More unregulated border crossings between Egypt and Gaza today…
Why shouldn’t Egypt, a sovereign nation, do what it chooses to along its border with Gaza where, on the other side of the line, the ruling authority (the PA) is likewise not constrained at all by any completed contractual agreement with Israel on these matters?
(Israel, we should note, having chosen not to negotiate the modalities of its withdrawal from Gaza with the PA.)
Egypt does have obligations under its 1979 peace treaty with Israel not to deploy certain forms of armed forces anywhere in eastern Sinai. But so far as I know it is under no contractual obligation whatsoever to prevent the free movement of persons or goods between Egyptian Sinai and Gaza.
Of course, Egypt was negotiating all kinds of things with Israel about the nature of the crossing-point between Sinai and Gaza. (EU monitors, etc.) But the Israelis wouldn’t ever sign off on a final agreement for that.
Interesting days ahead, inside Cairo, if Mubarak’s government now tries to do Israel’s bidding along that border?
Between 1948 and 1967– with the interruption of Israel’s aggressive but thankfully shortlived occupation of Gaza in 1956– Egypt was the dominant power in Gaza. The Nasser regime maintained there the same kind of tight “national-security state” it maintained throughout Egypt itself… In Gaza as in Egyptian Sinai, the main concern of Nasser’s regime was to prevent any unctrolled escalations (on the behalf of the Palestinians or the Muslim Brotherhood or whomever) that might drag Egypt into a military battle with Israel.
But for much of the time Egypt was the hegemon in Gaza, the economic situation there was relatively good. (At least, many Gazans remember it that way.) The Nasserists allowed the emergence of a Free Port area there which gave the Gazans many more economic options than most Egyptians had at the time.
One could surmise that the present-day calculations of the Egyptian security apparatus with regard to Gaza would be about the same as those of the Nasserists. But with these non-trivial differences:
- (1) “People power”, in terms of an organized, community-based mass movement, is probably much better developed today among at least the Islamists in Gaza than it was in the Nasser era, which gives Gazans much more resilience than they had back then; and
(2) It looks much more problematic for Israel to “threaten” a punitive military attack against Egypt now than it did back in Nasser’s day… Especially because (a) there is no hint at all today of Egypt or anyone else mounting a military attack against Israel that could serve as a “pretext” for any large, justified Israeli military strike, and (b) Israel’s big ally and shield, the US, must surely be aware of the effect to be expected for the far-flung and very vulnerable US military deployments throughout the Middle East of any big new Israeli military escalation…
So, interesting days ahead. Maybe I made a wise choice to go to this year’s conference of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, due to start later this week in Geneva: one of the main featured topics there will indeed be… the Middle East. Lots to talk about.
Of course, Egypt was negotiating all kinds of things with Israel about the nature of the crossing-point between Sinai and Gaza. (EU monitors, etc.) But the Israelis wouldn’t ever sign off on a final agreement for that.
First of all, the negotiations aren’t in the past tense – Egypt, Wolfensohn and (reportedly) the UK are continuing to coordinate bilateral negotiations over the border crossing. The fact that a final deal hasn’t been reached yet doesn’t mean that one isn’t in the works.
Second of all, the Israelis aren’t the only ones holding up a deal – they’ve already accepted an Egyptian proposal in principle, but that proposal was unacceptable to the PA. With that said, the two sides seem to be converging on something mutually satisfactory – there’s been a lot of progress in the past few weeks – so why should Egypt institute a unilateral policy change? There’s time for that if talks break down.
And third of all, given that the proposal accepted in principle by the Israeli government is an Egyptian proposal, this will no doubt form a baseline for Egyptian security policy. After all, Egypt has security interests of its own in Gaza, particularly with respect to Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood connections.
It looks much more problematic for Israel to “threaten” a punitive military attack against Egypt now than it did back in Nasser’s day
Why would Israel want to threaten such an attack? Whatever may be said of the current Israeli government, it isn’t insane. Not to mention that it needs Egyptian mediation pretty badly.
You’re right that there was some recent news of a possible Egypt-Israel agreement over the crossing between Gaza and Sina… But of course those two parties are not the competent parties to complete such an agreement. (Which is, after all, what most of the contest is about right now.)
That possible agreement was presented (by, I think, Israeli sources?) as an “Egyptian” proposal. I haven’t seen any confirmation that the Egyptians had in fact “signed off” on it, far less that they had originated it. Plus of course they know that the PA, as the other competent party on matters concerning a crossing between Egypt and Gaza, would have to be a full party to any such agreement.
