E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
A State Department spokesperson says that the U.S. "welcomes the general principles announced earlier today by the Israeli government," about easing the blockade of goods into Gaza.
"They reflect the type of changes we've been discussing with our Israeli friends and Senator Mitchell, who is in the region, will continue working on them in the coming days," Mark Toner, director of the State Department's press office, said today. "As these principles get further developed and implemented, we're hopeful that the situation in Gaza will improve. We want to see an expansion of the scope and types of goods allowed into Gaza to address the Palestinians' legitimate needs for sustained humanitarian assistance and regular access for reconstruction materials, while addressing Israel's legitimate security needs."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is meeting with Quartet Representative Tony Blair this afternoon, but the event is not open to press.
Leave a Comment:
I was thinking about this Gaza blockade the other day. It seems Israel wants to make sure no offensive weapons are brought in by Syria or others. Understandable, I guess. But, tell me: How would the U.S. have reacted if Syria or others tried to blockade OUR bringing in offensive weapons to Israel. INCLUDING nuclear! Repeatedly!
"Understandable, I guess..."
In lieu of a long history and geography lesson;
Perhaps if someone was firing Katyusha rockets into your neighborhood you would have a better understanding, or at least a better guess.
That is an easy one: The United states is not at war with Syria. People need to remember that "Palestine" was a creation of the British when they took over the region from the Ottomans after the First World War. The "Palestinians" in the West bank are Jordanians (another invention of the British), and those in Gaza are Egyptians. I don't see anyone clamoring for Jordan or Egypt to take back their citizens. The "Palestinian" cause predates the 1967 war, even prior to the annexation of Gaza and the West Bank by Israel. The Arabs want Israel gone; the palestinian's plight is simply a convenient excuse.
There has been a Jewish presence in Israel for 3500 years- the Muslims haven't been around for half that long. The Romans took Israel from the Jews; the Byzantines (Western Romans) inherited it; the Caliphate Arabs took it from them when they waged Jihad across the Middle East and Northern Africa in the 8th century); the Seljuk Turks, and then the Ottomans took it from them; and finally, the British took it after WWI, splitting the area into 2 parts- Palestine, and Transjordan, with Palestine further divided by the UN partition into the Jewish state of Israel, and the West Bank (which became part of Jordan, along with Transjordan.
The Arabs response to the partition, 20 years before the West Bank and Gaza were issues, was an attempt at annihilation of the Jewish state- and so far, 61 years later, only Egypt and Jordan, the 2 countries who lost the territory disputed by the Palestinians (only Syria gripes about the Golan), are the only ones who have normal diplomatic relations with Israel and recognize Israel's right to exist. Odd, no?
The land of Israel was and will always be that of the Jews; we don't see Israeli Jews who were thrown out of Iraq, Iran, Syria asking for their land, (right of return) homes, businesses, etc back (about 800,000 of them)- perhaps those countries should give the Jews former properties to the "palestinians", and call it square?
Some believe that the oppressed have become the oppressors' given the increased security at religious shrines. Can you blame them given the history of the region, the Churches treatment of them over the last five hundred years and their legitimate security concerns after seeing their loved ones blown up by suicide bombers. Context is everything hare since Israel is a small country and the loss of 30 people there is the equivalent to a 9-11 here. The fact is Christians would not have had any access to those shrines if they were under control of the Palestinians. Christians and Jews have only to look at desecration of your holy places throughout the muslim world for the answer to that question.
All that being said, I do believe that all settlement activity should cease and that any talks should be based on the Saudi Proposal.
The Husband
Actually, Palestinians are Palestinians
I challenge you:
If the UN said we had to give half our territory to a 'Native American' Homeland what would happen ? Would Americans willingly give up HALF their territory ?
Or would they FIGHT ? Why would Palestinians react any differently ? You call Palestine a 'creation', but so is Israel. The people who live on the land belong to the land
Again I ask you, if the UN asked Americans to give up half their territory for an 'Inidan Homeland' would the peacefully do it? You KNOW the answer If the UN asked ISraelis to give up 20% of their land for a peaceful solution, would they do it ? NO ! NEVER !!! You ask more of the Palestinians than you would of Americans or ?Israelis
It's called Ethnocentrism
Hey Torpedo,
You forgot to mention the Israelites acquired the land from the Canaanites. You also completely glossed over the crusades, where the western European Catholics continually waged war in an effort to acquire / re-acquire Jerusalem.
My only reason for pointing these two things out is consistency in facts. These two points help make the case that historical land grabs were quite common, usually at the point of a sword and no one's hands are completely clean in this regard. It also raises the quite useful point that Muslim nations might see the division of Israel and Palestine following WWII as a 4th crusade taking back the holy land since it is again the western European's and the judo christian nations that enacted the division.
However you look at it, the continued encroachment is pretty much the same way the west was won in the US. "Okay, we wont go passed this line." "Oh, some people settled over there and you are attacking them?" "Okay, we have to fight back now that you are attacking our people." "Oh, we had an agreement not to settle here?" "Yeah, but you still don't have any right to attack us." "How do you show your disapproval?" "I don't know, that's your problem."
That is how it seems to me. There is no right of the Palestinians to attack Israeli settlements, but at the same time those west bank settlements are in blatant disregard of agreements brokered in the past. It is an incredibly sticky situation and both sides have done plenty of wrong.
This ease of the blockade is a positive step in the right direction, but there is still tons more that needs to be done. And no, Israel will probably never be fully accepted among Muslim nations. I don't know why anyone with any understanding of history in the region would think it would. But civility and not wanting to eradicate are good goals. Full acceptance is for the birds, just focus on those two and we might just see some happier endings.
The UN? Why on earth should anyone listen to the UN. The UN is a worthless organization.
@MSierra: After reading the first few paragraphs of your response, i thought you were supporting Israel:
"If the UN said we had to give half our territory to a 'Native American' Homeland what would happen ? Would Americans willingly give up HALF their territory ?
Or would they FIGHT ? Why would Palestinians react any differently ? You call Palestine a 'creation', but so is Israel. The people who live on the land belong to the land"
I guess this exposes the fundamental difference in the two view points: In your analogy the US equates to the Palestinians and Israel to the Native Americans asking for half the US' land. Whereas when I read this selection my instinct is that Israel is more like the US and the Palestinians more like the Native Americans. Depending on one's persuasion on this issue either side could be analogous to either the US or Native Americans.
So cann the talk of ethnocentrism because I could just as easily ask you why the Israelis should give up half their land for a Palestinian homeland just because the International Community wants them too, or why the world expects Israel not to react to daily rocket attacks on its citizens. Just think about the way democracies work and ask yourself what democratically elected leader in the world could afford not to forcefully respond to an attack on its voters: its not good politics and its unrealistic to ask a democracy to act any different