Can you say...

[Inkara1]

Tit for tat. Works for me.

I prefer the former... preferably a pair of the former.

 

[MrBishop]

Anyone else here curious as to why they choose UN schools to launch these rockets and mortars from? The answer is obvious.

A wide open, flat and paved area with little close tree cover, easily accessible by van (in which they transport the missiles) - not guarded by armed personnel who might try to interfere?

Just a wild guess.

 

[catocom]

how 'bout human shields?

 

[MrBishop]

how 'bout human shields?

The Gaza Strip has a very tight human density. 1.4 million people in a very small piece of land. You can't help but be surrounded by people.

 

[Cerise]

 

[catocom]

The Gaza Strip has a very tight human density. 1.4 million people in a very small piece of land. You can't help but be surrounded by people.

I don't buy that.

 

[MrBishop]

I don't buy that.

360 sq kms
1,400,000 people
3888/sq.km

That's roughly twice as densely populated as Manhattan. Higher by 30% than Signapore.

That's a really tight place.

 

[catocom]

so you're saying there can't be any kind of organization in dense areas?

I guess that's why the smart Palestinians are in the west bank huh?

 

[spike]

Bush is Olmerts little bitch according to the premier.

The Security Council resolution passed on Friday calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza was a source of embarrassment for US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who helped prepare it but ultimately was ordered to back down from voting for it and abstain, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday.


Rice did not end up voting for Resolution 1860, thanks to a phone conversation Olmert held with US President George Bush shortly before the vote, the prime minister told a meeting of local authority heads in Ashkelon as part of a visit to the South.

Upon receiving word that the US was planning to vote in favor of the resolution - viewed by Israel as impractical and failing to address its security concerns - Olmert demanded to get Bush on the phone, and refused to back down after being told that the president was delivering a lecture in Philadelphia. Bush interrupted his lecture to answer Olmert's call, the premier said.

America could not vote in favor of such a resolution, Olmert told Bush. Soon afterwards, Rice abstained when votes were counted at the UN.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231760642497&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

 

[Cerise]

Bush is Olmerts little bitch according to the premier.

*Waits for Condi's "Boooooosh" book to hit the shelves.*

C'mon. Do you really seriously think the President would side with terrorists?

You need to worry about whose side The Chosen One is on.

 

[jimpeel]

*Waits for Condi's "Boooooosh" book to hit the shelves.*

C'mon. Do you really seriously think the President would side with terrorists?

You need to worry about whose side The Chosen One is on.

Obama will definitely not be Olmert's bitch; but I have heard that he is highly attracted to 6'4" bearded Arabic men.

 

[spike]

Obama will definitely not be Olmert's bitch; but I have heard that he is highly attracted to 6'4" bearded Arabic men.

.

I thought that was you. The beard tickles your soul or something right?

 

[jimpeel]

.

I thought that was you. The ebard tickles your soul or something right?

Sorry, but I'm only 6'0" unlike Usama Bin Laden who is 6'4".

 

[MrBishop]

so you're saying there can't be any kind of organization in dense areas?

I guess that's why the smart Palestinians are in the west bank huh?

Nope...what I'm saying is that they aren't purposefully hiding behind pedestrians.... but there's no place that they can go where there aren't any pedestrians.... except school yards, and large parking lots like you'd find near hospitals and large malls.

 

[MrBishop]

1860 Wasn't all that good anyway. They'll re-write it to favor Israel more and then push it through.

 

[spike]

Sorry, but I'm only 6'0" unlike Usama Bin Laden who is 6'4".

Ah, so you're only attracted to bearded arabic men if they're shorter than you.

 

[MrBishop]

Okay.... back to the job at hand.

Hamas wants the borders re-opened and Israel to withdraw.
Israel wants Hamas de-throned and the rockets to stop flying

If Israel opens the borders, they give up their plan to overthrow Hamas through their trade embargo - while giving Hamas the aire of victory. They also potentially allow Hamas to re-arm. Not a good deal either way.

If they open the borders but demand stricker border security from Egypt (so food goes in but not weapons), they gain a measure of security, but give Hamas credit. Which they also don't want.

If they retreat but maintain the trade embargo, they risk an increase in rocket attacks, because it's the embargo that's fueling both Hamas' hatred and the support of Hamas by the general population.

If they don't retreat, they risk stray-fire restarting the war.

If they advance, they can try and decapitate Hamas and take over Gaza, but that means a long-term security presence by their troops in Gaza. Dangerous, to say the least.

If Hamas doesn't manage to re-open the borders, they risk being overthrown. If they don't repulse the Israli 'invaders', they risk the same. If they manage to do both, they retain power and get food etc to the Palestinian population.

It's one hell of a trade-off one way or the other.

