Sanding our assholes with 150 grit.

Israel Leaves Gaza Strip

Well, it is happening.

Despite protestations of doom, Israel is pulling out of the Gaza Strip. They had to do this unilaterally, for some reason.

Hamas is celebrating, congratulating themselves that their terrorist activities have finally born fruit. Ignoring the fact that it is the abscence of terrorism that makes this possible right now, that if Hamas fired upon the leaving settlers Israel would not make them leave, and that their own Palestinian leaders are asking them to shut up.

Yet others had said Israel would never pull out of any territory. But they have (or are in the process of doing so). Historical times, we live in these days.

I realize I may be opening a can of worms with this, but I was curious what others thought.
Permalink AllanL5 
August 15th, 2005
Do you think without terrorism gaza would be emptying out?
Permalink son of parnas 
August 15th, 2005
"Do you think without terrorism gaza would be emptying out?"

Absofrickinlutely. Exactly as Allan mentioned, the irony is that terrorism has been the greatest HINDRANCE to Israel withdrawing, and it has actually be the greatest justification.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
August 15th, 2005
Does anyone know what the average affected Palestinian thinks about this? I mean, this action is completely meaningless without knowing what the real effects are. And who knows better than the Palestinians who are directly affected? (Aside from the average Israeli settlers, who of course have their own understandable perspectives.)

Incidentally, let's not veer off into weird discussions on "terrorism." When South Africa was our buddy, "Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan condemned [Nelson Mandela] as a terrorist. However, he is now almost universally considered to be a heroic freedom fighter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela

Unless people really want to, I guess... I just find it boring by now though.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
August 15th, 2005
> Absofrickinlutely.

Clearly they couldn't leave without a cool down, but that's not the question. If there was no terrorism to begin with, would israel have left gaza?
Permalink son of parnas 
August 15th, 2005
The real question is, of course, why did they move in in the first place? Settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
"If there was no terrorism to begin with, would israel have left gaza?"

As Calm mentioned, the occupation has always been internationally illegal, and there would never come a time when the international community would just warm up to it. Terrorism legitimized Israel's security concerns, however, and her claim that the buffer land was necessary.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
August 15th, 2005
" The real question is, of course, why did they move in in the first place? Settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law."

Is this a serious question? Did you just come out from under your rock? The gaza strip is the one piece of land on earth where this *international law* has not been followed for thousands of years now.
Permalink  
August 15th, 2005
> Settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law.

I've noticed how aggressors tremble at the thread of international law.
Permalink son of parnas 
August 15th, 2005
"I've noticed how aggressors tremble at the thread of international law."

You say this sarcastically, yet never in the history of humanity has such peace reigned across the Earth. We focus on every little conflict now, but continual war was pretty much the norm for centuries.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
August 15th, 2005
Israel directly supported the radical Islamist Hamas as a counterbalance to the secular PLO, as UPI explains:

"But Sharon left something out.

"Israel 'aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),' said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

"Israel's support for Hamas 'was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,' said a former senior CIA official."
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=18062002-051845-8272r

So this whole Israeli/Palestinian thing is a largely obfuscated thicket, and am mainly interested in how the average Palestinians (and Israeli settlers) are affected by the pullout. Because that's what really matters. Saying who or what is "terrorist" is a big obfuscation. I'm sure Hamas is terrorist, but it's not that simple.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
August 15th, 2005
> You say this sarcastically, yet never in the history
> of humanity has such peace reigned across the Earth.

Because of super powers. I have not noticed international laws protecting quite a few countries from invasion. If you don't have oil, a port, or other interests, nobody gives a frig.
Permalink son of parnas 
August 15th, 2005
The point is that Israel is doing the right thing now, and they should be encouraged to continue to do so. I fail to see how saying "Well, you should have done it a long time ago" is at all constructive.

The next step is to continue to strengthen democracy and the rule of law among the Palestinians. But of course, that's largely up to the Palestinians themselves.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 15th, 2005
"I have not noticed international laws protecting quite a few countries from invasion."

