Egyptian Journalist Describes 'Absolute Prosperity' in Gaza

[Marc39]

Israel rendered the greenhouses useless so the Palestinians used the equipment elsewhere.

so, the Gazans couldnt drill wells and get their own water?

I don't know. Maybe not. When the Jews owned them the water was piped in from outside that area.

Under international law, Israel is not required to "pipe in" water.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This greenhouse lie? USA Today: Gaza Greenhouses Looted...
USATODAY.com - Despite funds and protection, Gaza greenhouses looted

Israel rendered the greenhouses useless so the Palestinians used the equipment elsewhere.

I see so WND is now a viable source? humm as opposed to USA today?I am not sure I am there.

And that aside, unfairly so for you apparently, I happen to know for a fact that several greenhouses were denuded of water but there was NO systemic plan to rob them of such and that was perhaps 5% of those left behind in working order, some of course due to settler recalcitrance were not left behind whole.

....I explained the correlation to the post. so why bother to answer then?




anyway..


Again as I am new here I'd like to get to know the players.....let me ask you PF do you believe that the Israeli pull out of gaza was a laudatory event? did it mean anything? Was it a calculated event made to fit Israeli machinations down the road detrimental to PA interests? Was it an Israeli defeat? Or, say a sober move to attempt to create some room and prime the the atmosphere for earnest negotiation, etc....whats your particular take?

I was surprised that WND ran that report. Usually they shill for Israel.

I know that the security for those settlements exceeded their income. So when the Palestinians claim victory it is probably true. I know Israel did not move out of the goodness of their heart. Israel could better use its resources to steal the rest of Jerusalem as we are seeing them do now.

Israel does not care about negotiations. If Obama wants them, fine. They will go nowhere anyway. If Abbas pulls out, fine, Israel will continue to build illegal settlements anyway.

 

[Marc39]

Israel rendered the greenhouses useless so the Palestinians used the equipment elsewhere.

I see so WND is now a viable source? humm as opposed to USA today?I am not sure I am there.

And that aside, unfairly so for you apparently, I happen to know for a fact that several greenhouses were denuded of water but there was NO systemic plan to rob them of such and that was perhaps 5% of those left behind in working order, some of course due to settler recalcitrance were not left behind whole.

....I explained the correlation to the post. so why bother to answer then?




anyway..


Again as I am new here I'd like to get to know the players.....let me ask you PF do you believe that the Israeli pull out of gaza was a laudatory event? did it mean anything? Was it a calculated event made to fit Israeli machinations down the road detrimental to PA interests? Was it an Israeli defeat? Or, say a sober move to attempt to create some room and prime the the atmosphere for earnest negotiation, etc....whats your particular take?

I was surprised that WND ran that report. Usually they shill for Israel.

I know that the security for those settlements exceeded their income. So when the Palestinians claim victory it is probably true. I know Israel did not move out of the goodness of their heart. Israel could better use its resources to steal the rest of Jerusalem as we are seeing them do now.

Israel does not care about negotiations. If Obama wants them, fine. They will go nowhere anyway. If Abbas pulls out, fine, Israel will continue to build illegal settlements anyway.

Israel agreed to a Pallie state at Camp David in 2000, in the presence of Bill Clinton, which the Pallies flatly rejected.

In his memoir, Clinton states he was "surprised" Arafat rejected the offer of statehood because it was so "good". Clinton describes Arafat's rejection of Camp David as his biggest foreign policy failure.

Now, you know.

 

[DiveCon]

I see so WND is now a viable source? humm as opposed to USA today?I am not sure I am there.

And that aside, unfairly so for you apparently, I happen to know for a fact that several greenhouses were denuded of water but there was NO systemic plan to rob them of such and that was perhaps 5% of those left behind in working order, some of course due to settler recalcitrance were not left behind whole.

....I explained the correlation to the post. so why bother to answer then?




anyway..


Again as I am new here I'd like to get to know the players.....let me ask you PF do you believe that the Israeli pull out of gaza was a laudatory event? did it mean anything? Was it a calculated event made to fit Israeli machinations down the road detrimental to PA interests? Was it an Israeli defeat? Or, say a sober move to attempt to create some room and prime the the atmosphere for earnest negotiation, etc....whats your particular take?

