Egyptian Journalist Describes 'Absolute Prosperity' in Gaza

[DiveCon]

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.

exactly

 

[Marc39]

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.

Non-binding.

The only enforceable document applicable is the binding Palestine Mandate that has assigned all of Palestine as the Jewish homeland.

 

[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....

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.

the how or why at that point means little, you are not really answering the question, and you still skirted the gaza question I asked.

for some reason you fail to digest the fact that Palestinians have just been pawns. Jordan has no love for them, aside form the arafat issue. Jordan was not gong to surrender any of "Palestine", to the "Palestinians" defacto it was theirs, they engaged in a war that went badly for them, now you want to Israel to return land to Palestinians after having gone to war with the entity holding it and using it for warlike aims etc. it.......thats disconnected from reality. I don't think you realize what you are asking or positing.



You have failed to grasp the salient point, the land had not been in Palestinian and would never absent the war, so why should Israel give something back they fight for, in effect that would have Israel surrendering it as a gift to them there by making the Palestinians 'winners ' of land they never ever had a hope of taking or being given or holding antebellum.

You cannot wind the clock back on history and decide to arbitrarily change outcomes.

 

[Marc39]

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.

the how or why at that point means little, you are not really answering the question, and you still skirted the gaza question I asked.

for some reason you fail to digest the fact that Palestinians have just been pawns. Jordan has no love for them, aside form the arafat issue. Jordan was not gong to surrender any of "Palestine", to the "Palestinians" defacto it was theirs, they engaged in a war that went badly for them, now you want to Israel to return land to Palestinians after having gone to war with the entity holding it and using it for warlike aims etc. it.......thats disconnected from reality. I don't think you realize what you are asking or positing.



You have failed to grasp the salient point, the land had not been in Palestinian and would never absent the war, so why should Israel give something back they fight for, in effect that would have Israel surrendering it as a gift to them there by making the Palestinians 'winners ' of land they never ever had a hope of taking or being given or holding antebellum.

You cannot wind the clock back on history and decide to arbitrarily change outcomes.

You can wind the clock back to 1922, when the League of Nations ratified the Palestine Mandate establishing Palestine as the Jewis homeland.

You can also wind the clock back 4,000 years when Jews inhabited the land, invaded thousands of years later by Arab scum

 

[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.

the how or why at that point means little, you are not really answering the question, and you still skirted the gaza question I asked.

for some reason you fail to digest the fact that Palestinians have just been pawns. Jordan has no love for them, aside form the arafat issue. Jordan was not gong to surrender any of "Palestine", to the "Palestinians" defacto it was theirs, they engaged in a war that went badly for them, now you want to Israel to return land to Palestinians after having gone to war with the entity holding it and using it for warlike aims etc. it.......thats disconnected from reality. I don't think you realize what you are asking or positing.



You have failed to grasp the salient point, the land had not been in Palestinian and would never absent the war, so why should Israel give something back they fight for, in effect that would have Israel surrendering it as a gift to them there by making the Palestinians 'winners ' of land they never ever had a hope of taking or being given or holding antebellum.

You cannot wind the clock back on history and decide to arbitrarily change outcomes.

You are grasping at straws. I provide documentation. You blabber.

 

[Trajan]

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.

the how or why at that point means little, you are not really answering the question, and you still skirted the gaza question I asked.

for some reason you fail to digest the fact that Palestinians have just been pawns. Jordan has no love for them, aside form the arafat issue. Jordan was not gong to surrender any of "Palestine", to the "Palestinians" defacto it was theirs, they engaged in a war that went badly for them, now you want to Israel to return land to Palestinians after having gone to war with the entity holding it and using it for warlike aims etc. it.......thats disconnected from reality. I don't think you realize what you are asking or positing.



You have failed to grasp the salient point, the land had not been in Palestinian and would never absent the war, so why should Israel give something back they fight for, in effect that would have Israel surrendering it as a gift to them there by making the Palestinians 'winners ' of land they never ever had a hope of taking or being given or holding antebellum.

You cannot wind the clock back on history and decide to arbitrarily change outcomes.

You are grasping at straws. I provide documentation. You blabber.

grasping at straws?No, the reality is just to much for you, I cannot believe I have surprised with this line of thinking.....and instead of thinking it through you have decided to respond with "documentation" that has no bearing and is disconnected from the events on the ground.