Who has been invaded lately? Seriously, what country has invaded and taken land from another country in the past 30 years?
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
August 15th, 2005
>Is this a serious question? Did you just come out from
>under your rock? The gaza strip is the one piece of land on
>earth where this *international law* has not been followed
>for thousands of years now.

The international court of justice has only existed for 70 years. Roughly since Israel was founded.

International law would have been enforced were it not for the protectionist stance of the United States, which has vetoed just about every security council resolution regarding Israel since its inception.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
"Who has been invaded lately? Seriously, what country has invaded and taken land from another country in the past 30 years?"

The United States? Just because we dont colonize the land doesn't mean we don't establish a military force on conquered territory.
Permalink  
August 15th, 2005
>The point is that Israel is doing the right thing now, and
>they should be encouraged to continue to do so. I fail to
>see how saying "Well, you should have done it a long time
>ago" is at all constructive.

My comments could only possibly be viewed as constructive if I had any say in what goes on in the Middle East. I don't, and I doubt you do either. If you viewed my comments as overly harsh then tough. Israel has been doing the wrong thing for far too long now, and just because they are stepping out of Gaza doesn't mean that it's all over. They still have settlements in the West Bank, and are (I believe) still expanding there.


>The next step is to continue to strengthen democracy and
>the rule of law among the Palestinians. But of course,
>that's largely up to the Palestinians themselves.

Not at all. Whilst Israel maintains effective control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (which they still do), any *proper* democracy is unattainable. It also requires infrastructure which is currently lacking. Gaza used to have an airport. Guess what? Israel demolished it because of unverified information that it was being used to smuggle weapons. Who do you think they can trade with when Israel controls the borders? How do you think they can build their economy without being able to trade?

I agree that this is a good first step, but it is just that. Israel needs to get out of the West Bank, too and give statehood the Palestine before a democratic, peaceable state can be achieved.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
> Who has been invaded lately?

Tibet.
Iraq.
Lebanon.
Afghanistan.
Ethiopia.
Permalink son of parnas 
August 15th, 2005
Tibet was invaded in 1951, clearly outside of the 30 year window I mentioned.

Afghanistan was "invaded" at the behest of the international community. Iraq remains the property of Iraqis, and while the war was futile and a bad precedent, last I checked the US doesn't own it. Outside of international law and international reputation, the US could have conquered Iraq and said "thanks for all the oil. This is now a territory of the US", but exactly per my point they haven't and they won't. Lebanon had a terrible civil war and was never invaded, and Ethiopia had a war with her neighbour, but against isn't being occupied (to my knowledge).
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
August 15th, 2005
Kuwait was invaded.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
I should say that by "taken" I meant "kept". Iraq obviously didn't get to keep Kuwait. Seems like international law, particularly with the hammer of the US, worked pretty well.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
August 15th, 2005
> Tibet was invaded in 1951, clearly outside of the 30 year

Justice delayed is justice denied.

> Afghanistan was "invaded" at the behest of the international community.

Is that why russia went in?

> Iraq remains the property of Iraqis,

Oh, the liberation defense.

> Lebanon had a terrible civil war and was never invaded,

So israel never went into lebanon?

> Ethiopia had a war with her neighbour, but against isn't being occupied

http://www.washdiplomat.com/01-10/a3_10_01.html
Permalink son of parnas 
August 15th, 2005
There is also the Golan Heights, if you're talking about territories which have been invaded and then kept.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
> > Iraq remains the property of Iraqis,
> Oh, the liberation defense.

That may be applicable to Tibet too: I think one of the Chinese claims is that they liberated ordinary Tibetans from the feudal oppression of the monks who used to rule them.
Permalink Christopher Wells 
August 15th, 2005
The USSR went into Afghanistan (during a period when Afghanistan was in disarray and was primed for the Iranians to clean up) for reasons we largely don't know, but many attribute it to baiting by the US (with internal memos indicating that the administration were happy that they "gave the Soviets their Vietnam"). Again, even when she controlled the government, Afghanistan was never annexed. Neither it, or any of its land, was claimed as Soviet territory.