My strong impression is that the jubilation and mixing of peoples at the border over the past two days have probably already shifted the politics on this question in both the Egyptian and Palestinian bodies politic…. Which is why Sharon would have done far better to have negotiated a completely orderly handover of power, including of control over the Rafah border crossing, with the most relevant party– i.e. the PA– before pulling the troops out, rather than leaving so many loose ends.
He seems to want to both have his cake and eat it? That is, to claim that Israel’s status as the “occupier” of Gaza has now ended, while still retaining control over all of Gaza’s access to the outside world.
You’re also right that– from most perspectives– Israel would be insane to threaten a military attack against Egypt. (Or, come to that, these days, any repeat of the assaults of April 2002 against the Palestinians.) But so much of Israel’s negotiating power up until now has been based on “the credibility of of its military deterrent” that we can’t rule out the possibility of the powers-that-be there just continuing in their 57-year habit of trying to carry on using it now. Also, Sharon hasn’t really shown himself very capable of using the only other major way to deal with his neighbors: respectful, good-faith negotiations that recognize common interests and result in commitments to reciprocal–as opposed to completely one-sided– obligations.
But of course those two parties are not the competent parties to complete such an agreement.
Obviously any final agreement would have to involve Egypt, Israel and the PA.
I haven’t seen any confirmation that the Egyptians had in fact “signed off” on it, far less that they had originated it.
Hmmm, I’ll have to check on that. I certainly haven’t seen any denials from Egypt, though, and Omar Suleiman has been very active in the negotiations.
My strong impression is that the jubilation and mixing of peoples at the border over the past two days have probably already shifted the politics on this question in both the Egyptian and Palestinian bodies politic….
I’m not so sure. The border has always been crucial to the Palestinian side, and, well, popular politics don’t matter all that much in Egypt notwithstanding this year’s grass-roots opening. The Egyptian policy will be dictated by the position of the government, which favors open borders subject to Egyptian security concerns (which aren’t necessarily congruent with those of the PA).
[Sharon] seems to want to both have his cake and eat it? That is, to claim that Israel’s status as the “occupier” of Gaza has now ended, while still retaining control over all of Gaza’s access to the outside world.
Actually, I think he realizes he can’t have it both ways no matter what he wants. At this point, the Israeli government realizes that it won’t get international recognition of “the end of the Gaza occupation” until there’s a final deal on the Rafah crossing. I suspect that’s at the root of much of Israel’s recent flexibility on this issue. The parties aren’t at the point of agreement yet, but if you ompare Israel’s position on the Rafah crossing now to its position two or three months ago, there’s a big difference.
But so much of Israel’s negotiating power up until now has been based on “the credibility of of its military deterrent” that we can’t rule out the possibility of the powers-that-be there just continuing in their 57-year habit of trying to carry on using it now.
That’s, um, just a little bit simplistic, isn’t it? Some examples of non-military-based Israeli actions: the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, the Taba arbitration of 1988, Oslo, the failed final-status negotiations of 2000-01. Even the unilateralism of the Gaza withdrawal masks a good deal of bilateral coordination, both with respect to the Wolfensohn-brokered talks over transitional arrangements and the pullout itself. The level of coordination left a lot to be desired, certainly, but the lack of major violence during the evacuation wasn’t coincidental.
In any event, I can’t think of any Israeli interest, however momentary, that would be advanced by an attack (or even a threat) against Egypt. The Egyptian government is Israel’s back channel to Hamas, the Israeli-Egyptian detente is smoothing Israel’s diplomacy with many other Arab governments, Egypt is becoming a partner in border security and combating traffic in drugs and human beings… The Israeli government would have to be totally out of its senses to compromise that, and I don’t think that describes the people currently in charge.
Also, Sharon hasn’t really shown himself very capable of using the only other major way to deal with his neighbors: respectful, good-faith negotiations that recognize common interests and result in commitments to reciprocal–as opposed to completely one-sided– obligations.
I’d say that the recent agreement with Egypt over the deployment of troops along the Gaza border is an example of exactly such negotiation. The terms of that agreement weren’t one-sided and weren’t dictated unilaterally by Israel.
Jonathan brought out all the relevant points. There is one additional point, however, the Government of Israel approved the agreement with Egypt and the Knesset, in special session, did the same prior to the pullout.
Also, I find it interesting that no one mentions here that, during their “humanitarian” gesture the other day, the Egyptian border police killed one Palestinian and severely wounded another. Further, the Egyptians informed both Israel and the PA yesterday that they intended to start acting to control the border crossings by the end of this week.
Jonathan,
I must compliment you on how well stated that last post was.
There is one other issued that needs to be considered here, and that is the PA interest in any interim border crossing agreement. Reports here (in Israel) are that the PA has repeatedly requested that Israel maintain customs responsibilities for goods crossing the border (i.e. duties and VAT collection), as that is an expense and a matter of organization that they are not ready to take up themselves, although they sorely need the revenues.