I was surprised that WND ran that report. Usually they shill for Israel.

I know that the security for those settlements exceeded their income. So when the Palestinians claim victory it is probably true. I know Israel did not move out of the goodness of their heart. Israel could better use its resources to steal the rest of Jerusalem as we are seeing them do now.

Israel does not care about negotiations. If Obama wants them, fine. They will go nowhere anyway. If Abbas pulls out, fine, Israel will continue to build illegal settlements anyway.

Israel agreed to a Pallie state at Camp David in 2000, in the presence of Bill Clinton, which the Pallies flatly rejected.

In his memoir, Clinton states he was "surprised" Arafat rejected the offer of statehood because it was so "good". Clinton describes Arafat's rejection of Camp David as his biggest foreign policy failure.

Now, you know.

Israel agree to a pali state in 1948 and got attacked

 

[P F Tinmore]

I was surprised that WND ran that report. Usually they shill for Israel.

I know that the security for those settlements exceeded their income. So when the Palestinians claim victory it is probably true. I know Israel did not move out of the goodness of their heart. Israel could better use its resources to steal the rest of Jerusalem as we are seeing them do now.

Israel does not care about negotiations. If Obama wants them, fine. They will go nowhere anyway. If Abbas pulls out, fine, Israel will continue to build illegal settlements anyway.

Israel agreed to a Pallie state at Camp David in 2000, in the presence of Bill Clinton, which the Pallies flatly rejected.

In his memoir, Clinton states he was "surprised" Arafat rejected the offer of statehood because it was so "good". Clinton describes Arafat's rejection of Camp David as his biggest foreign policy failure.

Now, you know.

Israel agree to a pali state in 1948 and got attacked

I think you are leaving something out.

 

[DiveCon]

Israel agreed to a Pallie state at Camp David in 2000, in the presence of Bill Clinton, which the Pallies flatly rejected.

In his memoir, Clinton states he was "surprised" Arafat rejected the offer of statehood because it was so "good". Clinton describes Arafat's rejection of Camp David as his biggest foreign policy failure.

Now, you know.

Israel agree to a pali state in 1948 and got attacked

I think you are leaving something out.

no, i'm not
it is that very simple
and had the palis agreed they would have had a larger piece of the land thatn Israel got
sucks for them they were too fucking stupid to accept it

 

[Trajan]

Israel rendered the greenhouses useless so the Palestinians used the equipment elsewhere.

I see so WND is now a viable source? humm as opposed to USA today?I am not sure I am there.

And that aside, unfairly so for you apparently, I happen to know for a fact that several greenhouses were denuded of water but there was NO systemic plan to rob them of such and that was perhaps 5% of those left behind in working order, some of course due to settler recalcitrance were not left behind whole.

....I explained the correlation to the post. so why bother to answer then?




anyway..


Again as I am new here I'd like to get to know the players.....let me ask you PF do you believe that the Israeli pull out of gaza was a laudatory event? did it mean anything? Was it a calculated event made to fit Israeli machinations down the road detrimental to PA interests? Was it an Israeli defeat? Or, say a sober move to attempt to create some room and prime the the atmosphere for earnest negotiation, etc....whats your particular take?

I was surprised that WND ran that report. Usually they shill for Israel.

I know that the security for those settlements exceeded their income. So when the Palestinians claim victory it is probably true. I know Israel did not move out of the goodness of their heart. Israel could better use its resources to steal the rest of Jerusalem as we are seeing them do now.

Israel does not care about negotiations. If Obama wants them, fine. They will go nowhere anyway. If Abbas pulls out, fine, Israel will continue to build illegal settlements anyway.

yes the settlements were a negative burden and as to the allocation of resources, who knows that may be true, it makes sense.

How do you feel about the withdrawal though as in, the fact that they left, do you credit them with any good will or lets not say good will do you credit them for leaving at all, as in should that have accrued some substantive plus?


As far as Jerusalem goes, why do you use the term steal? They fought for it, they won it.....it could have gone the other way.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I see so WND is now a viable source? humm as opposed to USA today?I am not sure I am there.

