians have insisted that Jerusalem be their capital and that refugees displaced in the 47-48 conflict have a right of return (although Danivon argues that they are willing to give in some on this right).

On the Israeli side, there is fear that the 1948 armistice line does not represent a secure border. It is just 9 miles wide at certain points. It also means that the Israelis would have to physically remove about 350,000 settlers from the Non-Jerusalem part of the West Bank because it is not considered safe to have them remain. That would create tremendous divisions on the Israeli side, and it is not clear what for since as you say, there may be rockets and another war anyway.

I actually agree with Danivon and Ricky that the settlements are problematic. For the Israeli democracy to be willing to part with most of them or even some of them, I think there has to be some assurance that the great shock to the Israeli democracy will not be in vain. For political leadership to be willing to dismantle (ethnically cleanse!) hundreds of thousands of its own people, it has to see a prize at the end. These settlements are not make shift tents. They are homes and businesses and everything that goes with it. The prize that justifies this huge step can only be full acceptance by Arab states and the Palestinian people of the 2 state solution, a renouncing of many claims arising from 1948, and a renunciation of violence.

I see Arafat's walking out of the 2000 Camp David summit as fatal to peace for both sides of the conflict.
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 26 Sep 2014, 11:29 am

bbauska wrote:Can someone help me understand some things?

Both Gaza and West Bank are Israeli territory, and the water is provided by wells dug by Israeli developers. If Palestine had it's own country would it be required to dig wells for Palestinian use, or would Israel be required to provide water as well? (pun intended).
The mountain aquifer is largely in the West Bank. The Jordan is on the border between the West Bank and Jordan but only Israel is able to extract water from it.

If they were only able to take water from their own lands, the West Bank would have more than it needs and Israel would have less. But Gaza could also be cut off from water sources.

So they really need each other at the moment. And they need to deal with each other whether they like it or not. The issue at the moment is that Oslo (which was supposed to be a temporary state of affairs until a permanent solution in the late 1990s) is not really being stuck to in spirit and so both sides are able to accuse the other of infractions.

Again, I am all for Palestine having it's own land. Give them all of Gaza, and all of the West Bank except for Jerusalem. Let them have full autonomy and responsibility for their people. If there are rockets, treat them as an act of war.
Israel is not prepared to do this. Certainly not under the current government. Under Oslo this was not even the most generous outcome for the Palestinians that Israel was prepared to concede.

By the way, why should Palestine give up claims the parts of Jerusalem that are majority Palestinian? Israel has decided that despite them being on the other side of the Green Line they are not part of the West Bank, but they are as occupied as the rest. And the Arabs want access and a say in the holy sites in Jerusalem. The Mount is the site of a Mosque and of course the Christian Arabs want access to particular places.
User avatar
bbauska
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 26 Sep 2014, 12:06 pm

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:Can someone help me understand some things?

Both Gaza and West Bank are Israeli territory, and the water is provided by wells dug by Israeli developers. If Palestine had it's own country would it be required to dig wells for Palestinian use, or would Israel be required to provide water as well? (pun intended).
The mountain aquifer is largely in the West Bank. The Jordan is on the border between the West Bank and Jordan but only Israel is able to extract water from it.


Why doesn't Jordan take water from it?

Doesn't Gaza have well drilling or desalinization capability if they were to create that infrastructure?

As for Jerusalem, I guess it is a compromise. You get all of West Bank, your own country and Israel gets Jerusalem. A diplomacy player should get this...
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 26 Sep 2014, 12:17 pm

bbauska wrote:
danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:Can someone help me understand some things?

Both Gaza and West Bank are Israeli territory, and the water is provided by wells dug by Israeli developers. If Palestine had it's own country would it be required to dig wells for Palestinian use, or would Israel be required to provide water as well? (pun intended).
The mountain aquifer is largely in the West Bank. The Jordan is on the border between the West Bank and Jordan but only Israel is able to extract water from it.


Why doesn't Jordan take water from it?
It does. But Jordan is not the West Bank.