Regarding "the liberation defense" (which is funny that you call it defense given that I derided the war above...), I'm comparing the current world with the way the world used to work, before international law. The way the world used to work is that if you could conquer territory, it was yours to do as you please, and to exploit to your heart's content. This obviously is a good incentive for military ambitions. Yet even in the most cynical, US-the-evil scenarios, the Iraq exploit has been a massive cost sink for the US.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
August 15th, 2005
Good.
Time to keep the past behind now and look towards a better future( Both Countries).
Permalink Another poster... 
August 15th, 2005
> The way the world used to work is that if you could
> conquer territory, it was yours to do as you please,
> and to exploit to your heart's content.

And now you just need a pretext and the ability to make it very painful for anyone to attack you back.

> This obviously is a good incentive for military
> ambitions. Yet even in the most cynical,
> US-the-evil scenarios, the Iraq exploit has been a
> massive cost sink for the US.

As I recall the iraqis were going to welcome us with open arms and we were goint to use money from the oil to pay for everything. I wonder what happened?
Permalink son of parnas 
August 15th, 2005
> Yet even in the most cynical, US-the-evil scenarios, the
> Iraq exploit has been a massive cost sink for the US.

Those who perpetrated the invasion weren't doing it to make a profit, they were doing it because they wanted power in the Middle East.

The "US-the-evil scenarios" are mostly played up by the right-wing hawks to tap into people's nationalistic and patriotic tendencies. The truth of the matter is, they're essentially not bothered as much about the cost as they are about the power. The cost is underwritten by you, the American taxpayer.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
Oh, and me, the British taxpayer, and me, a British govt. employee who had to take a pay cut because of the war.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
Well, in theory it's under-written by the American taxpayer. And I suppose in the long run, it will be. In the meantime, sufficient Chinese, German, and Japanese resources seem to be available for the U.S. to balance it's incredible budget deficit by selling bonds to them.

Now, when we have to pay debt-service on those bonds, THEN the U.S. taxpayer will finally be involved. Unless we can inflate away the value of those bonds -- that's the classic American model, after all. That's how we paid for Viet-Nam.

But I agree that wars following WW-II have been wars for political and economic influence, not wars of conquest. (What Saddam did in Iran, and then in Kuwait were wars of conquest, but I consider these aberrations. Kuwait was quickly reversed, in any event.)

Usually recent wars are civil-war type wars, geurilla wars over which faction in a country will control the country, with the participation of the U.S. and Russia (and China) using the smaller countries as proxy's.

Now the Arab-Israeli conflict seems to be its own category. I suspect Arab hatred for Israel is roughly equivalent to Arab hatred of other Arab tribes -- but since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Israel gets the short end of the stick. Since many Palestinian's preferred solution to the Israeli question is the destruction of Israel, comprimise can be hard to work out.
Permalink AllanL5 
August 15th, 2005
Does any commentator actually KNOW the specifics of this particular Gaza Strip plan? Is it indeed a meaningful step, and do we know enough context to intelligently critique it? There's enough doubt on all sides.
http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/the_gaza_disengagement_plan/
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0407/S00202.htm
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
August 15th, 2005
Many Arabs do want to eliminate Israel, but equally, many Israelis (even ones in the Knesset) want to eliminate the Palestinians. The difference is, they actually have the power to do something about it.

Israeli hatred for the Arabs is quite as pronounced as reversed also. In fact, it is ingrained into the laws of the country. It is specifically set up as a JEWISH state and very much an apartheid.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
>Israel gets the short end of the stick.

Also, in no way shape or form does Israel get the short end of the stick.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
Colm,

Certainly, an airport and the ability to trade with neighbors are good things, but are they necessary precursors to starting the process of democratization and the rule of law?