Passive voice, JES: “Reports here in Israel are that the PA &c…”
It looks a lot like disinformation to me.
Since when has VAT been collected at borders?
If the PA is going to get revenue, it can afford the expense of collection. Or are the Israelis kindly offering to do the collection for free? Or are you really saying that the white Israelis can handle money but the black Palestinians can’t?
Dominic,
Funny how everything you don’t like to hear is “disinformation”. (Remember the Army Corps of Engineers contractors who were “shot by police”?) Ever occur to you that perhaps some of what the Palestinians are saying to the press is “disinformation”?
VAT (one of the few things that Karl Marx gave us that remains today), contrary to what you state is regularly collected at borders in place of, or in addition to duties and tarrifs.
Apparently the PA cannot afford to do the collection efficiently itself yet, just as it cannot, apparently, control its own people looting national assets such as the hot houses in Gush Katif. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have requested that Israel continue doing it for them.
Of course non-Jews, including Muslims have historically never objected much to Jews collecting taxes for them.
BTW, most Israelis appear to be as “black” as most Palestinians.
A hit, a palpable hit!
VAT is collected by a vendor when a sale is made, and netted off periodically against the VAT paid to suppliers of the vendors inputs. The vendor pays or receives the balance directly to or from the government.
VAT only arises at a port or border in the same way as everywhere else.
Do you know something new about the contractors who were shot in New Orleans? If so, let’s have it. Or are you just busking it again? Of course you are.
You are becoming too obvious, JES.
Pape’s survey reveals that there is nothing intrinsically “Islamic” about the suicide bomber. By his estimate, Islamist groups account for no more than 34.6 percent of the suicide terrorist attacks staged in the past twenty years.”
“A review of the records and accounts of over 180 Palestinian suicide bombers confirmed that close to half of them
VAT is also paid by an importer at the point of entry.
Re. the contractors, perhaps you’d trust a South African source , or this summary of the bogus report.
News24 is a good site. Only this report is dated September 5th. It is only one of the original reports and it is highly ambiguous. We are now at the 14th. Why can you not give me names? Has anybody been charged? Are there any eye-witnesses? What do they say? Have any of the contractors been interviewed? What do they say?
It stinks, to be honest. It’s what they call “hang-out”, I think. Stick out a story that makes somebody look bad. When asked for further details, refer people back to versions of the original report. It’s like kiting cheques. I wish you would stop doing it, JES. It’s a drag and it dirties this good site.
Dominic,
You don’t have to be shrill.
I think if you look back, you’ll find that it was you who “kited” this story in the first place, not me. I would say that you might want to provide some substantiation that what was initially reported on September 4 by The Australian was true and not what was later published (in several instances, including on CNN, as a correction) on September 5.
But, anyway, I’ll stop “dirtying” this site (RMAOL).
Some examples of non-military-based Israeli actions
BTW, I didn’t mean to suggest by this that Israel has never used the military as an instrument of diplomatic policy. Obviously Israel has pursued a belligerent policy toward its neighbors at times (as most of the neighbors sometimes have toward Israel). I simply don’t think that Israel’s attitude toward its neighbors is any more one-dimensional than said neighbors’ attitude toward it.
Jonathan, I think you’ll agree that you have very effectively validated my point #2 in my main post; and maybe agree that my point #1 there also has considerable validity?
Re the “customs envelope” issue, the CE has been the device whereby, since Oslo, Israel and the OPTs agreed to share in a single seamless “customs union” with the revenues from that divided proportionally. This might seem fair and equitable EXCEPT that Israel has all along cited security concerns (some quite rational, others not) to require extremely intrusive, time-consuming, and above all unpredictable inspections of Palestinian goods “crossing” into Israel. Also of Palestinian goods “crossing” between one fenced in concerntation area in the West Bank to another, or between the WEB and Gaza. Israel has thus in practice totally dominated the bilateral trade, allowing it also to dump Israeli goods quite mercilessly into the Palestinian market. In addition, through its assigned role as the “collector” of revenues on behalf of both itself and the PA, it maintained unilateral control over the whole system… and indeed has used the withholding of revenues that everyone agrees are in fact the PA’s revenues as brutal political leverage against the PA.
I always thought the Palestinian negotiators at Oslo negotiated a really bum deal for their people… But it alleviated the conflict for a while– and Oslo was only ever meant to be a transitional deal, so glaring inequities like the terms of the customs envelope or the non-removal under its terms of any Israeli settlements were seen as minor matters that cd be lived with for that short transitional period.
Now, with the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a new chapter is evidently opening. Some in the PA still see the customs envelope with Israel as a good way forward– allowing “free” access to the Israeli market and thru it to the US and other states that give Israel extremely preferential terms of trade.
