Everyone claims Israel has no right to set up the blockade bit no one mentions the 6300 missiles Hamas has showered on Israel since 2005. Is it so unreasonable to think they want to limit weapons going into the hands of those cuddly Hamas humanitarians?
Where did you see me say that Israel didn't have a right to blockade Gaza? Show me that place.
Israel has the right to do its best to make sure that no missiles fall on Israel, and if that includes a blockade, then that includes a blockade. I did not mention the number of missiles because I 1) didn't know the number of missiles fired by Hamas; 2) wouldn't know how to distinguish a missile fired by Hamas from a missile fired by anybody else; 3) think that missiles are a measure of how badly the fraternal relationship is going, and as such it leaves out the other half of the equation.
I don't bother to equate Hamas as being cuddly humanitarians any more than I would equate the Likud with being Cuddly Humanitarians. Both have a solid humanitarian side when it serves them, both are very charitable when it comes to activities that bring political gains. Both are ruthless when they feel they need to be.
They are both hard-nosed political parties with similar political tactics that grew out of a similar sort of political base and had a similar kind of political appeal. They have as many things in common as they do differences, including a willingness to do violence and a brutal nationalism that is willing to do almost anything to achieve its ends.
The Likud has simply been around perhaps fifty years longer, and has accomplish more of its original goals.
What do you think about the amount of aid Israel has sent to Gaza, as listed above, Bob? Doesn't that seem a little strange to you that they continue to supply to populace of a country that they are supposedly trying to starve, according to the media? How many people were injured on the second ship that was boarded? Right, none, nor was there an incident. That ship was not loaded with radicals looking to create an international incident by attacking the Israelis that boarded.
What do I think of the amount of aid Israel has sent to Gaza, as listed above?
Ah? There is a question for you. Considering that the reason that most of that aid is needed is that Israeli policy makes it almost impossible for the people in Gaza to find work, to do the farming on the land that they once owned, and that these are, many of them, refugees as a result of the actions of Israel (and some of their Arab neighbors as well) who forced them off the land that battles were being fought across and who were not allowed to return, I'd say that the aid was a bit shabby. Sort of like indian reservations instead of the land that the Indians originally owned.
The unemployment in Gaza is astronomical because the jobs that many of the inhabitants once held outside Gaza were no longer available. The long inspections are often necessary to cross from one side of the border to the other. The aid is a small and partial recognition of the damage these actions have inflicted on the economy of the region. The blockade has also forced the transfer of goods along the overcrowded surface road system and through the bottlenecked inspection sites, causing lengthy delays and higher prices than might otherwise be necessary. This is hardly recompense for access to Gaza through some port of their own, which might serve to stimulate trade and the economy as well as allowing the transit of exports and imports more directly and cheaply.
Do the Israelis have a right to inspect Palestinians or, for that matter, anybody traveling across that border. Oh my, yes, they do. There is no shortage of seriously angry Palestinians willing to be martyrs. The Israelis are being prudent.
But if you wish to feel great about the level of charity shown by the Israelis, I would suggest that this would not be something upon which to stake your pride. If it were, you would be able to take a camera and walk through the streets and bazaars of Gaza and show the happy activity of the prosperous people. I notice there aren't a lot of such pictures floating around. If, in fact, the charity were what would pass as good charity in the Jewish tradition, nobody would be writing about it, nobody would be showing pictures of it, and certainly, nobody would be bragging about it. What you have here is PR, and not very good PR at that.
The wish here is for there to be a right party and a wrong party, something with no ambiguity, where we westerners can make a judgement and say, "By golly, you're right. Now we simply have to make the bad people see the folly of their ways, and everything will be well with the world."
Not going to happen here. Everybody's right about everything. They're right about who's right in the conflict; they right about who's wrong in the conflict, even when they disagree. They're right about whose fault it is, clearly, because the other party is obviously in the wrong, no matter who's telling the story. Every hero is a villain, even when he's absolutely flawless, which we know because the Koran tells us so, or the Bible does, even when these infallible books disagree with each other in the telling. They both are telling the absolute truth.
The irony is that both of them believe the other is lying, which is of course true as well, as certainly as it's true that they're telling God's truth in this matter, so help them God. Really, it's that simple, believe me.