WI: Israel annexed settlements after Palestinian UN bid.



My guess is that those were considered luxury goods by the Defense Ministry, and were banned because Israel's goal was to economically weaken Gaza and deter Hamas from firing rockets, so it let in crucial food and medical supplies, while banning selected items to send a message. Still, food aid was allowed in, and there was no starvation epidemic. Y'know, this list is small peanuts when compared with the Iraq sanctions.

The blockade has since been heavily eased, so these things are probably allowed in now.
 
Lebanon in the 1980s might disagree with that. Israel goes apeshit all the time, it just targets Arabs the USA doesn't care about. I guarantee you those massive bombing raids targeting a US ally would get an entirely different reaction. I can't see Israel in the scenario you're setting up here withdrawing, instead soon they'll be proposing new settlements to gain further "strategic depth" and if they have to boot Palestinians out of more cities majority-Arab so what? Of course this Israel isn't the one of OTL, that's kind of the point of the ATL exercise. :rolleyes:

If Israel unilaterally disengages, it won't be building new settlements, since as far as its concerned, its borders will have been permanently set. And do you honsetly think Israel is going to boot the Palestinians out? You think the political leadership is crazy?

In the 1980s, Lebanese people greeted the IDF like heroes, since Lebanon had a huge Christian population (they were a majority back then, I think) that the PLO oppressed and often massacred. Those air raids were targeting militant positions, but as in Gaza, the militants there were deeply entrenched within civilian infrastructure. You think the Coalition deliberately targeted Iraqi and Afghan civilians? Yet look how many have died. Guerillas are always deep within the country's civilian infrastructure, so lots of innocent people often die during such wars. But Israeli troops provided assistance to civilians on the ground. Keep this in mind; the IDF would not have been greeted as liberators had it deliberately killed civilians.

In Israel's case, civilian casualties are even harder to avoid because its enemies often deliberately plant themselves in the civilian population, hoping that either this will deter Israel or that Israel's image will suffer when the world sees images of destroyed infrastructure and civilian casualties.

If Lebanon was a major US ally, the US would have broken off diplomatic relations long before Israel's invasion. The PLO, a known terrorist organization, was using it as a base to shell Northern Israel and strike Israeli interests worldwide (the shooting of Israeli ambassador to Britain Shlomo Argov was the last straw). Harboring a terrorist group is not something a US ally does.
 
Last edited:
So what happens if the Palestine Authority becomes the newest member of the UN and the General Assembly passes a resolution declaring some of or all of the settlements annexed by Israel to remain Palestinian territory?

And if the US goes along with this resolution?
 
My guess is that those were considered luxury goods by the Defense Ministry, and were banned because Israel's goal was to economically weaken Gaza and deter Hamas from firing rockets, so it let in crucial food and medical supplies, while banning selected items to send a message. Still, food aid was allowed in, and there was no starvation epidemic. Y'know, this list is small peanuts when compared with the Iraq sanctions.

The blockade has since been heavily eased, so these things are probably allowed in now.

I've bolded selected phrases to bring home to you the arbitrary hopelessness of your assertions. Surely, you realize that your post doesn't make a lick of sense.

First, you're asserting a position of ignorance. You 'guess' the intent and characterization, you assert that 'probably' these things are no longer covered. Prohibiting chocolate and mules is to 'deter' or 'send a message' or 'economically weaken', but which is it? You don't know. You're just guessing or speculating or desperately throwing something out there in hopes it will stick.

And in the end, you're unable to justify or explain at all, which leaves you floundering with 'not as bad as Iraq', and 'we've eased the blockade.' This is sad, sad, sad.

No offense, but at some point you just have to stop making excuses and fess up when something is simply atrocious. Otherwise, the rest of your argument is undermined.

If you don't understand and cannot justify the blockade, I would just say admit it, and make your stand somewhere else where you've got a snowball's chance of making a case. That, or go back and examine your premise, do the research and put forward a proper defense. It seems to me that your defense of the blockade is, at best, poorly thought out and reflexive. I don't think you've thought much about the blockade, or made any effort to assess it in any meaningful sense. Someone attacks the blockade, you defend it, but you're not actually putting anything in.

It seems to me that the Israeli/Palestine conflict is a difficult one, and one that requires consideration, reflection and nuanced assessment. I think that for better or worse, your approach to this issue seems to be 'my team yay! other team boo!' Fair enough as a starting point, you're entitled to pick your favourite. But its hard to take your argument seriously if you don't actually proceed from the starting point because all you've brought to the game is partisanship and wishful thinking.