Other Palestinians point out that Israel is likely to continue to try to unilaterally control the customs envelope as has happened for the past 11 years, and especially to impose the unpredictable searches and border closures that very frequently in the past have left Palestinian produce rotting in the sun at the border points, and made longterm export planning quite impossible. These Palestinians argue that securing Palestinian economic access to the outside world directly (thru the airport and seaport) and through the land border with Egypt would be a better way to go, and to heck with the highly abused customs envelope relationship with Israel.
The issue is complicated by the general Palestinian support for the concept of “the territorial integrity of the entire OPT area”– i.e. the West Bank as well as Gaza. For now, the West Bank remains trapped under Israeli occupation and inside the israeli-controlled customs envelope. If Gaza moves toward a different trade strategy, that could perhaps leave the West Bankers high and dry?
So these are not easy issues for the Palestinians to resolve. If the Sharon government had engaged in a good-faith negotiation over the terms of the handover of Gaza to the PA, I imagine Palestinian sentiment for staying in the customs envelope might have been stronger.
But really, I don’t think these kinds of issues can be resolved until after the January PLC elections, when a new parliament and government that more accurately represent the will of that portion of the Palestinian people who are resident in the OPTs– and that are also more accountable to them than the present ones– should hopefully emerge.
Israel has all along cited security concerns (some quite rational, others not) to require extremely intrusive, time-consuming, and above all unpredictable inspections of Palestinian goods “crossing” into Israel.
I think that it is important to remember that, in March 2004, two “militants” were sent jointly by Fatah and Hamas in a container to Ashdod Port. 10 were killed in the attack and it is believed that their ultimate target was to blow up bromide tanks which could have resulted in scores of civilian casualties.
The questions are:(1)Where does one draw the line between what you term “rational” and irrational security concerns in light of this type of attack and (2) How are “intrusive, time-consuming, and …unpredictable inspections” to be avoided if we are to prevent a reoccurance of this type of team of armed “militants” managing to get through the border crossings.
At any rate, I think that we will all be better off when the Palestinians have a port and access to Egypt and Jordan, and when getting goods out to other markets and developing a viable economy will be a Palestinian, not and Israeli, problem.
JES, now that you’ve learnt about irony, why don’t you ask Helena about the “passive voice”?
You see, once people know what it is, phrases like “it is believed that” jump off the page like barking watchdogs.
Plenty of people understand this thing and to them you just look silly when you use the passive voice.
One way to avoid it is to draft your stuff in MS-Word. The grammar checker will warn you each time the passive voice creeps into your prose, until you stop doing it.
Wow, Helena is not content with insulting Jews who had to leave their homes, mocking the reburial of Jews, and making excuses for the disgraceful treatment of the former synagogues in Gaza. She now has to write a completely revisionist history of the brutal Egyptian occupation of Gaza.
First, Helena tries to say that Egypt ruled with an iron fist, but no differently than it did elsewhere, and only then because it was worried about “Israeli aggression.” Really? Than why didn’t Egypt offer Gazans citizenship, especially since Nasser had for years been preaching pan-Arab solidarity? At the very least, would he allow Gazans to travel into Egypt to find work? Of course not. Gazans were completely neglected at best, and actively discriminatd against at worst.
As for Nasser’s concerns with Israeli aggression, if he didn’t want Israel to attack, he should not have twice cut off Israel’s right of maritme passage and regularly threatened destruction of Israel. If he didn’t want war, he didn’t have to oppress the Gazans, he simply didn’t have to provoke it. Better yet, he could have done what Sadat did! See, Helena, peace with Israel really isn’t that difficult if you are serious about it!
As for the economic situation, although Egypt did allow shipping into the port, those benefits did not inure to the average Palestinian. After 1967, Israel did not allow a free port for obvious security reasons. Nevertheless, contrary to the claims of “economic warfare” that we regularly hear from Israel haters, the economic situation improved for the average Gazan. The Israeli government made improvements in infrastructure, health care, and education in the occupied territories (perhaps more in the West Bank, but still some in Gaza as well).
In addition, the presence of those evil “colonists” the settlers provided business for Palestinian merchants. This led to the development of the middle class in Gaza (which Dominic presumably hates, because they are petty bourgeoise).
The situation deteriorated, but not because of the occupation. More accurately, the intifada led to more closures, checkpoints, and and complete chilling of relations between Israelis and Palestinians (particularly the “colonists”).
Helena, if you disagree, that’s fine. But I would ask that you refrain from your typical “You are obviously uninformed and beholden to Israeli hasbara agit-prop” response to anyone that does not toe the Palestinian line.