Without the foundations of democracy/rule of law, things like airports and trade would probably only benefit those with the ability to maximize the use of force. Realistically, it will probably be necessary to take steps towards democracy/rule of law in tandem with efforts at opening up the economy.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 15th, 2005
Hmm. Colm, it seems to me Arab hatred of Israeli's has led to Israeli's being killed in the streets, and Israel being invaded on a couple of occasions. Israeli hatred of Arab's has resulted in giving up land for peace, and a few terrorist acts against the Arabs (all condemned by the Israeli's).

I wouldn't think these two urges are "equal" in any sense. It seems to me the Israeli goal is to prevent the Palestinians from hurting them. It doesn't seem that the Isreali goal is to "push the Palestinians into the sea".

I would think it would be a relatively simple matter militarily for Israel to implement a genocide against the Palestinians living in their borders. True, it would damage U.S. support -- perhaps. It would certainly damage world support for the Israeli's. It would also require methods Hitler used against them (oops, there's Mr. H. raising his ugly head. Sigh) -- and thus would be methods the Israeli's would NEVER resort to.

But those are my thoughts on the issue. I do appreciate your explaining your point of view.
Permalink AllanL5 
August 15th, 2005
Oh, and I meant by "short end of the stick" that all Arab countries can unite behind their hating Israel. Thus Israel is uniformly hated by all Arab countries, and in that way, get the short end of THAT stick.
Permalink AllanL5 
August 15th, 2005
>Certainly, an airport and the ability to trade with
>neighbors are good things, but are they necessary
>precursors to starting the process of democratization
>and the rule of law?

Infrastructure is necessary to both a functioning rule of law and a functioning democracy.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
"It is specifically set up as a JEWISH state and very much an apartheid."

I'm actually curious about this, as it was my understanding that Arabs living in Israel have more rights and freedoms than Arabs living in any other place in the Middle East.

What specific privileges are accorded to Jews in Israel that are not extended to Arab Israelis?
Permalink Jim Rankin 
August 15th, 2005
>Oh, and I meant by "short end of the stick" that all Arab
>countries can unite behind their hating Israel. Thus Israel
>is uniformly hated by all Arab countries, and in that way,
>get the short end of THAT stick.

They have nothing to worry about from the other Arab countries. The short end of the stick is held by the ordinary everyday Palestinians. They are hated and despised by the Israelis. They DIE at the hands of Israelis (in greater numbers than the converse due to suicide bombings). And rest of the Arab world could give two shits about them, despite what AIPAC would tell you.

Also, Israel is armed to the teeth, has the most developed economy and receives more aid than any other nation in the Middle East. They have it pretty good, considering.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
>I'm actually curious about this, as it was my understanding
>that Arabs living in Israel have more rights and freedoms
>than Arabs living in any other place in the Middle East.

What rights to Palestinians who live on occupied land have in Israel?

>What specific privileges are accorded to Jews in Israel that
>are not extended to Arab Israelis?

To take one example, marriage between an Arab Israeli and a Palestinian is illegal under Israeli law. They usually have to go to Cyprus to get married.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
"Settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law."

What occupied land? There is no Palestinian State - it is all part of Israel. They have every right to live there if the choose, it is the Palestinians who are illegally occupying the land.

Jeez, get some education would ya.
Permalink Rich Rogers 
August 15th, 2005
>Colm, it seems to me Arab hatred of Israeli's has led to
>Israeli's being killed in the streets.

Israeli hatred of Arabs has resulted in more Palestinians being killed in the streets than vice versa.

>and Israel being invaded on a couple of occasions.

First time was because Israel was given land by the British without consulting the Arabs. Effectively, that was an invasion by the Israelis.

Second time was supposedly a pre-emptive strike, although, I find that unlikely. The forces amassed at the borders by Egypt, Syria and Jordan were not strategically positioned to invade Israel, but more likely positioned defensively due to the aggressive nature of Israel. An aggressive nature which led to the acquisition of more land.

>Israeli hatred of Arab's has resulted in giving up land
>for peace, and a few terrorist acts against the Arabs >(all condemned by the Israeli's).

