freeman3

If you actually bothered to read to studies you refer to you might be able to make better arguments, Ricky

I appreciate that you want to get all anal on some water stats. But if you are willing to use Selbys report than you'll concur with the conclusions?

Whilst the above findings broadly confirm existing critiques of the Oslo II-JWC regime, they suggest
that if anything these have not gone far enough. Thus far, critiques have generally understood the JWC
as an instrument of "containment" – as a status quo institution through which Israel has sought to
restrict and contain Palestinian demands, and maintain its hegemony over resources captured in 1967
(Zeitoun and Warner, 2006: 445). But the Oslo II-JWC regime is not just this; it has also facilitated
Israel’s expansionist territorial and settlement interests within the West Bank, including through the
conferral of formal PA approval on the expansion of settlement infrastructure. Even the most damning
assessments of the JWC (e.g. Amnesty International, 2009; Glavany, 2012) have failed to discuss this, in
keeping with the broader 'conspiracy of silence' maintained by Israel, the PA and international donors
on the question of PA approval of settlement water infrastructures. Many water sector donors are
aware that approval of their own projects through the JWC has been linked to, and dependent on, PA
approval of settlement infrastructure (Anon., 2009, 2012) – yet have preferred to remain silent on this
issue. Once acknowledged, however, the charge sheet against the JWC looks even worse than
previously. It becomes evident that the JWC has not only been an instrument of containment: it has
also enabled Israel to compel the PA to assent to its own colonisation

Its the conclusions made by experts that interest me.They are closest to understanding all of the statistics that you think provide clarity. They've looked very closely at the devleopment of water resources and make conclusions Selby made above ....

Yeah, lawyers tend to be a little fussy about facts and evidence. Don't overstate my cite of Selby. I have no real idea of how good a study it is. I think she comes to the party with a good deal of philosophical baggage and bias in favor of the Palestinians, but I do find her empirical data and findings to be interesting and informative. As to accuracy I cannot say. It seems like she has gone about this in a reasonable way, but have no real way to make that determination. I would find it interesting for Givirtzman to respond to her study or vice-versa. I do find it interesting that she cites Gvirtzman but does not criticize his study. Since the studies conflict so much that is a bit surprising. Anyway, the Selby study is mandatory reading I think but does not shut down discussion.

ray

Of course, Ricky's argument style is so poor that he has a way of antagonizing people and convincing them that his position is wrong, no matter what it is.

d.
The list or organizations who accuse israel of apartheid like policies especially on water is vast and long.
The number of people who obstinately continue to excuse Israel for any these behaviours or who willfully disregard mountains of evidence grows smaller every day. But it is still pretty large in some parts of the world. People who don't like their myths challenged often are antagonized when they can't shut down the challenge.

ray

Personally, I'd like to see the Israelis do better on the West Bank since they have that cap
. ability. It's not going to lead to peace, but at least many of us would feel better

.

They have the resouces and the "sophistication" to help Palestinains farmers become as successful as Israel settlers farms. If they did that, and the water polciies were truly cooperative .... it would indeed be a beginning

To do better, they first have to realize how what they are currently doing does to reinforce hatred.
If there were fewer apologists for their policies that might happen sooner.

freeman3

Don't overstate my cite of Selby. I have no real idea of how good a study it is

But the Israelis report was unassailable? At any rate, if you cite it, you give credence to its conclusions....
It why I wouldn't engage on the IWF stats. They are not verifiable by aneutral souce. And do not reflect the physical reports of water use by so many sources..

Yeah, lawyers tend to be a little fussy about facts and evidence

Lawyers are used to all kinds of evidence. In this discusion you want to stick only to evidence that is statistical and you've not admitted into your consideration, witness testimony, or expert reports or opinions. (In the form of the World Bank, Amnesty International and others). So I don't think your mind is really that open.

The case against Israel is really being fought in the court of world opinion. I think that Ray and you represent the kind of opinion that is still prevalent in the US. It was my opinion, for many years, till I was exposed to differing views from abroad...
The view from within Palestine that has enraged the Argentines, the Dutch and others is increasingly becoming representative of world opinion out side of Israel and the US.
I really don't know if this matters in the end... If Israel were as isolated as South Africa became before the end of the 80's perhaps they would be forced to be more accomodating towards Palestine in their policies However, the Israel/Palestine issue isn't occuring within a vacuum the way apartheid in South Africa was....
The clash between extreme Islamists and the rest of the world that is now occuring in Syria and Iraq, is probably very bad for Palestines' aspirations in this case...
Israels' PM was pumping up the evil factor in the UN the other day.....and I think it works to his advantage as he delays any progress on a 2 state solution while the incremental gains on the West bank are solidified... (Which is why the water policy is what it is. An attempt to force Palestine to accept new settlements as permanent...)

One of the interesting claims in the Selby that population in the West Bank (exclusive of East Jerusalem) has increased from 1.386 million to 2.131 million from 1995-2010--an increase of 53.5 percent. That is quite a jump in population which brings to mind three questions : (1) is the 2010 population claim inaccurate per IDG?, (2) how, if the population growth was accurate, repressive could the Occupation be with a population growing so quickly (either new people are coming because they find it an attractive place to live, mortality rates are low, Palestinians are not attempting to control their birth rate even in face of ostensible lack of essential resources, etc)?, and (3) how could Israel be expected to project that kind of population growth in making sure Palestinians had access to adequate resources?

Ricky:

ray

Of course, Ricky's argument style is so poor that he has a way of antagonizing people and convincing them that his position is wrong, no matter what it is.

d.
The list or organizations who accuse israel of apartheid like policies especially on water is vast and long.
The number of people who obstinately continue to excuse Israel for any these behaviours or who willfully disregard mountains of evidence grows smaller every day. But it is still pretty large in some parts of the world. People who don't like their myths challenged often are antagonized when they can't shut down the challenge.