 

[spike]

*Waits for Condi's "Boooooosh" book to hit the shelves.*

C'mon. Do you really seriously think the President would side with terrorists?

Condi's plan was was a cease fire, not choosing sides. I would hope that Bush wouldn't side with the terrorists on either side but obviously he's getting ordered about like a puppy by Olmert

You need to worry about whose side The Chosen One is on.

Yes, I am worried about your Chosen One being ordered about by Olmert like he just was. Luckily he's only in office for a few more days.

 

[spike]

One thing I think that's not discussed enough that I think is a mjor contributor to this conflict is water issues. After all it's no secret that valuable natural resources are the cause of many wars.

Oil, namely the vast reserves in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, is the cause of many of the broad geopolitical battles plaguing the Middle East. But it is access to water, a more fundamental resource, that is at the root of much of the bitter conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.


Case in point: The Palestinians say they rejected a recent peace proposal from Israel because, among other things, it didn't give them control of water resources within their territory. Granted, it's tough to figure out what's to blame for the unravelling of the Middle East peace process, not least because there are so many issues on the table. But when viewed through the lens of one of those issues -- access to water -- the Palestinians seem to have a point.


A young boy gets water from one of the trucks supplying villages.
Photo: B'Tselem.The land that Israel and Palestine share is desert or semi-arid, so the limited amount of water in the area must be carefully managed if everyone is to get enough to ensure a decent standard of living. International law states that most of the water sources in the area are international resources, and as such must be shared by Israelis and Palestinians according to the principle of equitable and reasonable use.

Unfortunately, equitable and reasonable are two words that cannot be used to describe the water situation in Israel and Palestine.

At present, Israelis receive five times as much water per person as Palestinians. In Gaza, the disparity is even more striking, with settlers getting seven times as much water as their Palestinian neighbors. Stated differently, on average, Israelis get 92.5 gallons per person per day, while Palestinians in the West Bank get 18.5 gallons per person per day. The minimum quantity of water recommended by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Health Organization for household and urban use alone is 26.4 gallons per person per day.



Yehezkel Lein from B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, explains the origins of this discrepancy succinctly: "Underlying Israel's water policy in the Occupied Territories was the desire to preserve the quantity of water it uses."


Lein says a variety of methods were used to achieve this. First, Israel formalized the unequal division of the shared groundwater that was established prior to the occupation: capping Palestinian consumption, banning the digging of new wells, and putting quotas on how much water could be extracted from existing wells. Then it set about exploiting new water resources it didn't control before the 1967 War, such as the Eastern Aquifer in the West Bank and the Gaza Aquifer. These new water resources primarily benefit the Israeli settlements that are still being established in those areas -- even though those settlements are illegal. (Under international law, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are defined as occupied territories and are therefore subject to the Geneva Conventions on the laws of war. The convention expressly prohibits moving people from the occupying county, i.e. Israel, into the occupied country, i.e. Palestine.)


Israel did hook some Palestinian towns into the water network -- although nearly 30 percent of Palestinian homes have yet to be connected -- but it did not provide appropriate maintenance work, with the result that, today, as much as half of the water meant to supply some Palestinian towns may be lost to leaking pipes, according to B'Tselem. The country also gave Israelis and settlers priority access to water: In the summer, when water is scare, the Israeli water company Mekorot shuts the valves of the main pipelines supplying Palestinian towns so that Israeli supplies remain unaffected.

The interim agreement of the Oslo peace process, signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 1995, mandated zero reduction in the amount of water Israel was allowed to extract from the West Bank aquifers. Any additional water that the Palestinians needed was to come from new sources, not from a redistribution of existing sources. Israel, however, was given a veto on any water project aimed at tapping new sources and, over the past six years, has used that veto to block or delay almost all proposed projects.


When tensions between the two sides run high, as they have since September 2000 when the current uprising against the occupation started, the Palestinian water crisis becomes more desperate, especially for those without a connection to the water network. The Israeli policy of closure -- whereby tanks and soldiers block entrances to Palestinian towns and villages, disrupting the normal flow of people and traffic -- makes it difficult and dangerous for villagers to go to nearby wells and for water tankers to get into villages.

Human rights organizations are unanimous in condemning these policies, pointing out that they violate fundamental tenants of human rights law (such as the right to good health and an adequate subsistence) as well as fundamental tenants of international law (such as the ban on using resources from occupied territory and the ban on distributing water in a discriminatory way).

Such organizations also point out that Israel's water policy heightens political resentment and, ultimately, makes reaching any peace agreement more difficult. No such agreement will be struck that does not entail a just resolution to the water issue.

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2002/02/26/blood/

 

[MrBishop]

Water - I'm sure that many news agencies forget about water-issues...though those affected don't have that leisure.