Doesn't Gaza have well drilling or desalinization capability if they were to create that infrastructure?
To drill decent wells you need the right kind of rocks and water table beneath you. The mountains in the interior, running through the West Bank and into Israel have natural aquifers. Gaza has an aquifer, but it is deteriorating due to over-extraction.

But Gaza does have desalination capability, and a new plant is being planned. http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/EU-UNI ... ect-346164

As for Jerusalem, I guess it is a compromise. You get all of West Bank, your own country and Israel gets Jerusalem. A diplomacy player should get this...
To the people living in East Jerusalem, it's not an abstract strategy game, but real life. And Israel is essentially already demanding the latter but not offering the former - not really (because the top offer is about 91% of the West Bank without full sovereignty on all affairs or borders, and that has been rescinded).
User avatar
Ray Jay
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Sep 2014, 1:11 pm

Danivon:

But Gaza does have desalination capability, and a new plant is being planned. http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/EU-UNI ... ect-346164


cool ... thanks.

From the article:

As per the 1994 Oslo Accords, Israel is required to provide at least 23.6 million cu.m. per year of water to the Palestinian Authority, of which five m.cu.m. is supposed to go to Gaza. Currently, Israel supplies 52 m.cu.m. to the PA, Water Authority data showed.


True?
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 26 Sep 2014, 1:19 pm

Ray Jay wrote:
As per the 1994 Oslo Accords, Israel is required to provide at least 23.6 million cu.m. per year of water to the Palestinian Authority, of which five m.cu.m. is supposed to go to Gaza. Currently, Israel supplies 52 m.cu.m. to the PA, Water Authority data showed.


True?
Yes, it's in several of the articles I have references. Palestine has to pay for that water. It was supposed to be interim until a more permanent settlement of Oslo and Palestine getting up to a full amount of abstraction from local ground sources.
User avatar
Ray Jay
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Sep 2014, 1:22 pm

Danivon:
To the people living in East Jerusalem, it's not an abstract strategy game, but real life.


Precisely, that's why if you ask them, more would rather be part of Israel.

http://pechterpolls.com/wp-content/uplo ... astern.pdf

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... e-1.336758

http://jcpa.org/article/what-do-the-ara ... ally-want/

According to face-to-face surveys conducted according to the highest international standards, more Palestinians in east Jerusalem would prefer to become citizens of Israel rather than citizens of a new Palestinian state. In addition, 40 percent said they would probably or definitely move in order to live under Israeli rather than Palestinian rule. 44 percent of the Palestinians in Jerusalem say they are very, or at least somewhat, satisfied with their standard of living. This is a very high percentage compared to other populations in the Arab world. Only about 30 percent sympathize with either Fatah or Hamas or with the Israeli Arab Islamic movement. Politics is not a major preoccupation. Three-quarters of east Jerusalem Arabs are at least a little concerned, and more than half are more than a little concerned, that they would lose their ability to write and speak freely if they became citizens of a Palestinian state rather than remaining under Israeli control. Significantly, 41 percent thought that the armed conflict probably or definitely would continue even after a peace agreement, and this is from the most moderate population of Palestinians. Only a third say that a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence backed by the UN would have a positive effect on their lives. Two-thirds say that such a unilateral step would have no positive effect. For people who tend to assume that a fair and practical solution for the Jerusalem issue is for the Arab neighborhoods to become part of Palestine and the Jewish neighborhoods to become part of Israel, these findings suggest that this could be somewhat problematic from the point of view of the people who actually live in east Jerusalem. - See more at: http://jcpa.org/article/what-do-the-ara ... ozl3W.dpuf


Perhaps it's not really about them ...
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 26 Sep 2014, 2:20 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:
To the people living in East Jerusalem, it's not an abstract strategy game, but real life.


Precisely, that's why if you ask them, more would rather be part of Israel.

http://pechterpolls.com/wp-content/uplo ... astern.pdf
Reading the poll itself, rather than the abstract:

Q17 If a permanent, two state solution is able to be worked out, would you prefer to become a citizen of Palestine, all of the rights and privileges of other citizens of Palestine, or would you prefer to become a citizen of Israel, with all the rights and privileges of other citizens of Israel?

