peace for gaza

It seems people don't have a comprehensive picture of how Hamas could survive israel, meanwhile respecting the israelians rights like any others.

I don't feel like summing up the whole history again, but i point out inside israel palestines have no rights. Not even the right to vote. How could a democrat defend such a nation? Do the elites of the world intend to take away other minority's and majority's their right to vote?

why is this argument not weighted in assesing who is actually contrary to human rights?

The phenomenon mentioned above can be apreciated in israeli politics in many shapes,
limitations to work, housing, schooling, acces to jobs, etc.
israel is an apartheid state.

From this it must be obvious i support the palestines over israel as the situation is now and has been over many years. I can't help that i stick to the integrity of principles.

in fact i think the palestineans have a couple of rights that will not be solved by any peace proces. The right of return, the right on their ancestral lands, the right to be equal to israelians in israel(..), are hardly in the picture.

Israel is always trying to legitimise it's claim by having individual palestineans sign documents they afterwards pose as 'arrangements'. However israel itself has not followed up to UN resolutions , so it really has not all right to speak.
(hamas is the only chosen representation of palestines so far and thus the only one that could be held accountable for what it signs so far)

here is where the westbank/east jerusalem landgrabs come in, and remain a point to solve.
so point one that needs a solution is israeli landgrab.

Hamas or the palestines will not settle with israel denying un resolutions, and pressing palestines to stick to their parts of such 'agreements, and resolutions'.

Then there is the feature of asymetrical warfare. Israel has been fighting the palestines with one of the most imposing arsenals of the world, being countered by stuff such as stones and handweapons.

Any solution that could be taken serious, should disallow israel to perpetrate further violence, attacks , bulldozering and eliminations.

As of yet not one stage of the struggle has resulted in israel restraining it's agressions. That is point two,

all israeli agression against palestines in gaza and westbank needs to disappear.
As it is now people watch gaza, but even bush remarked the westbank situation with roadbloacks etc. is contrary to human rights.

Even considering only the above 2 points israel has never tried to respect them. For me it means there is no real chance on peace,(israel will take care it wont happen), yet, being the antimilitarist i am i will explore the negotiations-concept further.

So when gaza international borders are opened, actually we can improve on gaza, but as the situation inside israel and westbank remains unsolved, we can also be sure resistance boils up time and again.

That's just human, any people would protest their ongoing humiliation.
When violence is the method of the other, spats of violence and spates of armed resistance can only be expected.

It's the turning side of the israeli agression, and it is the long history of violent repression, that facilitate these emotions.

Anyone making a real start with a peace proces should not deny such reality's.
Firstly because they weill end up a henchman of childmurderers, secondly because
it shows you want to solve the situation only for the zionists.

I think a real solution should account for that, the long, long rants and lies emanating from the zionist clique that is actually 80% of israel and 100% of it's political representatives should come to an end. Israel should be disallowed to allways blamish others (irak , iran, lebanon, syria) for the violence it perpetrates and causes.

in fact palestines should have a right to vote, and a right to have any kind of job,
in israel. (Native) americans have a right to work, inuit do, and so do palestines.

So that is the first big questionmark, will bringing peace to the middle east bring down the israeli apartheid system.

And if not, will it at least make a start with it, and will the international community at least stop defending the practises of a racist (and neighing to fascist)
israeli system?

These points are essential, as israel will claim the unright to eliminate palestines, bulldozer their homes, fly drones and f16 over the kids at bedtime, because they allways did.

It follows the palestines should have a right to be free from israeli interference and violations.

The following point is starting to speak in true terms. When the deathtoll is a 100 to 1, democrats, human rights adherents, must have the courage to file complaints.

It is the awfullests of precedents israel is setting all the time. If the UN allows this degradation of agreements and human rights, they loose all right to speak in any other situation, (simple example, north korea knows no apartheid, iran targets no iraqi's).

When the situation for west bank is solved and for gaza is safe, and israel stops being a racist state, a lot seems possible, even locking up the palestines in those two small areas, without a real perspective of future or return of the refugees.
(some would return but they would just not fit in the available space).

That is westbank need to become an unbroken territory. As such it is not possible to recognise the state of israel, since it does not stick to UN decisions itself, it would be a onesided surrender.

israel would like it, but it would have no real legitimacy for the palestines (or me and other ethic people in the world), just like much remains to be wondered when a apartheid state is positively judged by the oslo agreement, but not held to un resolutions.

When israel does have the freedom to neglect the decissions of the international community, certainly palestines have the right to resist israel.

Like the wallons have the right to resist the flamish, palestines must have the right and possiblities to resist israel.

So what can the palestines deal in return??

nothing, they have nothing, they have only been raped of their soil and options, concentrated in small areas of land, and traumatised by perpetual atatcks and infringements, not to mention huge campaigns of military terror.

They only have a dream. Live a human live, live in peace with their neighbours,(syria, egypt, jordan), (dis)solve the israeli problem. And be free of agressions.

what can they offer??
that the rockets stop? at the start of this last massacre every media stressed how
the palestines were cowards, according to israeli outlets, that got repeated by international political prominents.

the argument swayed, ofcourse fighting F16s and tanks with handguns is the opposite of cowardice.

however it helps to realise israel had been shouting that a long time, and suddenly shuts up when someone (me) shows how lousy that argument is.