On the other hand, if you can show me statistics such as: per capita income, unemployment, infant mortality, literacy, access to education (primary and higher) that were superior pre-1967 before those evil Israelis took over Gaza, I would reconsider. Your “at least many Gazans remember” just doesn’t cut it.
Your attempts to blame Israel are bad enough, but to apologize for the brutal treatment of the Egyptians shows that you are not at all pro-Palestinian, but just filled with hate and spite towards Israel.
Finally, I am curious as to your characterization of the Islamist support as “people power.” This is sort of like saying that the Ku Klux Klan enjoys “grass roots support.” The Islamists may be able to sway people with their racist incitement, but it is in no way admirable or conducive toward peace.
Joshua, we don’t hate the petty bourgeoisie, so you can stop worrying about that.
But settler colonists are not alright! Settler colonialism is definitely a no-no, Joshua!
Let all settler colonies be revolutionised! Roll on the day when they are all finally gone! Good luck and congratulations to the brave people of Gaza! And long live the heroic memory of Gamal Abdel Nasser!
“But settler colonists are not alright! Settler colonialism is definitely a no-no, Joshua!”
The characterization of Israelis in Gaza as “colonists” is highly inappropriate. Colonists implies that they are somehow foreign or alien to the land. It conjures up images of, say, Germans in Cameroon. Or yourself in South Africa.
The Israeli presence in Gaza was much different. The Jewish people had a clear and undisputable historic tie to the land. It is true that such a claim was a competing one with the Palestinians, and I happen to believe that they had to give way to the Palestinians.
But no one can seriously contest that Jews have strong historic, indeed indigenous, claims to that land. As such, calling them “colonists” is grossly offensive. It is base demonization, denying their history, and indeed, their personhood. It is an incredibly low form of bigotry.
The “colonist” slur is usually made by white Europeans who are trying to project their own sins on to the Israelis in order to make themselves feel better. It is an entirely inaccurate description of the Jewish presence in Gaza, the West Bank, or any other part of the Jewish historic homeland.
As for Nasser, he didn’t drive any colonists out of anywhere. Because of his hatred, his greed, and his (fortunate) incompetance, his actions resulted in bringing Jews temporarily into Gaza.
But in the bizzaro world that is the sanctimoniously named “justworldnews”, people like Nasser, rather than Sadat, receive praise.
Joshua:
The Zionist movement is colonial in terms of its ideology and practices. One has only to look at the early writings of pioneers of this movement.
Calling this fact bigotry does not change it in the least.
The colonialist practice is continued by stealing Palestinian land and refusing palestinian rights of those within 1948 borders, Gaza & West Bank and in exile.
For example the wall being built by Israel, is stealing more land causing major agonies for palestinians. Israel is on the wrong side of history. While borders are being opened, Israel is barracading itself with a wall.
Israel is for Jews only, only jews are allowed to migrate to Israel with major compensations. While palestinians refugees are denied returning to their homes. Actually palestinians will be denied return to their homes for any reason.
The atrocities against palestinians by Israel overshadow all the deconcecration of houses of worship. Once we rectify the human atrocities one can talk about the lesser but also important other forms of atrocities.
Hi Josh!
I’ve said it before and I’ll probably have to say it again. There is nothing stronger in a colony than the myth that holds it together. You believe in your colonial rights with a passion. Although you also recognise the rights of the Palestinians, too. I’m glad of that.
You think that you can compare Israelis to other white colonies with advantage. But strange as it may seem, for as long as they last, all colonists are like you! They believe with a passion that they have a mystical right. It is necessary that they believe this, because they may have to fight and take life and risk their own lives for it. And when they lose the belief in their colonial destiny, they have to give up the whole show. That’s what happens. I’ve seen it a few times, myself.
It makes absolutely no difference how you argue your attachment to the land. I know you are certain that your particular attachment to the land in question is unique in human history – just like every other colonist who ever was. I sympathise, but I can’t support your belief. I do welcome your recognition of the Palestinians, though. It’s like the dove that came to Noah. It’s a beautiful thing.
The jewish connection to Israel is not “mystical” it is historical fact. There is no need for “god gave it to us” although some Jews do believe that. There is no “white man’s destiny.” There is the simple belief that Jews are a people like any other people, and have a homeland like any other homeland. That is not a colonial myth in the least. It simply places Jews on par with everyone else.
In any event, I am not from Israel, and have no desire to live there. I do not personally have ties to Israel as an ancestral homeland, just as I do not have ties to Belarus as an ancestral homeland. I simply wish to see Israel given a fair shake, and for the Jews to be given a fair shake.