I don't mean to be critical or to attack you. I just think you need to take the discussion more seriously.
 
Last edited:
I've bolded selected phrases to bring home to you the arbitrary hopelessness of your assertions. Surely, you realize that your post doesn't make a lick of sense.

First, you're asserting a position of ignorance. You 'guess' the intent and characterization, you assert that 'probably' these things are no longer covered. Prohibiting chocolate and mules is to 'deter' or 'send a message' or 'economically weaken', but which is it? You don't know. You're just guessing or speculating or desperately throwing something out there in hopes it will stick.

And in the end, you're unable to justify or explain at all, which leaves you floundering with 'not as bad as Iraq', and 'we've eased the blockade.' This is sad, sad, sad.

No offense, but at some point you just have to stop making excuses and fess up when something is simply atrocious. Otherwise, the rest of your argument is undermined.

If you don't understand and cannot justify the blockade, I would just say admit it, and make your stand somewhere else where you've got a snowball's chance of making a case.

Any one of the three is a credible assumption, maybe all three. I know that one goal was to economically pressure the territory through WikiLeaks. By economic pressure, you hopefully deter the Gazans from deliberately aggravating Israel, which results in no rockets. That at least was the theory.

What I meant about the Iraq sanctions was that that was an example of a real total embargo that hurts civilians, not the comparatively light blockade, which never resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead. The examples go on and on. For example, Britain starved 750,000 Germans to death with its WWI blockade. When comparing, you can see that the blockade was never intended to totally devastate the territory or starve its population. It was an attempt to force an end to the rockets, but in the end, only the Gaza War resulted in any real progress.
 
Last edited:
http://thekickinghorse.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/partial-list-of-banned-items-to-gaza-strip/

What fiendish acts of terrorism can someone do with these items?


  • sage
  • cardamom
  • coriander
  • ginger
  • jam
  • halva
  • vinegar
  • nutmeg
  • chocolate
  • fruit preserves
  • seeds and nuts
  • biscuits and sweets
  • potato chips
  • gas for soft drinks
  • dried fruit
  • fresh meats
  • horses
  • donkeys
  • goats
  • cattle
  • chicks
What are they going to do? Throw the donkeys at Israeli soldiers? How precisely does one make potato chips and chocolate into terrorist goods?

Goes to show you've never met a donkey before.

Having said that, I think that a lot of these items are clearly chosen out of spite, though rather than turn them against Hamas, it's turned them against Israel.
 
If Israel unilaterally disengages, it won't be building new settlements,

Why should anyone believe this? In particular, would the settler movement really abide by this? If the settler movement continues to settle or maintains its settlements, wouldn't the Israeli government be compelled to continue to defend them?

since as far as its concerned, its borders will have been permanently set.

Why should anyone believe this?


In the 1980s, Lebanese people greeted the IDF like heroes,

How exactly did the IDF manage to turn that into the hatred we know today?

since Lebanon had a huge Christian population (they were a majority back then, I think)

Wrong.

that the PLO oppressed and often massacred.

Perhaps you could go back and actually research the Lebanese civil war? I think that your view tends towards a somewhat inaccurate simplification.

Those air raids were targeting militant positions, but as in Gaza, the militants there were deeply entrenched within civilian infrastructure. You think the Coalition deliberately targeted Iraqi and Afghan civilians?

I'm sorry, but it feels like you've left a chunk of your argument out.

Yet look how many have died. Guerillas are always deep within the country's civilian infrastructure, so lots of innocent people often die during such wars. But Israeli troops provided assistance to civilians on the ground. Keep this in mind; the IDF would not have been greeted as liberators had it deliberately killed civilians.

Would you care to comment on the role of Israel in the Sabbra and Shattila massacres? Or the increasingly bitter resistance to Israel during its 18 year occupation?

In Israel's case, civilian casualties are even harder to avoid because its enemies often deliberately plant themselves in the civilian population, hoping that either this will deter Israel or that Israel's image will suffer when the world sees images of destroyed infrastructure and civilian casualties.

But doesn't that still create moral culpability? Israel does kill civilians. It does destroy civilian infrastucture. Is it really a sufficient answer to blame the other guy? At some point, doesn't Israel have to take responsibility?