Definitely Prefer Palestinian: 15.7%
Probably Prefer Palestinian: 14.6%
(total prefer Palestinian: 30.3%)

Definitely Prefer Israeli: 11.2%
Probably Prefer Israeli: 23.4%
(total prefer Israeli 34.6%)

Don't Know / Didn't Answer: 35.1%

So yes, you are right that 'more' did. But only a few percent, and not a majority (and only 11.2% had actually made that a definite position).

Also, the Fatah and Hamas questions were actually framed as whether people see things as part of their identity and in this case how important it is for them to sympathise with various movements.

Q9 (continued) I’m going to ask you about a number of identities. For each one, please tell me how important that identity is to you.


Being Sympathetic to Fatah:
Extremely important: 10%
Very important: 10%
Moderately important: 15%
A little important: 14%
Not important at all, or Declined to answer: 51%

Being Sympathetic to the Islamic Movement inside the Green Line:
Extremely important: 8%
Very important: 12%
Moderately important: 16%
A little important: 16%
Not important at all, or Declined to answer: 49%

Being Sympathetic to Hamas:
Extremely important: 7%
Very important: 10%
Moderately important: 14%
A little important: 16%
Not important at all, or Declined to answer: 54%

The last category does not distinguish between the two different answers, which does mean it's hard to really be sure of the significance of the other figures. But it seems they just took the Moderately/Very/Extremely answers and took that.

Which is not actually the same thing as asking if they are sympathetic to those movements.

[Oh, in the detail I found the breakdowns - for each question, about 17-18% declined to answer the question. I wonder if some did so because they did not want to admit they did support or identify with those groups? We'll never know]
User avatar
Ray Jay
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Sep 2014, 2:43 pm

Danivon:
[Oh, in the detail I found the breakdowns - for each question, about 17-18% declined to answer the question. I wonder if some did so because they did not want to admit they did support or identify with those groups? We'll never know!]


Yes, or perhaps they were afraid to admit that they didn't support the PA or Hamas.

In any case, from the results of the survey, one doesn't get the sense that most Arab residents of East Jerusalem actually would prefer to be part of a future Palestinian state. Perhaps that's an area where the PA can give in ...
User avatar
Ray Jay
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 26 Sep 2014, 2:45 pm

Danivon:
Palestine has to pay for that water.


I have to pay for mine ... are we saying that the charge is unreasonable?
User avatar
bbauska
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 26 Sep 2014, 4:26 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:
Palestine has to pay for that water.


I have to pay for mine ... are we saying that the charge is unreasonable?


Do the Israeli people pay for water?
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Sep 2014, 2:01 am

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:
Palestine has to pay for that water.


I have to pay for mine ... are we saying that the charge is unreasonable?
Did I say that? Just pointing out that it is not an act of charity. Indeed, the complaint is that if the PA werr able to expand water abstraction and if people were allowed to collect rainwater, they would not need to buy as much from Merokot ( the Israeli water company)
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Sep 2014, 2:10 am

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:
[Oh, in the detail I found the breakdowns - for each question, about 17-18% declined to answer the question. I wonder if some did so because they did not want to admit they did support or identify with those groups? We'll never know!]


Yes, or perhaps they were afraid to admit that they didn't support the PA or Hamas.
They werr not asked about the PA, just Fatah, the 'Islamic Movement' and Hamas. They were not even asked about the PLO or the Palestinian movement as a whole. And the question was phrased in a way thay makes it hard to extrapolate what the summary does with any real accuracy.

In any case, from the results of the survey, one doesn't get the sense that most Arab residents of East Jerusalem actually would prefer to be part of a future Palestinian state. Perhaps that's an area where the PA can give in ...
It also, when you read the full aurvey and detsiled breakdowns, shows many have concerns either way. I know that Israel has unilaterally decided that Jerusalem is all theirs and is not negotiable, but literally no other country recognises that annexation and the people there were never asked to give assent. The survey is not a great vote of confidence gor either Israel or the PA. Look at how many say they face discrimination in the current situation (under Israeli rule).