Ahmed, I agree that the barbaric sacking of the synagogues is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. Much more serious has been the suicide bombers who kill people in dance clubs, pizza parlors, or buses. Much more serious was the horrendous murder of Olympic athletes at Munich. Much more serious was the mufti of Jerusalem’s collaboration with Hitler. Much more serious were the Arab states naked and racist aggression which led to the occupation in the first place.
There are several more such atrocities, but I will not bother. Because for you, Helena, and your ilk, being Palestinian means never having to take responsibility for anything. It means that there is always some way, no matter how attenuated, that you can blame “the Zionists” for everything.
My, my Dominic, aren’t we the condescending fool!
Thank you for teaching me about the passive voice, although the offensive statement – “Reports here (in Israel) are that the PA has repeatedly requested…” – is not really passive voice, which would read: “It has been reported here (in Israel) that [something] has been repeatedly requested….” You see, shrill a**h**e, it is quite clear who (the PA) is doing the action (requesting).
BTW, Dominic, it also jumps off the page when one starts attacking the verbal presentation of another, indicating that the attacker probably does not have anything else to say in support of his position. But this discussion of grammar and rhetoric is all very OT.
Joshua,
Of course you are correct. There is really no comparison. Colonialism depends, by definition, on a metropolitan. That is not the case in terms of Israel or of the Zionist movement (in fact, it is quite the opposite).
I suppose that when Ahmed refers to the early writings of Zionists, he means that they used the term “colony”, which is kind of like insisting that someone is a socialist because they like attending social functions.
And, again I ask, why is it that no one dares point out the blatant, unsubstantiated propagandizing of Ahmed and Salah, or call Dominic to order on his meaningless platitudes?
Jonathan, I think you’ll agree that you have very effectively validated my point #2 in my main post; and maybe agree that my point #1 there also has considerable validity?
Yes, I’ll agree. I have no quarrel with the premise that an Israeli attack on Egypt would be more “problematic” now than in Nasser’s day; my only quarrel is with the implication that Israel would even consider attacking Egypt at this point. (In addition to the factors I cited previously, I don’t believe Israel has ever threatened military force against any country with which it had a peace treaty.) I think you’re also correct in point 1.
As for the customs envelope: that’s obviously the Palestinians’ “nuclear option.” If talks break down, they can always decide to take Gaza out of the customs envelope and control their own border with Egypt. The trouble is that this would leave Gaza and the WB under different customs regimes, piss off the European Union (which has been pushing heavily for maintenance of the envelope) and potentially prejudice final-status negotiations.
That’s ultimately a cost-benefit analysis that the Palestinians will have to make. But given your (justified) criticism of Israeli unilateralism, I don’t think that Palestinian or Egyptian unilateralism would be any better at this time. The issue of border control is under negotiation, the Israeli government seems willing to compromise and a unilateral move by Egypt or the PA won’t inspire confidence any more than unilateral Israeli measures. If the Israelis become totally unreasonable and talks break down, then there might be reason to consider unilateral withdrawal from the customs envelope, but why do so now?
Bless your heart, Joshua, you come up spouting all these propositions about Palestinian and Egyptian history with great “certitude” and indignation but without one iota of substantiation. (For which ingidnation is, in fact, no substitute.)
Just to state matters briefly here. I have studied the Palestinian issue professionally for more than 30 years now. I went into many of the historical issues discussed here in some depth in my 1984 book The Palestinian Liberation Organisation. It was published by Cambridge University Press; has been reprinted many times and translated into at least two other languages; has been taught in Tel Aviv University, Bir Zeit University, and any number of other fine universities; and is still in print.
I would therefore appreciate it if, in launching all your indignant challenges to what I write about Palestinian history, you would attempt to cite sources. I do not have to cite sources. My editors at CUP did their usual finegrained work of fact-checking for my book back in 1983-4, found it passed muster, and published it. So if you want to check my sources, go and buy my book and check them out there.
I am happy to have a reasoned discussion with you, based on evidence that you may adduce. But please don’t come back and load up my site with more bluff, bluster, indignation, and unsubstantiated attacks.
(A good study of the effects of Israel’s economic policy in Gaza is Sara Roy’s The Gaza Strip: the Political Economy of De-Development. Colonialism was ever thus at the economic level: a systematic attempt to subordinate the indigenous economy to that of the colonizers.)
Ah yes, “I am a professional, you are not, so I don’t have to substantiate anything.”
[Once again we see Joshua making a claim here that is unsubstantiated and indeed untrue. This is not even a vague paraphrase of what I wrote! Joshua then went on to make further unsubstantiated claims that I see no reason to give space to…. Joshua, try basing your arguments on evidence and accurate representations of fact. That will make for a much more productive discussion.]
“Colonialism depends, by definition, on a metropolitan.” – JES
Oh, no, it doesn’t.