It led to the creation of an Apartheid state. The Palestinians were driven from their land in the beginning. Then, after the second Arab-Israeli war, they were occupied again, and some of them were driven from their land once again.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 15th, 2005
Fair enough -- we have Colm's point of view. What do other people think about the Israeli's actions. Please don't try to rebut Colm's point of view -- I don't think he's open to rebutting. I'd rather this be commentary on what's going on in the Gaza strip, than people trying to convince each other of their positions.

I know, I'm guilty of that myself. But I'm MUCH better now.
Permalink AllanL5 
August 15th, 2005
I think we should fight it out on wikipedia.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
August 15th, 2005
"As I recall the iraqis were going to welcome us with open arms... I wonder what happened?"

They didn't? That's funny, everyone "I" know who are in the First Infantry and those in the Marines all say that they ARE welcoming us with open arms. They still talk about how much they hated Saddam. Now, if you are talking about foreign (Syrian) fighters in the country, then yes, they aren't welcoming us.

Please stop believing everything you see on TV and go talk to a soldier. Someone who isn't a fucking Monday Morning Quarterback.

I don't like *why* we went there, or our current loser president, but that doesn't take away from the current truth that we are welcomed there by most.
Permalink Jared 
August 15th, 2005
I think we shouldn't fight it out.
Permalink ping? 
August 15th, 2005
Jared,

IIRC, 98% of those taken prisoner during the US assault on Falluja were Iragi. The (American) foreigners were the ones attacking them. Or was that invented by the media?
Permalink Mick 
August 15th, 2005
AllenL5,

We had your point of view as well. It's just that Colm's point of view seems to tally with the facts better than yours.
Permalink Mick 
August 15th, 2005
Notice I said "most". How many were taken in Falluja (hundreds at most?) and how many are in the country? Also, some of the footsoldiers may be Iraqi, but the bomb makers and leaders are mostly foreign. Either way, the general population is quite welcoming to us, one thing that isn't *ever* reported on the news. If the U.S. and the world isn't grateful, at least most Iraqi's are. A buddy of mine just came back with all sorts of handmade gifts that were given to him by locals as thank you's.
Permalink Jared 
August 15th, 2005
Jared sez : "A buddy of mine just came back with all sorts of handmade gifts that were given to him by locals as thank you's."

<tasteless>
If he's going to set them on the mantle, make sure he defuses 'em first.
</tasteless>
Permalink Snark 
August 15th, 2005
Jared:

According to this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1273053.htm

about 350 of the roughly 10000 prisoners in US-run jails at the end of last year were foreigners. That's 3.5%, not "most". And anyway, why shouldn't they be there? After all, plenty of (US, UK, Canada, etc) foreign fighters poured in France to help expel the invaders in WW II.

Frankly, I reckon asking a soldier is just about the least reliable way to any sort of balanced impression of the events in a war zone.
Permalink Mick 
August 15th, 2005
> Please stop believing everything you see on TV and go talk to a soldier.

Quite a resistance movement for people who love us. Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read. Just because a girl gives you a BJ on your first date doesn't mean she loves you.
Permalink son of parnas 
August 15th, 2005
Many seem to claim that the Gaza pullout is theater. In particular, many Palestinians (as well as Chomsky) point out that it's a West Bank expansion plan.

"During the period that Israel has been talking about destroying 2,000 settler homes in the Gaza Strip, it has been building more than 6,400 settler homes in the occupied West Bank. Last week, for example, it issued tenders for 72 Jewish-only housing units in the settlement of Betar Illit near Bethlehem. Israel is continuing to build the apartheid wall in violation of international law throughout the occupied West Bank. It announced a month ago, the wall &#8211; the route of the wall in Jerusalem, dividing 55,000 Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem from their family, friends, places of work, schools, hospitals, in the heart of occupied Jerusalem.