If Lebanon was a major US ally, the US would have broken off diplomatic relations long before Israel's invasion.

Which invasion? 1982, or the more recent 2007?

The PLO, a known terrorist organization, was using it as a base to shell Northern Israel and strike Israeli interests worldwide (the shooting of Israeli ambassador to Britain Shlomo Argov was the last straw). Harboring a terrorist group is not something a US ally does.

1982 then? Did you support the Syrian invasion?
 
Any one of the three is a credible assumption, maybe ....

Again, you're floundering.

What I meant about the Iraq sanctions was that that was an example of a real total embargo that hurts civilians, not the comparatively light blockade, which never resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead. The examples go on and on. For example, Britain starved 750,000 Germans to death with its WWI blockade. When comparing, you can see that the blockade was never intended to totally devastate the territory or starve its population. It was an attempt to force an end to the rockets,

Again, there's this evasiveness. You're running away from the blockade now, and refusing to address the moral issue. Instead, you're flinging mud wherever you can, with the notion that the blockade won't look so bad if you can just claim that others are so much worse.

Surely you can appreciate the dishonesty and lack of credibility of such an approach.

but in the end, only the Gaza War resulted in any real progress.

So, Israel was trying to be nice with the blockade, but it took the whip to bring them around?

Look, I respect your reflexive loyalty and passion is a very nice thing. But really, there's no shame in going and doing some actual homework, or in wrestling honestly and directly with your issues.
 
Don't believe that Israel doesn't have any more territorial designs, but Israel doesn't want a huge Palestinian population as citizens, so it probably won't. It even planned just such a disengagement which was shelved due to the 2006 Lebanon War. (look up Realignment plan).

Lebanon was created as a Christian state, and if not a majority, Christians were a huge minority. I read a book by a former Lebanese Christian who saw what the PLO did to her people. I've seen archive footage of the IDF being greeted as liberators. It was the Syrians and Syrian-backed forces that mainly resisted.

What mainly drove Lebanese hostility was the Sabra and Shatila massacres. The IDF had let Phalangist troops into the camps to search for militants. One former Phalangist commander even admitted that the IDF ordered them to behave like a "proper army". Israel's generals really should have known better, but the Kahan Commission cleared them of any direct responsibility, though they said that there was Israeli indirect responsibility. Its not like they were out to deliberately kill everyone. But this increased not only Lebanese and Arab hostility, but also turned the Europeans. Up until then, many Europeans had had sympathy for Israel, but the anti-Israel movement really began to grow after this, along with false allegations of deliberate Israeli responsibility.

You asked whether Israel should take responsibility? It has. In the past, it has investigated and prosecuted soldiers suspection of violations against civilians, and the courts have heard cases of Palestinians demanding compensation.

I stand by what I said before; the blockade was a tool against both arms smuggling and an economic weapon. It was designed to make things harder, not to commit genocide or starve people. I still stand by my earlier comparisons. I am not "flinging mud", I'm simply stating that if Israel had wanted to starve people, the results would have been like Iraq or Germany, where tens or hundreds of thousands die. That never happened. As stated before, WikiLeaks says the blockade was an economic tool. It therefore makes sense to speculate that it was a form of deterrence against rockets or attacks (what other use could it have?), which of course never worked, so Israel pulled out the big guns.
 
Last edited:
If Israel unilaterally disengages, it won't be building new settlements, since as far as its concerned, its borders will have been permanently set. And do you honsetly think Israel is going to boot the Palestinians out? You think the political leadership is crazy?

In the 1980s, Lebanese people greeted the IDF like heroes, since Lebanon had a huge Christian population (they were a majority back then, I think) that the PLO oppressed and often massacred. Those air raids were targeting militant positions, but as in Gaza, the militants there were deeply entrenched within civilian infrastructure. You think the Coalition deliberately targeted Iraqi and Afghan civilians? Yet look how many have died. Guerillas are always deep within the country's civilian infrastructure, so lots of innocent people often die during such wars. But Israeli troops provided assistance to civilians on the ground. Keep this in mind; the IDF would not have been greeted as liberators had it deliberately killed civilians.

In Israel's case, civilian casualties are even harder to avoid because its enemies often deliberately plant themselves in the civilian population, hoping that either this will deter Israel or that Israel's image will suffer when the world sees images of destroyed infrastructure and civilian casualties.