And that aside, unfairly so for you apparently, I happen to know for a fact that several greenhouses were denuded of water but there was NO systemic plan to rob them of such and that was perhaps 5% of those left behind in working order, some of course due to settler recalcitrance were not left behind whole.

....I explained the correlation to the post. so why bother to answer then?




anyway..


Again as I am new here I'd like to get to know the players.....let me ask you PF do you believe that the Israeli pull out of gaza was a laudatory event? did it mean anything? Was it a calculated event made to fit Israeli machinations down the road detrimental to PA interests? Was it an Israeli defeat? Or, say a sober move to attempt to create some room and prime the the atmosphere for earnest negotiation, etc....whats your particular take?

I was surprised that WND ran that report. Usually they shill for Israel.

I know that the security for those settlements exceeded their income. So when the Palestinians claim victory it is probably true. I know Israel did not move out of the goodness of their heart. Israel could better use its resources to steal the rest of Jerusalem as we are seeing them do now.

Israel does not care about negotiations. If Obama wants them, fine. They will go nowhere anyway. If Abbas pulls out, fine, Israel will continue to build illegal settlements anyway.

yes the settlements were a negative burden and as to the allocation of resources, who knows that may be true, it makes sense.

How do you feel about the withdrawal though as in, the fact that they left, do you credit them with any good will or lets not say good will do you credit them for leaving at all, as in should that have accrued some substantive plus?


As far as Jerusalem goes, why do you use the term steal? They fought for it, they won it.....it could have gone the other way.

It is said the Israel won the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan. Jordan merely occupied Palestinian land. It was not theirs to lose. It was Jordanian occupied Palestinian land now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian land. Israel cannot win Palestinian land from Jordan.

 

[Trajan]

I was surprised that WND ran that report. Usually they shill for Israel.

I know that the security for those settlements exceeded their income. So when the Palestinians claim victory it is probably true. I know Israel did not move out of the goodness of their heart. Israel could better use its resources to steal the rest of Jerusalem as we are seeing them do now.

Israel does not care about negotiations. If Obama wants them, fine. They will go nowhere anyway. If Abbas pulls out, fine, Israel will continue to build illegal settlements anyway.

yes the settlements were a negative burden and as to the allocation of resources, who knows that may be true, it makes sense.

How do you feel about the withdrawal though as in, the fact that they left, do you credit them with any good will or lets not say good will do you credit them for leaving at all, as in should that have accrued some substantive plus?


As far as Jerusalem goes, why do you use the term steal? They fought for it, they won it.....it could have gone the other way.

It is said the Israel won the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan. Jordan merely occupied Palestinian land. It was not theirs to lose. It was Jordanian occupied Palestinian land now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian land. Israel cannot win Palestinian land from Jordan.

they won it in a state of war. Your argument then is with Jordan whom should have antebellum given it back to the palis. and in that they still held it, should not have acted capriciously and engaged in a war there by losing it...I fail to see the distinction here.

Much land has belonged to another before it had/has changed hands in many many wars.

IF the arabs had won, would you be arguing with the Jordanians? Its doesn't matter does it?
Because, the palis did not have it and Jordan was not going to give it back. Your argument is false as well as circular.

You didn't answer the question above that, ala gaza....

 

[DiveCon]

yes the settlements were a negative burden and as to the allocation of resources, who knows that may be true, it makes sense.

How do you feel about the withdrawal though as in, the fact that they left, do you credit them with any good will or lets not say good will do you credit them for leaving at all, as in should that have accrued some substantive plus?


As far as Jerusalem goes, why do you use the term steal? They fought for it, they won it.....it could have gone the other way.

It is said the Israel won the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan. Jordan merely occupied Palestinian land. It was not theirs to lose. It was Jordanian occupied Palestinian land now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian land. Israel cannot win Palestinian land from Jordan.

they won it in a state of war. Your argument then is with Jordan whom should have antebellum given it back to the palis. and in that they still held it, should not have acted capriciously and engaged in a war there by losing it...I fail to see the distinction here.

Much land has belonged to another before it had/has changed hands in many many wars.