I think i have handed quite a few viewpoints that are essential in bringing peace for the palestines. The israeli in my opinion don't really want peace, they only want the excuse to do what they like, and achieve compromise by lies.
(the list of excuses they would have to offer exceeds my endurance in summing up and finding out and also be to long this article)

The freedom of the palestines is really only a matter of the restriction of israeli agression. And that should be the starting point for negotiations,

such negotiations should leave openings to the palestines as they have been the victim for 60 years, (3 million dead related to the nakba, more by now)

One such opening would be the availability of water resources, before i acted,(but others pointed me at it) , that availability in gaza was zero. It is now 20-30% wich is to little. The gaz field before gaza should be theirs, they should be compensated for israel destroying their fishery and trade, and israel should be stripped of any permission to still destroy palestines lives, by fly by's, attacks, and what not all.

As the situation is now, one cannot expect the palestines to stop violence, they got nothing, have been cheated and lied to by israel and the international community for decades, and the next israeli transgression more deadly and often more bloody then any palestine action is something we are only waiting for.

I hope these figureheads in the international community will understand such are not negotiations, and where principle points can be made against palestines , many more can be made against israel.

The principle of justice requires that the international community aims for equality and mutuality, otherways not only they have no right to speak (defending apartheid is contrary to justice) they will be complicit in the ongoing slaughter of palestines
and the destruction of their future.

Okay, i know the 'international community' is a biased one, this is a turning point in history, and we will soon know, wether it turns for the good, or more of the same, prejudice, bias, apartheid, discrimination, arbitrary violence, eliminations,
it is not up to me.

whatever rocks your boat. al Jazeera

This is meant to be a critic on reporting on alJ.

I am not much of a media freak, so this basically about the content of the your views page and the actual articles. Sometimes i watch a vid, a report, or a thematic one, but i don't have the media experience to compare them to anything.
Generally spoken the way alJ works with videos on inet, and with you tube, is sympathic. At least the subjects appear to be of more quality then the usual medias, and not rarely the report and way of journalism.

Thats why in alJ articles there is a lot of unexpected to be found. Reporters are almost always on spot, or none farther of then other journalists.
However...i do notice a trend also on alJ to disturb the news. well not really the news only mayb.. but its backgrounds. it goes like this:

alJ has a dedication to informing, and as such often they go into great detail repeating the background of a situation. A thing btw. you may notice many other newspapers articles do. They use something close to mantras. Wen something happens,
the official variety of the context and history is donned at us endless numbers of times.
Usually you can just skip such matters. No need to read something you read 10 times before. Sometimes its even usefull, like for example trying to memorise political players and partys names in otherways remote and little highlighted nations. Sometimes its plain boring. I think everyone knows by now Bush attacked saddam over faked allegations of wmd (the last thing they might not repeat just as often).

However apparently it is also an instrument of indoctrination.
It appears the storys are not only undercooled at times, they also change. although the story has been repeated a 100 times before, certain detail never emerges, outside specific articles, certain (unwanted by the west) detail even disappear from the callroll. So at most every article on many subjects you get a summing up of a history that gets less complete, less complex and less true over time.

I don't read european media all that much to check if they use the same mechanism. For one thing because their endless repeating of brainless slogans and oneliners to excuse her political and warry behaviour abound just bores me of the pages.

Maybe it's just that i care about alJ, that makes me notice.
However i sometimes think the indoctrination can become extreme, although i do dislike the dutch papers desinforming, i see less of a structure in destroying the detail from the general report. Ofcourse we are alredi more badly informed then muslims need be. I can see the ruling system would see slightly less need in dutch media.

Paradoxally i think alJ is a professional journalists attempt to bring a better reporting, altho commercial or publicationary interests apparently do stand in also their way.

It is strange that such a well meant attempt can only be made with a relatively high level of censory and arbitrage. Not very hopegiving in fact.

So thats with the articles. I think it is my responsability to let ppl know, that alJ is among the first to be subject to mediastrategy, and the creation of blank spaces in our memory, if so told, ordered , forced, or even payed?

Partly it is pragmatically ofcourse, however the pretence of giving the other news, "more of the news", also makes it a very powerfull instrument in this respect.
I fear almost the only reason alJ can exist is it complies.

So thats for the articles, and some of it i only noticed recently.. perhaps the policy has (like once before) changed, for a more paranoid line. Either through extern pressure or through intern complacity or just because we notice it less when it goes slowly.


Your Views:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B84B85E3-7E69-4D79-8121-746EBEA7B304.htm

Then on with you views part. I still like this a lot, even tho i am censored at times (and worse at points)The reason to like it are the contributions from everywhere, and a few tough people that just like me always keep an eye on whats going on in a more independend way. Often its not so much good but at least then you get a pretty clear picture of what the antagonists say.

I being an anti-repression person, am often on one of the sides in a debate.
It's still better then to always do the arguments on your own. Actually its quite a soap. Apparently iraki contributions tend to be censored recently, must be they don't at all agree to anything usian , i think.
It can't be they constantly invoke prophets and deity only, cus firstly it still happens (for different gods), and secondly alJ doesnt hesitate to publish as defiling , hatemongering, scournfull and cursing posts of zionists. (I must add superfluously, and sometimes their opponents.)

Zionism is a great thing when censoring me from alJ. I had posts censored over
the corridor through israel plan, wich annoyed me, because its such a good thoughts experiment. I am not sure my post about the "least efficient economy" ((US) and her economical "enemies" was published. And i am sure on at least one occasion a specific anti-governmental remark , that wouldn't flatter israel was left out.

Wich also happened yesterday. Yesterday i wrote concerning the arab plan to park a contingent "peace"soldiers in gaza, that it might be fairer to consider burdening also the jews with an army to feed.
Just that part , what lights out the hypocracy of targetted attacks, decimating hamas supporters etc. was left out. The world remains a view that palestineans need pacifying.

and that is ... al jazeera, thought you might want to know.