I see now, you're really not interested in debate, you're interested in foisting your personal viewpoint that is disconnected from the reality.

You can outline every line that has come of if the UN and parlors of the ruling elite from 1922 till now, you don't realize that this really means squat, what is, is. You ask the impossible of one side ( not that you will even acknowledge that) and then demand understanding and concession all the while denying history of what was and IS, relying on not what you want it to be.

I suspected as much when you skirted the gaza question 3 times now. But I wanted to give you than chance and made a good faith effort to disuses this in earnest, instead you remind me of a UN functionary or nomenclatura pounding the desk with your fist and prattling on about what you want it to be... skirting the whys and where fores that are part and parcel of all debate and negotiation.

Good luck with that.

 

[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.

the how or why at that point means little, you are not really answering the question, and you still skirted the gaza question I asked.

for some reason you fail to digest the fact that Palestinians have just been pawns. Jordan has no love for them, aside form the arafat issue. Jordan was not gong to surrender any of "Palestine", to the "Palestinians" defacto it was theirs, they engaged in a war that went badly for them, now you want to Israel to return land to Palestinians after having gone to war with the entity holding it and using it for warlike aims etc. it.......thats disconnected from reality. I don't think you realize what you are asking or positing.



You have failed to grasp the salient point, the land had not been in Palestinian and would never absent the war, so why should Israel give something back they fight for, in effect that would have Israel surrendering it as a gift to them there by making the Palestinians 'winners ' of land they never ever had a hope of taking or being given or holding antebellum.

You cannot wind the clock back on history and decide to arbitrarily change outcomes.

So, when did the Palestinians lose the war?

 

[P F Tinmore]

BTW, what Gaza question are you talking about?

 

[Trajan]

oh so NOW you're really reading the post(s)?

 

[P F Tinmore]

oh so NOW you're really reading the post(s)?

Was it a recognizable question or was it buried in BS?

 

[Marc39]

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.

the how or why at that point means little, you are not really answering the question, and you still skirted the gaza question I asked.

for some reason you fail to digest the fact that Palestinians have just been pawns. Jordan has no love for them, aside form the arafat issue. Jordan was not gong to surrender any of "Palestine", to the "Palestinians" defacto it was theirs, they engaged in a war that went badly for them, now you want to Israel to return land to Palestinians after having gone to war with the entity holding it and using it for warlike aims etc. it.......thats disconnected from reality. I don't think you realize what you are asking or positing.



You have failed to grasp the salient point, the land had not been in Palestinian and would never absent the war, so why should Israel give something back they fight for, in effect that would have Israel surrendering it as a gift to them there by making the Palestinians 'winners ' of land they never ever had a hope of taking or being given or holding antebellum.

You cannot wind the clock back on history and decide to arbitrarily change outcomes.

So, when did the Palestinians lose the war?

These Palestinians?...

Former PLO leader Zuheir Mohsen--

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

Zuheir Mohsen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You also believe in the Easter Bunny, boy?

 

[Trajan]

well there ya go, it appears since you had to go back and reread my posts after you had answered them, you really didn't 'read' them.

 

[abu afak]

Egyptian Journalist Describes 'Absolute Prosperity' in Gaza

With Hamas telling tales of deprivation and suffering in Gaza, Egyptian journalist Ashraf Abu al-Houl has added his report to others who were surprised to discover a “prosperous” Gaza in which prices are low and luxury businesses are booming. Al-Houl's story of his trip to Gaza and his realization that “in actual terms, Gaza is not under siege” was written up in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).


"A sense of absolute prosperity prevails, as manifested by the grand resorts along and near Gaza's coast. Further, the site of the merchandise and luxuries filling the Gaza shops amazed me,” he reported.

Concerned that his initial impression of prosperity may have been misleading, “I toured the new resorts, most of which are quite grand, as well as the commercial markets, to verify my hypothesis. The resorts and markets have come to symbolize prosperity, and to prove that the siege is formal or political, not economic,” Al-Houl said.

--

Most of the new resorts “are owned by members, or associates, of Hamas,” he reported. “In addition, the Hamas municipalities charge high fees, in Gaza terms, for the use of public beaches,” he added.