IF the arabs had won, would you be arguing with the Jordanians? Its doesn't matter does it?
Because, the palis did not have it and Jordan was not going to give it back. Your argument is false as well as circular.

You didn't answer the question above that, ala gaza....

if the arabs had won, there would be no Israel
and no palestine

 

[Trajan]

It is said the Israel won the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan. Jordan merely occupied Palestinian land. It was not theirs to lose. It was Jordanian occupied Palestinian land now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian land. Israel cannot win Palestinian land from Jordan.

they won it in a state of war. Your argument then is with Jordan whom should have antebellum given it back to the palis. and in that they still held it, should not have acted capriciously and engaged in a war there by losing it...I fail to see the distinction here.

Much land has belonged to another before it had/has changed hands in many many wars.

IF the arabs had won, would you be arguing with the Jordanians? Its doesn't matter does it?
Because, the palis did not have it and Jordan was not going to give it back. Your argument is false as well as circular.

You didn't answer the question above that, ala gaza....

if the arabs had won, there would be no Israel
and no palestine

of course not.....that why the point as to the arabs engaging in war and palis as pawns is never really answered by those that feel Israel is at fault for taking land and holding it after the wars.

I don't see anyone asking the arabs to give back the Temple ( dome of the rock). The arabs conquered and built it, being a jew then sucked, but now, the worm has turned and many wants opt pretend history has no meaning or that because we are in the moment that the old paradigm(s) have/has no merit and needs to change.

lets face it, the palis's are in arab eyes the untitled refuse of the ME, they don't care anymore for a Palestinian than they do the jews deep down, its just a game.

If anyone thinks that if Israel had been overrun in say 73, that there would be a Palestinian state right now on the land the arab league or whomever conquered it, they are completely delusional.

 

[P F Tinmore]

yes the settlements were a negative burden and as to the allocation of resources, who knows that may be true, it makes sense.

How do you feel about the withdrawal though as in, the fact that they left, do you credit them with any good will or lets not say good will do you credit them for leaving at all, as in should that have accrued some substantive plus?


As far as Jerusalem goes, why do you use the term steal? They fought for it, they won it.....it could have gone the other way.

It is said the Israel won the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan. Jordan merely occupied Palestinian land. It was not theirs to lose. It was Jordanian occupied Palestinian land now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian land. Israel cannot win Palestinian land from Jordan.

they won it in a state of war. Your argument then is with Jordan whom should have antebellum given it back to the palis. and in that they still held it, should not have acted capriciously and engaged in a war there by losing it...I fail to see the distinction here.

Much land has belonged to another before it had/has changed hands in many many wars.

IF the arabs had won, would you be arguing with the Jordanians? Its doesn't matter does it?
Because, the palis did not have it and Jordan was not going to give it back. Your argument is false as well as circular.

You didn't answer the question above that, ala gaza....

How did Jordan get actual possession of that land? The Palestinians did not cede it to Jordan. Jordan could not win it from the Palestinians because they were never at war. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but could not get the rest of the world to go along with that as it was still Palestinian land.

The 1949 armistice agreement put the West Bank inside Palestine's borders where it was before the war. Jordan could not lose that land as it was clearly Palestinian land.

 

[DiveCon]

It is said the Israel won the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan. Jordan merely occupied Palestinian land. It was not theirs to lose. It was Jordanian occupied Palestinian land now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian land. Israel cannot win Palestinian land from Jordan.

they won it in a state of war. Your argument then is with Jordan whom should have antebellum given it back to the palis. and in that they still held it, should not have acted capriciously and engaged in a war there by losing it...I fail to see the distinction here.

Much land has belonged to another before it had/has changed hands in many many wars.

IF the arabs had won, would you be arguing with the Jordanians? Its doesn't matter does it?
Because, the palis did not have it and Jordan was not going to give it back. Your argument is false as well as circular.

You didn't answer the question above that, ala gaza....

How did Jordan get actual possession of that land? The Palestinians did not cede it to Jordan. Jordan could not win it from the Palestinians because they were never at war. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but could not get the rest of the world to go along with that as it was still Palestinian land.