What about South Africa?
As Joshua was pointing out, above, the Republic of South Africa was a colony, and I agree, it was (but is not any more, not since 1994).
We used to call it “colonialism of a special type”, where the colonising metropolis is right inside the colony itself.
Helena can’t refute the assertions. So she deletes them. How sad.
No Helena, I don’t keep all the UN development stats in my office. So if you want to claim that infant mortality didn’t decrease in Gaza, go ahead. If you want to claim that per capita income didn’t increase, go ahead. If you want to deny that Nasser twice closed of Israeli maritime passage, go ahead.
Because after all, you wrote a book that was fact checked 20 years ago. Congratulations.
Apropos all of the above, can anyone provide me with an answer to the following: if a Palestinian were to convert to Judaism would he have “the right to return”?
Puzzled: Good question. It’s one many of my palestinian friends have discussed. By and large, though, they like the religion they have and tend to regard the question of religious belief as a matter for strict, conscience-driven discernment (or if you like. “revelation) rather then, for example, something that could be driven by considerations of earthly gain…
And for some unfathomable reason they regard with some skepticism the claims that, say, some bunch of native-Peruvian Indians may make that they’ve suddenly all ‘converted” to Judaism and are thus entitled to all kinds of wonderful subsidized housing in lovely West Bank villas built on expropriated Palestinian land…
But still, you’re asking a good question
Joshua, sweetie, I didn’t make any claims either way about infant mortality stats, your status as an expert or non-expert, or any of the other ridiculous straw “men” you keep dragging into this conversation– with no attempt to substantiate your bizarre assertions. They are definitely leading nowhere.
“Wow”. You seem to have zero relationship with the world of reality. As I always told my own kids– a person can learn a lot more with her or his ears open than with her mouth open. You might practice that sometime? (Or, as I said, bring us some evidence for your tendentious and wholly unsubstantiated assertions.)
Btw, elementary math will indicate to you that 1984, the year I published that book, Israel was already 14 years into the occupation of Gaza; so the facts I was referring to there were entirely relevant to the subject you were trying to spout off about. What’s your problem with historical knowledge, anyway?
The jewish connection to Israel is not “mystical” it is historical fact.
But Christians and Muslims also hade the same connection to the same Holy land!!!! What
Oops bad math in my last comment… I meant 17 years into the occupation.. enjoying the new Virginia wine-bar here in town a little too much tonight, I guess… Bad helena.
Can’t we all just get along?
Ha ha ha ha ha! Just kidding.
Helena, Enjoy…..
“The jewish connection to Israel is not “mystical” it is historical fact.” – quoted by Salah from a previous poster.
There’s facts, and there’s how you look at the facts. There is the objective and the subjective.
Therefore the “Jewish connection Israel” is both factual and mystical, and as Salah correctly points out, the Musilim and Christian connection to the Holy Land is also both factual and subjective.
The facts do not create the mystique. People do that. They colonial mystique is the problem, not the facts.
Helena,
I went back and re-read Joshua’s posting (the one you didn’t summerily dispose of), and I don’t really see what your beef is. In fact, your reaction was what Dominic would call “ham-fisted”.
If you want statistics, here are some from Efriam Karsh (Arafat’s War, Grove Press 2003, pp. 44-45). (I trust that you’ll accept Karsh as an “expert”.)
By 1986, some 45% of the population was employed in industrial plants in the strip itself.
“During the 1970s, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest growing economy in the world….” and per capita GNP (the common measure of standard of living) for the occupied territories grew between 1968 to 1991 from $165 to $1,715 – which was over 60% greater than that of Jordan and nearly three times that of Egypt.
Now, here’s an interesting point. The infant mortality rate in 1968 in the West Bank and Gaza was 60 per 1,000 live births. What is telling here is that this rate was 50% higher than that in Nasser’s Egypt and three times as high as the infant mortality rate in Jordan, which speaks greatly on how much Nasser and the Hashemites cared for their brethern beyond rhetoric!
And it goes on:
Electricity: In 1967 roughlty 21% of the population had electricity round the clock. By 1986 nearly 93% did.
Running water: 16% of the homes in 1967 vs. 85%
All of these are clear indication of substantial neglect by the previous occupiers, as Joshua pointed out (and, substantial investment by Israel in infrastructure and health services).
As for Nasser’s personal incompetence, militarism and aggression, I suggest Michael B. Oren’s Six Days of War, Oxford University Press 2002.
The infant mortality rate in 1968 in the West Bank and Gaza was 60 per 1,000 live births. What is telling here is that this rate was 50% higher than that in Nasser’s Egypt and three times as high as the infant mortality rate in Jordan,
This is when some one use words to impress the reader.