I guess that's why they don't need a Flotilla.
Went Googling for this OP article-- but found it was already posted-- here.
-
-

 

[Ropey]

^^ They've got a good media game.

But media is not always reality.

 

[Jos]

Ashraf Abu al-Houl, is an Israeli invention

 

[abu afak]

Ashraf Abu al-Houl, is an Israeli invention

LOL
The Usual from Jos.

Did you even think of Using Google before Making a ASS of yourself?
How much brains does it take to check an Ignorant statement as above?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Ashr...gc.r_pw.&fp=a3e972a377326751&biw=1559&bih=764

Al-Bustan resort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al-Bustan (eng.: The Garden) is a beach resort in Gaza with restaurants, cafes and swimming pools. It is located on the beach north of Gaza City.
About 800 people come on a typical day. The atmosphere is very Islamic, women wear veils and only Islamic music is played.
One visitor, "wearing head-to-toe black garb and a veil" told a Reuters correspondent that "The atmosphere is Islamic. It's a place where you feel relaxed." [1]

According to the Reuters, the resort was built by a "Hamas-linked charity,"[1] The ceremonies were attended by Fathi Hamad, the Interior Minister of the Hamas-led government
and other "prominent" Hamas elected members of the Palestinian Legislative Council.[2] According to The Independent,
"There is a widespread assumption in Gaza that Hamas... or at least businessmen close to the Islamic faction, are behind the venture."[2]

According to Egyptian journalist Ashraf Abu Al-Houl writing in Al-Ahram, Al-Bustan is one of a Rapidly Growing group of Gaza pleasure parks,
including Zahrat Al-Madain and the Crazy Water Park..."

Jos' Goofy one-liners are an embarrassment to himself and the board.
-
-

 

[Jos]

Post a link to One photo of the so called "Ashraf Abu al-Houl" An izzy invention

 

[abu afak]

Post a link to One photo of the so called "Ashraf Abu al-Houl" An izzy invention

Fallacious Response.

I don't Need to link a "photo" of this reporter.
Nor could YOU of countless reporters cited here.
Just Provide Credible sites mentioning and Citing him and his Employer, Al-Ahram.

Your posts are/REMAIN an embarrassment to the board- and your 'side'.
-
-

 

[Jos]

Anyone can do a check and see the name "Ashraf Abu Al-Houl" appears only on pro Israel sites, And NO story link's to the Al-Ahram site. my pointing out that this "Journalist" is an Israeli invention may be an "embarrassment" to you Abu afake

The Arabic name of the Great Sphinx, Abu al-Hôl, translates as "Father of Terror"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070829040221AA016mY

 

[abu afak]

Anyone can do a check and see the name "Ashraf Abu Al-Houl" appears only on pro Israel sites, And NO story link's to the Al-Ahram site. my pointing out that this "Journalist" is an Israeli invention may be an "embarrassment" to you Abu afake
The Arabic name of the Great Sphinx, Abu al-Hôl, translates as "Father of Terror"

What is sphinx called in EGYPT (I mean in their own language: arabic)? - Yahoo! Answers

Ma'an, Palestinian News website

Maan News Agency: Abbas' Goldstone failure could thwart unity, keep Rafah closed

Abbas' Goldstone failure could thwart unity, keep Rafah closed

Al-A’rish – Ma’an – “Hamas asked Egypt to delay the dialogue and the conciliation agreement,” Egyptian analyst on Palestinian affairs Ashraf Abu Al-Houl said via PHONE Friday.

The analyst for the Egyptian Al-Ahram newspaper described the current political turmoil as almost entirely caused by the Goldstone report crisis, and noted that it may “thwart all the progress Egypt has made on the complex file of Palestinian national unity.”

Palestinian sources Confirmed the issue, saying “pressures are being placed on Hamas by some of the Palestinian factions to delay the dialogue” and noted that Egyptian officials are reviewing the request to delay talks, but are wary of the risks of delay.

Abu al-Houl said Hamas leader Mahmoud Az-Zahar who justified the delay to him.....

It appears you only FINALLY Used Google at My suggestion.
And even then NOT very well!
SPLASH One!
-
-