Case in point ... no one cares how long the list is ... there has been a long list of people who say vile things about Israel before it was created, and there will be a long list of people will continue to say vile things about Israel no matter what its policies ... hence the call for evidence ... you haven't provided "mountains of 'evidence' ... you've provided mountains of words and opinion, but actually very little "evidence" ... nor have you demonstrated the ability to deal in a constructive way with the evidence that others have provided.

freeman3 wrote:One of the interesting claims in the Selby that population in the West Bank (exclusive of East Jerusalem) has increased from 1.386 million to 2.131 million from 1995-2010--an increase of 53.5 percent. That is quite a jump in population which brings to mind three questions : (1) is the 2010 population claim inaccurate per IDG?, (2) how, if the population growth was accurate, repressive could the Occupation be with a population growing so quickly (either new people are coming because they find it an attractive place to live, mortality rates are low, Palestinians are not attempting to control their birth rate even in face of ostensible lack of essential resources, etc)?, and (3) how could Israel be expected to project that kind of population growth in making sure Palestinians had access to adequate resources?

Yes, all good points.

Ricky, the problem with witness opinion is that it may be biased and in any case anecdotal evidence can be manipulated to give an inaccurate picture. Expert conclusory statements can be biased as well. This issue in particular is fact-intensive so statistics are vital. And of course statistics can be manipulated as well and that is why you have to carefully examine the data to see what it means. The Selby study is the type of study that you should have cited directly , that is if you want to persuade people of your position. More facts , less loaded words.

Ricky:

If Israel were as isolated as South Africa became before the end of the 80's perhaps they would be forced to be more accomodating towards Palestine in their policies

I don't think isolation is the difference. I think it is about the reality that the Israelites have no where else to go. I also think you have to understand that Judaism as an older religion is very much tied to the land where it first began. (There is certainly a spiritual element of Judaism, but it is also about a place in a more concrete way than either Christianity or Islam. That place is "The Land of Israel" and also Jerusalem). Perhaps white South African were happy to take their money and go elsewhere. Or perhaps they were confident that they would be safe in South Africa.

Apartheid is a bad metaphor for the West Bank for many reasons. I think the better metaphor is occupation. Occupation is not healthy for either the occupied or the occupier. Throw in the fact that both people claim the same land, dysfunctional Arab governments, poor Palestinian leadership, Jewish experience pre-Israel, and the ambivalent attitude of the Israelis to the West Bank and you get the mess we have now.

But calls of Apartheid are counter-productive. T

freeman3

The Selby study is the type of study that you should have cited directly , that is if you want to persuade people of your position

http://redscape.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2672&start=420

I can't help it if you wanted to ignore this for so long.

freeman3

Ricky, the problem with witness opinion is that it may be biased and in any case anecdotal evidence can be manipulated to give an inaccurate picture.

Thats true. But if dozens of witness tell essentially the same story, and if many investigators hear the same types of testimony repeatedly, then perhaps the testimony is accurate and straight forward.
Why, would investigators from seperate organizations like UNICEF, The world Bank, Amnesty International all report fairly consistent findings ...Are they all biased and/or being manipulated by the Palestinians ...

ray

Apartheid is a bad metaphor for the West Bank for many reasons. I think the better metaphor is occupation. Occupation is not healthy for either the occupied or the occupier. Throw in the fact that both people claim the same land, dysfunctional Arab governments, poor Palestinian leadership, Jewish experience pre-Israel, and the ambivalent attitude of the Israelis to the West Bank and you get the mess we have now.

But calls of Apartheid are counter-productive.

Desmond Tutu disagrees with you. He oughta know what Apartheid looks like...
And although Israel is an occupier, it was after years of occupation that they created the security fences, the fortified Israelis settlements and the asymmetrical use of resources . They have seperated themselves, as much as possible from the Palestinian. That is the definition of apartheid.
It is an uncomfortable metaphor. It should be uncomfortable.
And if it is accepted and is taken up by a larger portion of the world community every year, as demonstrated with the recent Argentine decision to divorce from Mekorot, then from a Palestinian position ... it is productive.
The eventual dissolution of apartheid in South Africa proves it can be productive to press governments on a moral question until they take concrete economic and political steps that force change.

I still don't see where you linked directly to Selby. You certainly did not discuss table 8.

Haaretz obtains full document of EU-proposed sanctions against Israel
Sanctions could apply to Israeli politicians opposed to the two-state solution, which could include Bennett and Rivlin; steps against European companies working in settlements; punitive measures against Palestinians over 'negative measures.'

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... m-1.626946

An interesting development.
Economic sanctions and isolation have worked before. South Africa particularly. Seem to be working against Russia (re Ukraine).
Will they move Israel ?

rickyp wrote:

Haaretz obtains full document of EU-proposed sanctions against Israel
Sanctions could apply to Israeli politicians opposed to the two-state solution, which could include Bennett and Rivlin; steps against European companies working in settlements; punitive measures against Palestinians over 'negative measures.'

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... m-1.626946

An interesting development.
Economic sanctions and isolation have worked before. South Africa particularly. Seem to be working against Russia (re Ukraine).
Will they move Israel ?

I think they may encourage Israel to soften its stance and pay more attention to the optics, but I don't think they can address any of the fundamental issues, which in my mind is that the 2 state solution continues to be less possible because reconciling Israeli security with Palestinian sovereignty appears to be too hard. (Now begin arguments that we have already had before.)