If Lebanon was a major US ally, the US would have broken off diplomatic relations long before Israel's invasion. The PLO, a known terrorist organization, was using it as a base to shell Northern Israel and strike Israeli interests worldwide (the shooting of Israeli ambassador to Britain Shlomo Argov was the last straw). Harboring a terrorist group is not something a US ally does.

Er, that's so flawed I don't know where to begin. To start with, the Christians in Lebanon did not enthusiastically welcome Israel, rather they and the Muslims both were trying to stop Arafat trying to do unto Lebanon what he'd tried to do unto Jordan. They didn't mind in the least if he was fighting Israel. They did, however, mind if the PLO wanted to take over Lebanon. To put it another way nobody in Lebanon wanted either Israel or Syria in Lebanon, nobody in Lebanon wanted the PLO to take over Lebanon. If Arafat had found a means to adhere to his agreements and get the PLO to just shoot at Israel the Lebanese wouldn't have given a damn. It was his accelerating the disintegration of Lebanon's already fractured social order by attempting to co-opt South Lebanon that was the problem.

And I repeat-if this ATL Israel just declared settlements *including one that directly bisects the Palestinian National Authority* to all be Israeli territory, what's to stop this process repeating itself? Why will Palestinians believe Israeli statements about it? The problems of bad faith among Palestinians are irrelevant to what Israel's doing here. Sure, it can be argued Israel's in a Damned If They Do Damned If They Don't situation but this is no less a serious issue for Palestinians if they do than IOTL where they don't.
 
Don't believe that Israel doesn't have any more territorial designs,

So you believe that they don't have more territorial designs? Or you believe that they do have territorial designs?

Lebanon was created as a Christian state, and if not a majority, Christians were a huge minority. I read a book by a former Lebanese Christian who saw what the PLO did to her people. I've seen archive footage of the IDF being greeted as liberators. It was the Syrians and Syrian-backed forces that mainly resisted.

Perhaps you should spend some time reading more broadly about the Lebanese civil war?

I stand by what I said before; the blockade was a tool against both arms smuggling and an economic weapon.

Except that what you've said before amounts to a whole series of maybe's, and 'i guesses', and 'could be', and 'anyway, the other guys were much worse' and 'they really had it coming' without really anything to support you.

Tell you what. Why don't you take a few days off, read up intensively on the blockade and the lebanese civil war and consequent invasion, and not just one side, read everything, think about it for a few more days, and come back.

A bit of reading never hurt anyone, and I think you could stand to be exposed to different views.
 
Tell you what. Why don't you take a few days off, read up intensively on the blockade and the lebanese civil war and consequent invasion, and not just one side, read everything, think about it for a few more days, and come back.

A bit of reading never hurt anyone, and I think you could stand to be exposed to different views.

I've already read a lot. I've read views from both sides. But no matter how much criticism I read about the Gaza blockade, there is no starvation epidemic. I've also read about the Lebanese Civil War and the formation of Hezbollah, including the biographies of people who were actually there.

In any event, this is becoming ridiculous. We're supposed to be discussing what would have happened if the Knesset passed a bill formally annexing settlements into Israel, not squabbling over whose right or wrong in the whole Arab-Israeli conflict.
 
Don't believe that Israel doesn't have any more territorial designs, but Israel doesn't want a huge Palestinian population as citizens, so it probably won't. It even planned just such a disengagement which was shelved due to the 2006 Lebanon War. (look up Realignment plan).

Lebanon was created as a Christian state, and if not a majority, Christians were a huge minority. I read a book by a former Lebanese Christian who saw what the PLO did to her people. I've seen archive footage of the IDF being greeted as liberators. It was the Syrians and Syrian-backed forces that mainly resisted.

What mainly drove Lebanese hostility was the Sabra and Shatila massacres. The IDF had let Phalangist troops into the camps to search for militants. One former Phalangist commander even admitted that the IDF ordered them to behave like a "proper army". Israel's generals really should have known better, but the Kahan Commission cleared them of any direct responsibility, though they said that there was Israeli indirect responsibility. Its not like they were out to deliberately kill everyone. But this increased not only Lebanese and Arab hostility, but also turned the Europeans. Up until then, many Europeans had had sympathy for Israel, but the anti-Israel movement really began to grow after this, along with false allegations of deliberate Israeli responsibility.

You asked whether Israel should take responsibility? It has. In the past, it has investigated and prosecuted soldiers suspection of violations against civilians, and the courts have heard cases of Palestinians demanding compensation.

