Am I missing a beat here...Please tell me that I just haven't followed the story completely.
OK, so pull out, this is a sensible concession. But why, honestly, WHY destroy the settlements. Most of them are, by the standards of the region, highly desirable properties, which would require only minor alterations to suit the needs of the new inhabitants. But it is said that both sides agreed that the homes occupied by some 8,000 settlers would do little to address the housing needs of the 1.3 million Palestinians.
Errr...OK, but how is having no houses at all going to help? Come on, the rest of the Strip is blinking desert. There is plenty of space for further building.
It seems to me much more likely that the "both sides" in question were actually Ms Rice and the Palestinian negotiators. Condoleeza plays the game. She says: “The view is that there are better land uses for the Palestinians to better address their housing needs.” She should have told it like it is and it should not have been left to the Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, to get it right. He said that the houses could have remained standing. “It was their choice. If they (the Palestinians) wanted them they could have had them.”
It just seems like another classic example of the Palestinian leadership deliberately hobbling it's people and then blaming their discomfort on Israel. This sort of thing has happened so repeatedly over the years that one can only assume it is a deliberate policy and not a matter of stupidity.
At least some of those settlements are built on property seized from Palestinian farmers. How could the homes remain?
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree that this could seem like a difficult one to live with from the position of a Palestinian farmer. But I don't think you can knock down a house and suddenly end up with a productive olive grove all over again. It is a tricky matter turning rubble on land to a reasonable agricultural return.
ReplyDeletePlus, I don't know, there is doubtless no rule of thumb about this at all, but round here houses go for about 100 times the amount that the same area of even prime agricultural would sell for.
In this instance, I'd say, business is business...if you want to go back into beef, dairy, olives or goats, sell the house and be very glad of the proceeds. It will help you irrigate another dune, desalinate the water, build sewage disposal sites and leave you with cash to spare.
is it posible that the palestinians just simple are so angry that they could never live in a home that was occupied by the people who stole it from them? is the anger just to deep? i don't understand it either but passion is high. this is a huge step, hopefully the tension will not rise any higher.
ReplyDelete