The realty is how many Palestinians killed by Israelis? Also what is the death rate between the Palestinians due to the nuclear wastes and polluted water and resources from under the ground water; also if we add the destruction of Palestinians lands and farms, all this and we hear some one proud of all this difficulties and distraction of live of peoples on their land.
Salah,
How many Palestinians killed by Israelis? Lamentably too many, but far from enough to make any difference in the population statistics.
As to the death rate due to other things, including pollution, that’s hard to pin down exactly. What the statistics show, however, is that the life expectancy among Arabs in the Gaza strip is 71.59 years. That’s lower than Jordan (78.6 years) but higher than Egypt (70.71 years) and Syria (69.71 years). I wonder if they suffer from more pollution and nuclear waste than do Palestinians in Gaza (or Israelis within Israel who drink the same water)?
You might also be interested in the effects of poisoned water and the use of hormones in candy to make the men impotent and the women infertile. You should ask Madame Susu Arafat about that.
Finally, the best indicator is the overall population growth rate which is, in Gaza, an amazing 3.83% Compare that with Jordan (2.67%), Egypt (1.83%) and Lebanon (1.3%). This indicates that the population is growing at an astounding pace, which indicates a generally high birth rate and low death rate.
puzzled:
The short answer is: Yes, anyone who converts to Judaism, even if they are Palestinian, may immigrate to Israel under the “law of return.” As far as I know, this doesn’t happen very often, although I have heard anecdotes here and there.
One thing that should be clarified. “Converting to Judaism” is something of a misnomer. It is not simply a question of adopting a set of religious beliefs. It is more akin to becoming a member of a people, or a nation. As the original convert, Ruth, proclaimed “But Ruth said, “Do not ask me to abandon or forsake you! for wherever you go I will go, wherever you lodge I will lodge, your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Wherever you die I will die, and there be buried. May the LORD do so and so to me, and more besides, if aught but death separates me from you!”
As such, conversion is not simply a process of saying “I want to be a Jew” but is significantly more time consuming.
Helena alluded to a group of Peruvian Indians who were purportedly “suddenly” converted and sent to the West Bank. She indicates that her “palestinian friends” view the claim (made by who?) with “some skepticism.” They have a right to be skeptical, because this never happened.
http://www.kulanu.org/peru/peru.html
http://www.kulanu.org/peru/zap1.html
As the above demonstrates, there was a group of Peruvian Incas who had, for quite some time, expressed interest in conversion, and had been preparing under the tutelage of an Orthodox Rabbi for quite some time. Some, not all, of them did convert and made aliya.
The confusion stems from one article by a reporter who caught the tail end of the process, and portrayed this as a rabbi instantly converting a large group of people to inhabit a settlement. But it in fact did not happen that way. Unfortunately, for some people, the falsehood has overtaken the truth. I have heard the falsehood recycled over and over again, and the truth is rarely told.
JES:
I was wondering whether to bother to go and look for the statistics which I remembered but could not cite. Because Helena would either delete them or make some snide obnoxious remark. But you beat me to the punch. Thanks.
Helena: I am listening. Really. But your completely one sided accusation against Israel, combined with your whitewash of the brutal Egyptian occupation of Gaza, really makes it difficult to invite a “courteous” response.
Anyway, as I pointed out, and as JES has further demonstrated, Palestinian standards of living increased under several standard indicators since 1967, with reverses coming at the onset of the “intifadas.” This has to call into question your claim that “the economic situation was relatively good.” Perhaps there was some sort of freestanding Gazan economy, but if there was, it certainly cannot be said to have benefitted the average Palestinian.
Finally, comments such as “You seem to have zero relationship with the world of reality.” Don’t really seem to be “courteous” or “helpful,” although I concede they are “fresh” and “to the point.” I also appear to be in good company when I look at other people whom you have accused of not being part of your “reality based community.”
Thanks joshua and JES for your excellent comments!
And of course J. Edelstein, from whom we ALL have much to learn.
I noticed today that Sharon said of the unregulated border crossings: “I’m not surprised by the Palestinians’ conduct but I expected more of the Egyptians” (from Ha’aretz). Talk about condescending!
The idea of an open border or a regulated flow of goods and people across the Gaza/Israeli border is not stable and not prudent. Sooner or later some Gazan or Egyptian is going to smuggle across some weapons and use them. Then the border will be closed and there will be another “Middle East Crisis’. Better to shut the border for 50 years or so and let things cool down.
Helena — Your claims that the Israeli occupation impoverished the Gazans without reference to the Intifada is stunning in its one-sidedness. War has made both the Israelis and the Palestinians poorer. The reason that Israel is more prosperous than the Palestinian areas and the oil-less Arab states is culture, education, technology and so forth.