I stand by what I said before; the blockade was a tool against both arms smuggling and an economic weapon. It was designed to make things harder, not to commit genocide or starve people. I still stand by my earlier comparisons. I am not "flinging mud", I'm simply stating that if Israel had wanted to starve people, the results would have been like Iraq or Germany, where tens or hundreds of thousands die. That never happened. As stated before, WikiLeaks says the blockade was an economic tool. It therefore makes sense to speculate that it was a form of deterrence against rockets or attacks (what other use could it have?), which of course never worked, so Israel pulled out the big guns.

Lebanon was not created as a Christian state. It was created as a state that balanced Christian, Sunni, and Shia. The reason it never had a census after the 1930s is that this would have indicated a dwindling Christian population and with it a dwindling reason for a colonial-era political system.

Lebanese didn't give a damn about the PLO attacking Israel. Lebanese, after all, weren't any atypical of Arab states in this regard. They very much did give a damn about the PLO distorting the already-ongoing political issues to favor some groups of Muslims over others and further fracture the existing political system. If Arafat had just contented himself with attacks on Israel Lebanon wouldn't have even had eyes moist about it. However Arafat kept up the established pattern of attempting to take over those Arab countries that hosted his PLO and was willing to wage a bloody civil war and then to add to this fighting Syria as well to do this.

Don't overstate Lebanese sympathy for Israel. Not liking the PLO attempting a full-fledged takeover is a far cry from admiring Israel or even considering peace with it.
 
I've already read a lot. I've read views from both sides. But no matter how much criticism I read about the Gaza blockade, there is no starvation epidemic. I've also read about the Lebanese Civil War and the formation of Hezbollah, including the biographies of people who were actually there.

In any event, this is becoming ridiculous. We're supposed to be discussing what would have happened if the Knesset passed a bill formally annexing settlements into Israel, not squabbling over whose right or wrong in the whole Arab-Israeli conflict.

Unilateral annexation of settlements re-opens all these old cans of worms all over again. Technically speaking the Arab states have made it clear they no more want a free and independent Palestine than Israel itself does. Even so they never regret using Palestinians as a club to beat Israel over the head with.
 
Unilateral annexation of settlements re-opens all these old cans of worms all over again. Technically speaking the Arab states have made it clear they no more want a free and independent Palestine than Israel itself does. Even so they never regret using Palestinians as a club to beat Israel over the head with.

Why don't they? I truly don't know the answer to this. :p
 
I've already read a lot. I've read views from both sides. But no matter how much criticism I read about the Gaza blockade, there is no starvation epidemic. I've also read about the Lebanese Civil War and the formation of Hezbollah, including the biographies of people who were actually there.

I find that hard to believe. Your assertion that Lebanon was founded as a Christian state, and your clear ignorance of details of the blockade, as well as a number of assertions seems to contradict that. I cannot reconcile your claim to be knowledgable with the content of your posts. If you say you've read a lot, then I won't contradict you. However, I would suggest that your choice of reading has, if your posts are anything to go by, left your posts biased and poorly informed. I would really suggest revisiting your syllabus, and seeking out a diversity of views including giving actual consideration to opposing viewpoints.

I agree that the thread, as these threads always do, has moved well past your original stated purpose. But even there, I would point out to you that no one accepted your suggested thesis and most argued that it was varying degrees of implausible. Perhaps you should think about that.

The thing with Israel or Middle East Threads is that they're always going to be controversial and contentious, and people will come into this with strong opinions, and quite often with detailed knowledge of facts. If you don't know what you're talking about, you will be blown out of the water, and worse, it will make people inclined to reject or disrespect the opinions you actually are genuinely knowledgable about.
 
Last edited:
Why don't they? I truly don't know the answer to this. :p

Because they wanted to partition Palestine for various schemes that suited the interests of those states. Syria wanted Greater Syria, which leaves no room for Transjordan or Palestine, both. Transjordan didn't want the poorer half of the old British Mandate and would have wanted the Cisjordan part as well. Egypt, of course, had long-standing interests in controlling the Palestinian strip going all the way back to the Pharaonic era. For Palestinian nationalists of the Arafat school Arab states were just as much their enemies as the Israelis. This in fact is one reason why Arafat had the unenviable distinguishing feature of being the most hated man in the Middle East since perhaps Winston Churchill, who similarly alienated just about everybody not-from-Europe in the region.
 
Top