Anonymous writes --
Interesting points actually, and I appreciate your willingness to overlook my past mean comments.
I would say the international community has very clearly not being willing to provide money to the Palestinians - compare the respective foreign aid payments to Palestine and Israel. Israel has for many years being a massive geopolitical partner for the United States and has been awared with billions of direct military aid, never mind favourably prices on military equipment from the United States. I think the weighing scales very clearly depict one side profiting from this arrangement more than the other.
I really think you should send some time in Gaza. I spent half a year in Gaza in 2004 (Working as an aide to a BBC reporter, but thats quite irrelevant to this discussion) and that place is, quite literally, an open air prison. That expression has become something of a cliche when used in relation to Gaza but it is nevertheless true. I haven't spent much time in Africa, or some of the world's poorer spots, but it is undeniably that the Palestinians live in abject poverty. They have no ports, a laughable airoport, and little infrastructure to boast of. Its a dusty little hellhole, especially when compared to the fantastic Israeli infrastructure and public service system.
I'm not exactly pro-Palestinian, but I always find it amusing to see people living in comfort trying to explain away abject poverty as being 'their fault'... The sins of the father creates a vicious cycle which isn't readily explainable to westerners.
It is a common problem with the enemies of Israel that their arguments are generally based on either ignorance of facts they should know, or indifference to facts they do know.
When Arafat was alive and Chirac was president of France, and Gerhard Schroeder was first foreign minister, then Chancellor, of Germany, the European Union could not do enough to satisfy itself that it had sent enough aid to the PA. The money went for "education". In the face of repeated public demonstration that the "education" money paid for anti-Jewish hate literature in PA schools, the EU turned a blind eye. When money for PA hospitals and clinics was diverted to arms, the EU refused to hear the evidence. When money for PA infrastructure was just plain stolen by Arafat and his cronies, the EU just didn't see a problem.
All that changed in 2005. French voters, angered by Arab rioting in the suburbs of Paris, voted in Nicholas Sarkozy. German voters elected Angela Merkel. In 2006 Palestinian voters elected Hamas. Hamas was listed by the EU as a terrorist organization to which the EU was neither inclined nor legally permitted to send aid. When Hamas was elected, the EU aid promptly stopped. Gaza's economy collapsed.
That that would happen was made abundantly clear to Palestinian voters. They voted for Hamas anyway. The largest source of income in large parts of Gaza is welfare payments from the UNRRA, an international organization.
So Anonymous' initial remark that the international community has not been willing to send aid, is simply wrong.
Compare Israel's treatment of Jordan and its treatment of Gaza. Is it just a coincidence that there are no rockets or suicide bombers attacking Israel from Jordan and that there are no Israeli airstrikes on Amman and no Israeli troops there?
The fact that Anonymous can't see the connection between Palestinian attacks on Israel and Israel's counter-attacks tells us a great deal about the clarity, even the rationality, of his judgment.
The fact that Anonymous was with BBC, the leading western source of anti-Israel propaganda, comes as no surprise whatever.
Anonymous suggests that I "really should spend some time in Gaza", omitting to mention that the Palestinians of Gaza savagely murder any Jew they can lay hands on. Israel on the other hand has a million Arab citizens which means Anonymous can go there freely and safely. Anonymous compares these two facts and concludes that he is almost but "not exactly pro-Palestinian".
I think Anonymous needs considerably more familiarity with the subject matter on which he has such important opinions before he is entitled to a superior amusement.