The 1949 armistice agreement put the West Bank inside Palestine's borders where it was before the war. Jordan could not lose that land as it was clearly Palestinian land.

when they attacked in 1948
are you telling me you dont know the history of that either?
and NO it was NOT called Palestine then either, it was part of Jordan

 

[P F Tinmore]

they won it in a state of war. Your argument then is with Jordan whom should have antebellum given it back to the palis. and in that they still held it, should not have acted capriciously and engaged in a war there by losing it...I fail to see the distinction here.

Much land has belonged to another before it had/has changed hands in many many wars.

IF the arabs had won, would you be arguing with the Jordanians? Its doesn't matter does it?
Because, the palis did not have it and Jordan was not going to give it back. Your argument is false as well as circular.

You didn't answer the question above that, ala gaza....

How did Jordan get actual possession of that land? The Palestinians did not cede it to Jordan. Jordan could not win it from the Palestinians because they were never at war. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but could not get the rest of the world to go along with that as it was still Palestinian land.

The 1949 armistice agreement put the West Bank inside Palestine's borders where it was before the war. Jordan could not lose that land as it was clearly Palestinian land.

when they attacked in 1948
are you telling me you dont know the history of that either?
and NO it was NOT called Palestine then either, it was part of Jordan

When they who attacked in 1948? Palestine's borders were defined in 1922. After the 1948 war in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine's borders were confirmed and remained unchanged. The 1948 war made no changes in Palestine's borders. Palestine lost no land in the 1948 war.

 

[DiveCon]

How did Jordan get actual possession of that land? The Palestinians did not cede it to Jordan. Jordan could not win it from the Palestinians because they were never at war. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but could not get the rest of the world to go along with that as it was still Palestinian land.

The 1949 armistice agreement put the West Bank inside Palestine's borders where it was before the war. Jordan could not lose that land as it was clearly Palestinian land.

when they attacked in 1948
are you telling me you dont know the history of that either?
and NO it was NOT called Palestine then either, it was part of Jordan

When they who attacked in 1948? Palestine's borders were defined in 1922. After the 1948 war in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine's borders were confirmed and remained unchanged. The 1948 war made no changes in Palestine's borders. Palestine lost no land in the 1948 war.

WOW
you are ignorant of the facts

 

[P F Tinmore]

when they attacked in 1948
are you telling me you dont know the history of that either?
and NO it was NOT called Palestine then either, it was part of Jordan

When they who attacked in 1948? Palestine's borders were defined in 1922. After the 1948 war in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine's borders were confirmed and remained unchanged. The 1948 war made no changes in Palestine's borders. Palestine lost no land in the 1948 war.

WOW
you are ignorant of the facts

Look up the 1949 armistice agreements. You will find that I am correct.

Here, read up on the borders.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

 

[DiveCon]

When they who attacked in 1948? Palestine's borders were defined in 1922. After the 1948 war in the 1949 armistice agreements Palestine's borders were confirmed and remained unchanged. The 1948 war made no changes in Palestine's borders. Palestine lost no land in the 1948 war.

WOW
you are ignorant of the facts

Look up the 1949 armistice agreements. You will find that I am correct.

Here, read up on the borders.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

there has never been a country called "Palestine" thus there never have been defined borders for it

 

[P F Tinmore]

WOW
you are ignorant of the facts

Look up the 1949 armistice agreements. You will find that I am correct.

Here, read up on the borders.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

there has never been a country called "Palestine" thus there never have been defined borders for it

OK, so don't read the agreements. Your loss.

 

[DiveCon]

Look up the 1949 armistice agreements. You will find that I am correct.

Here, read up on the borders.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

there has never been a country called "Palestine" thus there never have been defined borders for it

OK, so don't read the agreements. Your loss.

when Arab states talk about Palestine, they REALLY mean Israel

 

[P F Tinmore]

there has never been a country called "Palestine" thus there never have been defined borders for it

OK, so don't read the agreements. Your loss.

when Arab states talk about Palestine, they REALLY mean Israel

The 1949 Armistice Agreements never mentioned any borders for an Israel.

They mentioned the border between Lebanon and Palestine. Syria and Palestine. Jordan and Palestine. Egypt and Palestine. Nothing for Israel.