"The settlers... who have been enjoying the land, the resources of Gaza for decades, are receiving massive compensation packages of up to half a million dollars per family. Just in the past few days it was revealed that the settlers, in addition to all of the compensation they're receiving from the Israeli government, are getting an additional $14 million from private donors, including James Wolfensohn, the former World Bank head, who is the U.S. envoy to Gaza, in order to pay for the hothouses they have built on stolen Palestinian land in Gaza."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/15/143257

(It would have been nice for the Israeli settler fellow to stay on the line in the Democracy Now interview, for his perspective, but life goes on. Hopefully they'll find another to help add their point of view.)
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
August 15th, 2005
I think the pullout is real. The Israeli government is withdrawing from land that they held by force (but which they choose not to annex). In doing so they are removing a relatively small number of people who needed a relatively high amount of protection. However, at the same time they are reinforcing more defensible settlements on the West Bank with a fucking great wall.

I seem to remember the situation in Gaza was 3 million Palasinians + 30,000 Israelis. The Israeli settlers held 1/3 of the land. Might just make a difference in the refugee camps. You remember: refugees - people who did a runner when armed men turned up at the door...
Permalink a cynic writes... 
August 15th, 2005
Gaza cannot succeed any more than the bantustans did under South African apartheid. Unable to trade or circulate freely, its inhabitants will have all the freedoms of freerange chickens.

Re recent successful invasions, Morocco has effectively annexed the Western Sahara:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polisario_Front
Permalink trollop 
August 15th, 2005
Israel controls the air space and the borders, if the planned road between Gaza and, I think, Hebron, happens then it has the chance of working.

Israel is talking about a number of settlements on the West Bank as being obstacles in the road, so I'd expect a few more demolitions of settlements but the majority of the West Bank settlements to remain, the longer they remain the less likely they are to go unless forced to and I really don't know who would do the forcing.

Yom Kippur was an attack by Arab countries on Israel, on a day they thought they'd overwhelm the defences as they'd be stood down for the holiday and they might have succeeded. The use of the holiest Jewish day was, for some, the reason for keeping all of the West Bank territories and for a time the desert between Egypt and Israel. Originally though it was for defensive purposes. Even ben Gurion, who'd been the first Prime Minister of Israel and one of the architects of the Sinai debacle in 1956, declared that the possessions taken in the war, the West Bank should be returned as soon as possible.

The Palestinians were squeezed between the two sets of antagonists and suffered from both.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 16th, 2005
The Israeli's do face the problem that they want Jerusalem as their capital city. They don't want the Palestinians to have a country that has half of Jerusalem.

Thus the wall in the West Bank. They're trying to create a Palestinian homeland that does NOT include Jerusalem. Giving up the Gaza Strip is part of that process. However, the Palestinians have never agreed, and probably never will agree (in the next 20 years, anyway), to give up Jerusalem.

So, I expect the Israeli's will continue to carve up the country, giving a homeland to the Palestinians, but not the homeland the Palestinians really want. Once it becomes a fait-accompli, and people live with it a few decades, the tension can die down. Hopefully.

Meanwhile, Israel gets defensible borders, and a defensable wall. Hopefully they can control the bombings better. Hopefully Palestinians can create successful businesses, and will trade with the Israeli's and not buy guns and rockets with the proceeds.
Permalink AllanL5 
August 16th, 2005
IIRC, the reason the Camp David negotiations broke down was because of the amount of Jerusalem that was offered to Arafat. That and the fact that the '90%' of the land offered resembled a piece of swiss cheese, borderwise.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 16th, 2005
Well, it's a little difficult to trade if your real exports are FRUITS AND FLOWERS.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gz.html#Econ

No blood for oil! No flowers for guns! What a basis for a democracy.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
August 16th, 2005
Export? How?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4156944.stm
Permalink trollop 
August 16th, 2005
> Who do you think they can trade with when Israel controls the borders?

Apart from Gaza airport, there's a land-border with Egypt, and a long stretch of Mediterranean coastline ... won't those be useful for any international trade?
Permalink Christopher Wells 
August 16th, 2005
That depends entirely on what Israel lets them do with the border and the sea. So far they haven't let them do anything.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 16th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: August, 2005 Other topics: August, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics