<strong>While the strongest support for Israel after WWII used to come from the labor governments of Europe, it now seems to come from the conservative right and the christian parties, and most forceably from the far right (!) and the ultra-christians.</strong><hr></blockquote>Just to provide you with a counter-example, guess who said this?
[quote]Palestinian civilians--men, women and children--are being maimed and murdered by Israel in our own time, in our own world, many at this very moment. And the man behind this murder it is none other than Ariel Sharon. As a loyal and patriotic American, my heart grieves at the support given by American traitors to the world's worst mass murderer and war criminal Ariel Sharon. Sharon has killed, maimed and tortured more people than Osama Bin Laden could only fantasize about. In fact, I will present to you compelling evidence that Sharon and the Mossad aided and abetted the horrible terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. By supporting Sharon and his criminal government in Israel, American traitors have not only supported Sharon's crimes against the Palestinian people, and have become accomplices in mass murder and torture, but they directly aided terrorists who have inflicted terrorism on America. American traitors who support Israel have damaged our most vital interests in the world and caused Americans to be hated the world over.<hr></blockquote>
It was David Duke, who is a former grand poobah of the KKK in the US. This was published in the Saudi newspaper the Arab News last week.
<strong>You do have a point here, what goes for the US can be said for many European contries as well. But Europe does not act as one entity here. Britain is best buddy with the US, while france has to listen to a large arab minority. Scandinavia is the sits on its "high horse of moral", and so on. While the strongest support for Israel after WWII used to come from the labor governments of Europe, it now seems to come from the conservative right and the christian parties, and most forceably from the far right (!) and the ultra-christians. This has to bother you a bit, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's because Israel moved away from the left and created a country that they wanted, not what the left of Europe wanted. You may knee jerk to the conclusion that relgion is evil but normal people don't.
<strong>You do have a point here, what goes for the US can be said for many European contries as well. But Europe does not act as one entity here. Britain is best buddy with the US, while france has to listen to a large arab minority. Scandinavia is the sits on its "high horse of moral", and so on. While the strongest support for Israel after WWII used to come from the labor governments of Europe, it now seems to come from the conservative right and the christian parties, and most forceably from the far right (!) and the ultra-christians. This has to bother you a bit, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are somewhat right in your assessment .. however its more complicated then its seems ...the far right has always been anti-Semitic and has always hated Israel and blamed Israel and the Jews for everything it can think of. I wouldn't say that post WW2 mainly leftist parties supported Israel , I would simply say that popular support for Israel was far more prevalent ! the media portrayed Israel as a small brave and beleaguered state - a David fighting against Goliath .. and people liked that ... today however , the media ( propelled by a generally more leftie approach, a disdain of the US and local and foreign pro Arab/muslim interests) keep showing Europeans Israel as a middle east bully .. a kind of little America intent on suppressing the Palestinians ... instead of trying to convey the immense complexity of the issues and the lack of moral high ground on either side there is a constant attempt to roll all the blame on the Israeli occupation and simplify the story by claiming that ending Israeli dominance will solve all of the west's problems with the middle east .. to me ( and to anyone who really bothers to look at the facts ) this is tantamount to sticking one's head in the sand and trying to find a quick spunky solution to a problem which in not easily solved.
And to answer your question yes .. I do feel uneasy with some of the support Israel gets from some elements in the US and Europe ... but the bottom line is that these days Israel is so unfairly treated and outnumbered in any international forum that im sorry to say that most Israelis would simply think that any support is better then no support .. sad but true !
Let's talk about the number one reason that facilitates the border crossing for the terrorists.
I keep reading articles about the settlements in the OT. Obviously they are very dispersed and wide spread along the OT borders.
rushmon, don't you think that the geographical location of such settlements would actually benefit the terrorist more than it benefits the Isralis? All these dispersed settlements along the border would provide many holes that the terrorists can use for their daily trips into Israel.
Who is that tactically and geopolitically smart person who promoted the establishment of such settlements? Shouldn't Mr. Sharon move to remove those settlements to protect those civilians and stop facilitating the movements of the terrorists into Israel?
Just forget about the pre 67 borders for a moment, and act with reason to protect Israel and the citizens of Israel with reason.
Israel will gain so much by removing those settlements first and last by securing the borders from the terrorist.
Let's us for once give Israel (more particularly, the Israeli politicians since you have not a single say in what is happening now) the benefit of the doubt and think that they are, unlike the tyrant and terrorist Arafat, for peace. Remove the settlements and erect the borders.
(We could walk through this process hypothetically if you would like, as a role in a peace play )
<strong>Let's talk about the number one reason that facilitates the border crossing for the terrorists.
I keep reading articles about the settlements in the OT. Obviously they are very dispersed and wide spread along the OT borders.
rushmon, don't you think that the geographical location of such settlements would actually benefit the terrorist more than it benefits the Isralis? All these dispersed settlements along the border would provide many holes that the terrorists can use for their daily trips into Israel.
Who is that tactically and geopolitically smart person who promoted the establishment of such settlements? Shouldn't Mr. Sharon move to remove those settlements to protect those civilians and stop facilitating the movements of the terrorists into Israel?
Just forget about the pre 67 borders for a moment, and act with reason to protect Israel and the citizens of Israel with reason.
Israel will gain so much by removing those settlements first and last by securing the borders from the terrorist.
Let's us for once give Israel (more particularly, the Israeli politicians since you have not a single say in what is happening now) the benefit of the doubt and think that they are, unlike the tyrant and terrorist Arafat, for peace. Remove the settlements and erect the borders.
(We could walk through this process hypothetically if you would like, as a role in a peace play )</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let me say that in principle I agree with all you say , even though your facts are a little wrong ( the terrorists don't use the settlements to get into Israel, they can't....they use Palestinian towns and villages on the line for that). the problem is ( as I have posted above ) that Israel cannot really perform a unilateral withdraw from the OT without being rebuked by the whole world.... no one would recognize such a move .. It would force others to deal with the palestinians who would be stuck in impossible borders and would have to bear the full brunt of PA corruption and an economic meltdown. Just as you propose Israel should be ready to remove settlements ( and most Israelis support that ) the problem is that there is no one ready to accept such moves not as a result of negotiations and we cannot have any meaningful negotiations while the violence and terror continues. sounds like a catch 22.... I know.
Also Israel cannot afford to be seen to back down as a result of terror. that will be accepted by the Arab world as a sign of weakness and would invite even more intense attacks ... if the terrorists see that they gain Israeli political concessions through using violence then they would gain popular support and intensify their war, not to mention what this would do to Israel's deterrent image in the eyes of its old Arab states foes .
You see, this conflict has far reaching implications and one simply cannot ignore these. Israel must do what is right which is withdraw from the territories and remove settlements but only after a peaceful negotiation round and in an environment of calm and ceasefire and a stop to the endless terrorist attacks on it civilians.
The only other option ( which is quite a bad one ) is for Israel - after exhausting all its possible military and diplomatic resources at trying to get the PA back to the negotiating table - to perform a unilateral withdrawal to defendable borders and to remove isolated settlements and then to do what we have been doing for the past 50 years .. wait for the Arabs to give up trying to kill us nad decide that they are ready to accept us and to talk to us.
Let me say that in principle I agree with all you say , even though your facts are a little wrong ( the terrorists don't use the settlements to get into Israel, they can't....they use Palestinian towns and villages on the line for that). the problem is ( as I have posted above ) that Israel cannot really perform a unilateral withdraw from the OT without being rebuked by the whole world.... no one would recognize such a move .. It would force others to deal with the palestinians who would be stuck in impossible borders and would have to bear the full brunt of PA corruption and an economic meltdown. Just as you propose Israel should be ready to remove settlements ( and most Israelis support that ) the problem is that there is no one ready to accept such moves not as a result of negotiations and we cannot have any meaningful negotiations while the violence and terror continues. sounds like a catch 22.... I know.
Also Israel cannot afford to be seen to back down as a result of terror. that will be accepted by the Arab world as a sign of weakness and would invite even more intense attacks ... if the terrorists see that they gain Israeli political concessions through using violence then they would gain popular support and intensify their war, not to mention what this would do to Israel's deterrent image in the eyes of its old Arab states foes .
You see, this conflict has far reaching implications and one simply cannot ignore these. Israel must do what is right which is withdraw from the territories and remove settlements but only after a peaceful negotiation round and in an environment of calm and ceasefire and a stop to the endless terrorist attacks on it civilians.
The only other option ( which is quite a bad one ) is for Israel - after exhausting all its possible military and diplomatic resources at trying to get the PA back to the negotiating table - to perform a unilateral withdrawal to defendable borders and to remove isolated settlements and then to do what we have been doing for the past 50 years .. wait for the Arabs to give up trying to kill us nad decide that they are ready to accept us and to talk to us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It can not be so smarter than this.
---
Leave the settlements in place because they only make the problem worse, and Palestinians snapping due to such measures only serve the greater purpose of Greater Israel.
So think with me a moment, fellow Israeli citizens. We could spare couple of lives in due process to establish our Greater Israel. But those lives will always give us a reason to stay in what they call OT [which is rightfully part of our historically documented and religiously granted by GOD greater Israel]. Isn't that genius?
You might think what should we do if we are pressed hard in due process. Well, we install couple of isolated settlements hither and thither then withdraw from those settlements if the situation requires.
So the settlements are there to stay, and we will always have the rights to infiltrate into the gentile lands and protect our fellow citizens who are living in those areas.
There should never be physical borders which will deny our rights in those lands. Erecting such borders is wrong, and will be avoided no matter how many lives we lose.
To use, as an excuse, some Palestinian work force in Greater Israel (let us say 150,000) would further support our stance in not erecting the borders. "Where would that work force go?" The international community will claim at us. "The unemployment records will sky rocket in the Palestine to be found, and Israel must help out here", The International community will require from Israel.
---
It is a very smart idea, the establishment of those settlements. Something that can effectively be used on the negotiation table.
Not peaceful politics, smart, however, it is. The mere repetitive notion of withdrawal to defendable borders is enough to deter the free from sitting on the negotiation table; not to mention signing a peace agreement. At then end, a peace agreement will be signed with the enslaved people. Enslavement does not last long, however.
I apologize for wrongfully stating that terrorists are using the settlements to infiltrate into Israel, this is due to my lack of knowledge in the exact geography of the settlements. I will look further into this and maybe I will have a much clear view about it.
jakkorz, I don't see what you are getting at .. please explain it better . who's words are you quoting there ? can you provide a source ?
I personally have always been against the settlement policy and there are many Israelis who think likewise (these days over 60% of those polled). Israel is not interested in enslaving the Palestinians or ruling over them. when seriously approached in the past for making peace with its neighbors Israel was always willing to compromise for the longer term option of peace - it has done so with Egypt, it has done so with Jordan and it had done so when signing the Oslo peace treaty with Arafat.
Let me try and make one thing abundantly clear, If the Palestinians really want their state and peace and accept Israel's right to exist in secure borders and without terror or further territorial claims to parts of pre 67 Israel they can achieve a deal tomorrow - settlements would be removed and they will have their state .. instead they seem to be trapped in the dream of 'bringing the zionist enemy to its knees' or even worse 'pushing the Jews back to the sea' ... all we can do now is sit and wait for them to wake up from this nightmare.
<strong>jakkorz, I don't see what you are getting at .. please explain it better . who's words are you quoting there ? can you provide a source ?
I personally have always been against the settlement policy and there are many Israelis who think likewise (these days over 60% of those polled). Israel is not interested in enslaving the Palestinians or ruling over them. when seriously approached in the past for making peace with its neighbors Israel was always willing to compromise for the longer term option of peace - it has done so with Egypt, it has done so with Jordan and it had done so when signing the Oslo peace treaty with Arafat.
Let me try and make one thing abundantly clear, If the Palestinians really want their state and peace and accept Israel's right to exist in secure borders and without terror or further territorial claims to parts of pre 67 Israel they can achieve a deal tomorrow - settlements would be removed and they will have their state .. instead they seem to be trapped in the dream of 'bringing the zionist enemy to its knees' or even worse 'pushing the Jews back to the sea' ... all we can do now is sit and wait for them to wake up from this nightmare.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My deep apologies. I did not try to mislead you by that scenario to think that it is a quote, thus, I did not provide a source. Please forgive me.
Basically it boils down to one question if you can answer in one paragraph and a straightforward answer please. The question is:
What peaceful purpose(s) do the settlements serve in the OT?
The fact is that about 200 000 settlers, many of them extreemist are holding both the israeli and the palestinian population hostage.
The settlers are deeply opposed to the 67 borders.
(btw: Rashumon, I hope you relize that a idea of a unilateral is a real option (currently pushed by Haim Ramon of the israeli Labor party). And also that the purposal of full arab recognition of israel in exchange for withdrawal is on the tabel).
My deep apologies. I did not try to mislead you by that scenario to think that it is a quote, thus, I did not provide a source. Please forgive me.
Basically it boils down to one question if you can answer in one paragraph and a straightforward answer please. The question is:
What peaceful purpose(s) do the settlements serve in the OT?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok good question. the way I see it the settlements can be divided into 3 types:
1. Natural expansion of Pre 67 Israeli towns and villages on the border areas - a good example to this is the extensive growth around Jerusalem since 67. Jerusalem has become the largest city in Israel and many of its neighbourhoods are beyond the 67 so called green line or literally sitting on it. the actual territorial cost of this from the Palestinian land is minimal though since these are generally high density residential areas that take quite a small amount of space. most Israelis would not even accept the definition of these as settlements.
2. Security oriented military/civilian settlements - these can be found mainly along the jordan Valley and were established to strengthen Israeli presence on the Israeli Jordanian border after 67 when these countries were still enemies .. these also serve as a way of controlling and maintaining Israeli control of the Jordan river and agricultural areas in the Jordan valley which is a vital source of water in this desert area. these settlements are rather few and contain small numbers of people.
3. Ideological settlements - these were established by religious nationalist Israelis who believe that the whole of the land of Judea and Samarya ( west bank) should be parts of Israel and that it is their historical duty and right to settle this land . Various Israeli governments supported these people to varying degrees but many Israelis (myself included) view these people as misguided nationalists who should not be encouraged. many of their settlements are isolated enclaves living in the depth of Palestinian population in the west bank. these settlers are a cause of great antagonism among palestinians and are very expensive to maintain and protect from terrorist attacks. It is widely recognized in Israeli society that most if not all of these settlements would and should be removed once a real peace treaty would be achieved with the Palestinians and a Palestinian state be established.
The more thorny issues arise with the first two types, Palestinians insist on defining all three types as settlements while Israelis very in their view of what should be kept under Israeli control and what should not. though I firmly believe that if the Palestinians were really up to the challenge of finding a solution to these issues it should be relatively easy to find solutions .. many have been offered ( like land exchanges and joint sovereignty over Jerusalem etc...) but all have been rejected by the PA.
(btw: Rashumon, I hope you relize that a idea of a unilateral is a real option (currently pushed by Haim Ramon of the israeli Labor party). And also that the purposal of full arab recognition of israel in exchange for withdrawal is on the tabel).</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what i'm saying in my post Re settlers but you are mistaken if you think that because of these peace cannot be achieved. Sharon himself was responsible for the evacuation in 1982 of tens of thousands of Israeli settlers from the Synai peninsula when the Israeli Egyptian peace treaty was signed. if a real agreement were to be achieved with the Palestinians these west bank settlements would be removed and solutions would be found for the other places. this is not the main issue ( though it is a vital one to solve) the primary problem ATM is the violence which is costing too many lives on both sides .. That must stop for any political progress to take place.
Re Ramon's unilateral withdrawal plan - as I have said this idea is gathering pace ( though its still rather young and unpopular atm) but the point is that even if it happens it would only be an interim solution and the palestinians would suffer badly from it.
Well, I'm not to sure it's such a good plan either, but it is an alternative. What is most problematic with israeli policy today is that none of its leaders, neither likud nor labor, seems to believe in negotiation with the palestinian leadership. Are we to wait for a palestinian election before negotiations are resumed?
If you look at the current retoric beteen Pakistan and India there are obvious similarities to Sharon and Arafat. And it leads nowhere but down.
When it comes to the settlers, my understanding is that they actually are one of the main reasons for the recent violence. Palestinians feel their precens every they and their number have increased markably during the years after Oslo. The settlements (see the map) and the army presents need to maintain them are disruptive to all atempts on get a palestinian infrastructure working. All the army checkpoints inside the westbank have made the living conditions there unlivable. The reports on the deaths of unborn children due to women in labor beeing hindered from getting to birth clinics are horrible.
From israeli (your) perspective, the settlers do not pose a treath to peace, you know the will be have to moved if "peace" demands it. To the palestinians however they are the everyday proof that israel has no intentions of giving them their land back. They are the symbol of the occupation, and they think they're there to stay.
Jerusalem is the hard nut to crack here. There is no doubt that many of the settlements around Jerusalem has been built to hinder the joining of East Jerusalem with a future palestinian state. You claim they are "needed", while the fact is that the arab/palestinian population in Jerusalem have been, and still is growing at a faster rate than the israeli. Also some of the worst examples of unlawful takeover of palestinian property have come from Jerusalem.
So a "deal" on Jerusalem is crucial, and both sides will have to give here as well. There has to be a clear and open connection between Jerusalem and the west bank, but the palestinians will have to accept that not all the land will be given back. This should however be generously compensated for.
<strong>Well, I'm not to sure it's such a good plan either, but it is an alternative. What is most problematic with israeli policy today is that none of its leaders, neither likud nor labor, seems to believe in negotiation with the palestinian leadership.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No one in Israel believes in negotiations with the PA leadership ( specifically Arafat) these days. Israel has given them way too many chances to prove they want peace and all it got back was death and terrorism. there is nothing problematic about this policy its pure survival. Ramon's plan as well is based around the assumption that Israel has no partners for negotiations and therefore must simply withdraw unilaterally.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Are we to wait for a palestinian election before negotiations are resumed?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No ! we are to wait to a cessation of terrorism and a palestinian acceptance that violence will not help them one bit to get what they want. its very simple - stop attacking us and we will talk to you and be ready for concessions, continue the attacks and we will not talk but strike back until terrorism stops !
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
If you look at the current retoric beteen Pakistan and India there are obvious similarities to Sharon and Arafat. And it leads nowhere but down.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see no comparison whatsoever other then the fact that these are two situations where you have a conflict.... I also fail to see the use of drawing this analogy.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
When it comes to the settlers, my understanding is that they actually are one of the main reasons for the recent violence.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
To many Palestinians and Arabs all Israelis are settlers .. from Tel Aviv to Eilat all of the land should be theirs. are we to assume this moral haze were because of settlement activity the lives of Israeli children become free game ? where will this end ? by who's definitions ? can you not see how ridiculous this mixup is ?
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Palestinians feel their precens every they and their number have increased markably during the years after Oslo. The settlements (see the map) and the army presents need to maintain them are disruptive to all atempts on get a palestinian infrastructure working.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only thing preventing a proper infrastructure forming was the PA's corruption and the fact that it preferred using all the EU aid money for buying weapons from Iran and BMWs for their families.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
All the army checkpoints inside the west bank have made the living conditions there unlivable. The reports on the deaths of unborn children due to women in labor beeing hindered from getting to birth clinics are horrible.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
These have only become so problematic since the launch of the Intefada .. before Oct 2000 there were very few of these checkpoints ( mainly separating Israel proper from Palestinian lands ) and they were not posing a serious problem for most Palestinians to get through... this really became a problem once the violence escalated and the checkpoints became a tool in Israel's fight against Palestinian terror. the IDF makes mistakes and any loss of life is evil and sad .. but there is a simple solution to all that .. stop the fighting , get back to the negotiating table and all these stupid checkpoint would not be necessary ....
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
From israeli (your) perspective, the settlers do not pose a treath to peace, you know the will be have to moved if "peace" demands it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure they present a threat for peace but nothing like a threat that those who are actually killing civilians pose. there can be no moral equality between murderers and settlers.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
To the palestinians however they are the everyday proof that israel has no intentions of giving them their land back. They are the symbol of the occupation, and they think they're there to stay.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So why did they ever agree to negotiate ? settlers have been there for over 30 years now ... what's different now... come on .. every one knows Israel is willing to compromise on these issues.
I believe you actually know this, but I'd like to post a quote from B'Tselems recent report on the settlements to show just how much the palestinians have actully gain from "negotiations":
"Overall, contrary to the expectations raised by the Oslo Process, the Israeli governments have implemented a policy leading to the dramatic growth of the settlements. Between September 1993, on the signing of the Declaration of Principles, and September 2001 (the time of the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifada), the number of housing units in the settlements in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip rose from 20,400 to 31,4800 _ an increase of approximately fifty-four percent in just seven years. The sharpest increase during this period was recorded in 2000, under the government headed by Ehud Barak, when the construction of almost 4,800 new housing units was commenced. At the end of 1993, the population of the West Bank settlements (excluding East Jerusalem) totaled 100,500. By the end of 2000, this figure increased to 191,600, representing a growth rate of some ninety percent. By contrast, the growth rate in the settlements in East Jerusalem was much slower: the population of these settlements totaled 146,800 in 1993 and 173,300 in 2000 ? an increase of just eighteen percent."
In this light, how can one expect the palestinians not to react? Negotiate a few more years until there is no land left. The truth is that Israel has to take much of the blame for the failing of Oslo.
For the record, I strongly oppose the terrorist bombing, but as the Mitchell report states, the 2nd intifada started out with mainly peaceful demonstrations, to which IDF responded unreasonably violent, shooting to death dozens of unarmed demonstrators. This is where the recent violence has buildt up from. Don't tell give me the old Israel is only a responding to terrorism bs.
If what Israel got back was nothing but violence, it was because it was not willing to give anything substantial. Its a tragedy that not one of four potential israeli leaders (2 likud, 2 labor) consider negotiations with Arafat an option.
The reason I mention India and pakistan is because they say exactly the same things. "India has almost lost its patience with Pakistan", "Pakistan will not submit to Indian pressure etc. etc." The same words, the same lack of potentially stabelizing and peaceful long-time results.
Most palestinians are willing to accept something on the lines of the 67-borders, stop quoting the few how don't.
Palestinian corruption (nomatter how bad) did not expand israeli settlements, stop acting like it did. The fact is that the recent millitary operations have destroyed more than corruption ever did.
The checkpoints where needed more with every expansion of the settlements they didn't "re-appear" because of the new intifada.
And I ofcourse agree, that there is no moral equality between murderers and settlers. Unless the settlers commit murder, which there is statistically over 50 examples of since Oslo. (There are a lot of extreemist among the settlers)
I hope I don't come across as to agressive. I really appreciate your open mindedness, but I think you are letting the day by day happenings define your view on this, and fail to see some of the bigger perspectives.
<strong>If what Israel got back was nothing but violence, it was because it was not willing to give anything substantial. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please .. new come on ... this is ridiculous ! Israel helped the PA establish itself, it withdrew from most of the West bank and almost all of Gaza it armed the PA's security apparatus ( with Arms that are being used against its citizens nowdays) and over all of that it was willing to remove most of the settlements and withdraw from effectively all of the OT in Taba and Camp David summits.. how many times do I have to say this ? the PA was offered all that you say they want and they rejected it ! more then once !
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Its a tragedy that not one of four potential Israeli leaders (2 likud, 2 labor) consider negotiations with Arafat an option.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO ! the tragedy is that Arafat is still using terror despite all the warnings he has had, its a tragedy the you and others cannot see Arafat's agenda clearly and still think Israel can do business with him when its clear to all who look at the situation that the man is obsessed by his failed armed struggle and with redeeming his lost honor ... virtually all of the recent ( last few weeks) suicide attacks performed against Israel have been done by Fatah activists directly answerable to Arafat .. Israel cannot talk to a man who does not stand by his word and uses terror against its civilians while claiming to want peace ! THAT'S THE TRAGEDY !
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Most Palestinians are willing to accept something on the lines of the 67-borders, stop quoting the few how don't.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well then why don't they stop attacking us ?????
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Palestinian corruption (no matter how bad) did not expand Israeli settlements,
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Israeli settlements did not create Palestinian terrorism either despite the fact that building them was an immoral stupid act by Israel....
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
The checkpoints where needed more with every expansion of the settlements they didn't "re-appear" because of the new intifada.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's simply false ..I have been to the OT many times during the 90s and you had virtually nil road blocks when things were quite ( nothing to do with settlements ) the few that were there were very lean and hardly ever stopped anyone. nothing like the way it is these days.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
I hope I don't come across as to aggressive. I really appreciate your open mindedness, but I think you are letting the day by day happenings define your view on this, and fail to see some of the bigger perspectives.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so at all .. the whole point of this thread is the bigger perspective... I am ready to take full responsibility for Israel's mistakes as I have said dozens of times.... but ONE THING MUST BE CLEAR .. the violence must stop for any progress to take place and the Palestinians must learn to compromise just as we have learnt to compromise....
Recent suicide strikes will at last put an end to delays in the construction of a fence around the West Bank. The defense minister held discussions last night to immediately implement an emergency separation fence resembling the barrier which closes off the Gaza Strip. Some 20 contractors are to work on the fence.
The positioning of the fence will depend upon the physical contours of the land. In many cases, it will not be put up exactly along the Green Line, the border which was in effect until the 1967 Six-Day War.
In the past, Israeli officials have delayed construction of such a fence due to concerns that it would effectively demarcate the country's future borders. When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon spoke about creating border zones, he was clearly referring to the establishment of a barrier some 10 kilometers inside the West Bank. In contrast, Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told associates yesterday that he views the fence primarily from a security standpoint: Its purpose, he believes, is to block terrorist crossings. For Ben-Eliezer, considerations of how the fence might affect future negotiations about borders are not of primary importance. Also, for Ben-Eliezer, the security consideration precedes Palestinian economic and civil interests.
Unlike in the Gaza Strip, it is clear dozens of settlements will remain on the other side of the West Bank fence. The fence, therefore, will not only run between the Palestinian Authority and Israel's Green Line border, to a certain extent, it will run between Jewish settlements and Israel's Green Line border and Israel will have to create corridors leading to and from such isolated settlements.
The separation fence will not provide total protection. Israel Defense Force soldiers and weapons will have to supplement the fence, and IDF operations within Palestinian lands will continue. In tandem with the fence construction project, the IDF expects to continue operations in Palestinian cities whenever intelligence information points to terror preparations and activities in them.
Carrying out such operations, the IDF does not show any special deference to "A," Palestinian Authority-controlled areas. The discovery that Tanzim, essentially Fatah, operatives have been behind recent suicide strikes has strengthened this tendency not to differentiate between "A" lands and other areas in the territories. Israeli security officials believe yesterday's bombing in Petah Tikva was the work of Tanzim men.
Also yesterday, Israel notched an importation operational success: Thanks to effective intelligence information, security forces were able to track down the terror band which carried out the recent street promenade attack in Rishon Letzion. The intelligence reports reached Israeli officials on Sunday night. The estimate was that as soon as the gang members sensed Israel was about to close in on them, they'd seek sanctuary in Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity or a local hospital. This in fact happened, but Israeli soldiers staged an ambush near the church and the terrorists fled, before being apprehended.
What I see on that map is shamefull. If you honestly believe that what that map exhibits is in no way responcible for the Palastinian attacks then you need to think again. Surely their methods are outright wrong and not justified . . . but looking at the settlements . . . and knowing from interviews with settlers, what they think of Palastinians (as subhuman), I can't help but think that two things need to happen SIMULTANEOUSLY
<strong>What I see on that map is shamefull. If you honestly believe that what that map exhibits is in no way responcible for the Palastinian attacks then you need to think again. Surely their methods are outright wrong and not justified . . . but looking at the settlements . . . and knowing from interviews with settlers, what they think of Palastinians (as subhuman), I can't help but think that two things need to happen SIMULTANEOUSLY
1. Settlements MUST be dismantled!!!!!
2. Terrorism MUST stop!!!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am getting tired of saying this ... I am against the settlements ( as are most Israelis)
but the main point is that removing them was a main element of the Camp David plan and PM Barak and President Clinton's suggestions at the Taba summit . the Palestinians rejected all that ...
Violence must stop FIRST or else Israel's actions would be seen as a victory for terror and violence and then the attacks will never stop they will get worse and worse ...
A very logical simple solution - ceasefire - negotiations and then Israeli withdrawal !
Even Isreali soldiers say that the settlers treat Palastinians like dirt, and the rest of Palestine (or Judae or whatever your ideology befits as a name)as a garbage dump .. . .
but the point is is that these Israelis that acknwledge this should look closely at themselves and recognize that the inaction with regard to settlements is a very large part of the problem (the other parts being that many PA just want to irradicate Israel)
during the Oslo peace the settlements were expanding!!! come on admit it and do something about it..> not because of the terror bombings, but because they are wrong and racist and unjust.
[quote] Violence must stop FIRST or else Israel's actions would be seen as a victory for terror and violence and then the attacks will never stop they will get worse and worse <hr></blockquote>
i can almost see the reasonong by the Israeli right: on the ouside they say "the violence must stop first" on the inside they say 'the violence, if it only costs one or two a week, provides us with reason to stay where we are....and even maybe to keep building... if they keep it up clearly we will be justified in booting them completely out or our righteously god-appointed lands of milk and honey...so, keep it comin." Cynical, I know, but sometimes I wonder . . . after all what about those attempts to bomb schools recently?!?!?
Israel is not the innocent lamb it wants us to believe . . . and I see this and support Israel in many ways.... just not with settlements and no more expansion.
Comments
<strong>While the strongest support for Israel after WWII used to come from the labor governments of Europe, it now seems to come from the conservative right and the christian parties, and most forceably from the far right (!) and the ultra-christians.</strong><hr></blockquote>Just to provide you with a counter-example, guess who said this?
[quote]Palestinian civilians--men, women and children--are being maimed and murdered by Israel in our own time, in our own world, many at this very moment. And the man behind this murder it is none other than Ariel Sharon. As a loyal and patriotic American, my heart grieves at the support given by American traitors to the world's worst mass murderer and war criminal Ariel Sharon. Sharon has killed, maimed and tortured more people than Osama Bin Laden could only fantasize about. In fact, I will present to you compelling evidence that Sharon and the Mossad aided and abetted the horrible terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. By supporting Sharon and his criminal government in Israel, American traitors have not only supported Sharon's crimes against the Palestinian people, and have become accomplices in mass murder and torture, but they directly aided terrorists who have inflicted terrorism on America. American traitors who support Israel have damaged our most vital interests in the world and caused Americans to be hated the world over.<hr></blockquote>
It was David Duke, who is a former grand poobah of the KKK in the US. This was published in the Saudi newspaper the Arab News last week.
<strong>You do have a point here, what goes for the US can be said for many European contries as well. But Europe does not act as one entity here. Britain is best buddy with the US, while france has to listen to a large arab minority. Scandinavia is the sits on its "high horse of moral", and so on. While the strongest support for Israel after WWII used to come from the labor governments of Europe, it now seems to come from the conservative right and the christian parties, and most forceably from the far right (!) and the ultra-christians. This has to bother you a bit, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's because Israel moved away from the left and created a country that they wanted, not what the left of Europe wanted. You may knee jerk to the conclusion that relgion is evil but normal people don't.
<strong>You do have a point here, what goes for the US can be said for many European contries as well. But Europe does not act as one entity here. Britain is best buddy with the US, while france has to listen to a large arab minority. Scandinavia is the sits on its "high horse of moral", and so on. While the strongest support for Israel after WWII used to come from the labor governments of Europe, it now seems to come from the conservative right and the christian parties, and most forceably from the far right (!) and the ultra-christians. This has to bother you a bit, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are somewhat right in your assessment .. however its more complicated then its seems ...the far right has always been anti-Semitic and has always hated Israel and blamed Israel and the Jews for everything it can think of. I wouldn't say that post WW2 mainly leftist parties supported Israel , I would simply say that popular support for Israel was far more prevalent ! the media portrayed Israel as a small brave and beleaguered state - a David fighting against Goliath .. and people liked that ... today however , the media ( propelled by a generally more leftie approach, a disdain of the US and local and foreign pro Arab/muslim interests) keep showing Europeans Israel as a middle east bully .. a kind of little America intent on suppressing the Palestinians ... instead of trying to convey the immense complexity of the issues and the lack of moral high ground on either side there is a constant attempt to roll all the blame on the Israeli occupation and simplify the story by claiming that ending Israeli dominance will solve all of the west's problems with the middle east .. to me ( and to anyone who really bothers to look at the facts ) this is tantamount to sticking one's head in the sand and trying to find a quick spunky solution to a problem which in not easily solved.
And to answer your question yes .. I do feel uneasy with some of the support Israel gets from some elements in the US and Europe ... but the bottom line is that these days Israel is so unfairly treated and outnumbered in any international forum that im sorry to say that most Israelis would simply think that any support is better then no support .. sad but true !
I keep reading articles about the settlements in the OT. Obviously they are very dispersed and wide spread along the OT borders.
rushmon, don't you think that the geographical location of such settlements would actually benefit the terrorist more than it benefits the Isralis? All these dispersed settlements along the border would provide many holes that the terrorists can use for their daily trips into Israel.
Who is that tactically and geopolitically smart person who promoted the establishment of such settlements? Shouldn't Mr. Sharon move to remove those settlements to protect those civilians and stop facilitating the movements of the terrorists into Israel?
Just forget about the pre 67 borders for a moment, and act with reason to protect Israel and the citizens of Israel with reason.
Israel will gain so much by removing those settlements first and last by securing the borders from the terrorist.
Let's us for once give Israel (more particularly, the Israeli politicians since you have not a single say in what is happening now) the benefit of the doubt and think that they are, unlike the tyrant and terrorist Arafat, for peace. Remove the settlements and erect the borders.
(We could walk through this process hypothetically if you would like, as a role in a peace play
<strong>Let's talk about the number one reason that facilitates the border crossing for the terrorists.
I keep reading articles about the settlements in the OT. Obviously they are very dispersed and wide spread along the OT borders.
rushmon, don't you think that the geographical location of such settlements would actually benefit the terrorist more than it benefits the Isralis? All these dispersed settlements along the border would provide many holes that the terrorists can use for their daily trips into Israel.
Who is that tactically and geopolitically smart person who promoted the establishment of such settlements? Shouldn't Mr. Sharon move to remove those settlements to protect those civilians and stop facilitating the movements of the terrorists into Israel?
Just forget about the pre 67 borders for a moment, and act with reason to protect Israel and the citizens of Israel with reason.
Israel will gain so much by removing those settlements first and last by securing the borders from the terrorist.
Let's us for once give Israel (more particularly, the Israeli politicians since you have not a single say in what is happening now) the benefit of the doubt and think that they are, unlike the tyrant and terrorist Arafat, for peace. Remove the settlements and erect the borders.
(We could walk through this process hypothetically if you would like, as a role in a peace play
Let me say that in principle I agree with all you say , even though your facts are a little wrong ( the terrorists don't use the settlements to get into Israel, they can't....they use Palestinian towns and villages on the line for that). the problem is ( as I have posted above ) that Israel cannot really perform a unilateral withdraw from the OT without being rebuked by the whole world.... no one would recognize such a move .. It would force others to deal with the palestinians who would be stuck in impossible borders and would have to bear the full brunt of PA corruption and an economic meltdown. Just as you propose Israel should be ready to remove settlements ( and most Israelis support that ) the problem is that there is no one ready to accept such moves not as a result of negotiations and we cannot have any meaningful negotiations while the violence and terror continues. sounds like a catch 22.... I know.
Also Israel cannot afford to be seen to back down as a result of terror. that will be accepted by the Arab world as a sign of weakness and would invite even more intense attacks ... if the terrorists see that they gain Israeli political concessions through using violence then they would gain popular support and intensify their war, not to mention what this would do to Israel's deterrent image in the eyes of its old Arab states foes .
You see, this conflict has far reaching implications and one simply cannot ignore these. Israel must do what is right which is withdraw from the territories and remove settlements but only after a peaceful negotiation round and in an environment of calm and ceasefire and a stop to the endless terrorist attacks on it civilians.
The only other option ( which is quite a bad one ) is for Israel - after exhausting all its possible military and diplomatic resources at trying to get the PA back to the negotiating table - to perform a unilateral withdrawal to defendable borders and to remove isolated settlements and then to do what we have been doing for the past 50 years .. wait for the Arabs to give up trying to kill us nad decide that they are ready to accept us and to talk to us.
<strong>
Let me say that in principle I agree with all you say , even though your facts are a little wrong ( the terrorists don't use the settlements to get into Israel, they can't....they use Palestinian towns and villages on the line for that). the problem is ( as I have posted above ) that Israel cannot really perform a unilateral withdraw from the OT without being rebuked by the whole world.... no one would recognize such a move .. It would force others to deal with the palestinians who would be stuck in impossible borders and would have to bear the full brunt of PA corruption and an economic meltdown. Just as you propose Israel should be ready to remove settlements ( and most Israelis support that ) the problem is that there is no one ready to accept such moves not as a result of negotiations and we cannot have any meaningful negotiations while the violence and terror continues. sounds like a catch 22.... I know.
Also Israel cannot afford to be seen to back down as a result of terror. that will be accepted by the Arab world as a sign of weakness and would invite even more intense attacks ... if the terrorists see that they gain Israeli political concessions through using violence then they would gain popular support and intensify their war, not to mention what this would do to Israel's deterrent image in the eyes of its old Arab states foes .
You see, this conflict has far reaching implications and one simply cannot ignore these. Israel must do what is right which is withdraw from the territories and remove settlements but only after a peaceful negotiation round and in an environment of calm and ceasefire and a stop to the endless terrorist attacks on it civilians.
The only other option ( which is quite a bad one ) is for Israel - after exhausting all its possible military and diplomatic resources at trying to get the PA back to the negotiating table - to perform a unilateral withdrawal to defendable borders and to remove isolated settlements and then to do what we have been doing for the past 50 years .. wait for the Arabs to give up trying to kill us nad decide that they are ready to accept us and to talk to us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It can not be so smarter than this.
---
Leave the settlements in place because they only make the problem worse, and Palestinians snapping due to such measures only serve the greater purpose of Greater Israel.
So think with me a moment, fellow Israeli citizens. We could spare couple of lives in due process to establish our Greater Israel. But those lives will always give us a reason to stay in what they call OT [which is rightfully part of our historically documented and religiously granted by GOD greater Israel]. Isn't that genius?
You might think what should we do if we are pressed hard in due process. Well, we install couple of isolated settlements hither and thither then withdraw from those settlements if the situation requires.
So the settlements are there to stay, and we will always have the rights to infiltrate into the gentile lands and protect our fellow citizens who are living in those areas.
There should never be physical borders which will deny our rights in those lands. Erecting such borders is wrong, and will be avoided no matter how many lives we lose.
To use, as an excuse, some Palestinian work force in Greater Israel (let us say 150,000) would further support our stance in not erecting the borders. "Where would that work force go?" The international community will claim at us. "The unemployment records will sky rocket in the Palestine to be found, and Israel must help out here", The International community will require from Israel.
---
It is a very smart idea, the establishment of those settlements. Something that can effectively be used on the negotiation table.
Not peaceful politics, smart, however, it is. The mere repetitive notion of withdrawal to defendable borders is enough to deter the free from sitting on the negotiation table; not to mention signing a peace agreement. At then end, a peace agreement will be signed with the enslaved people. Enslavement does not last long, however.
I apologize for wrongfully stating that terrorists are using the settlements to infiltrate into Israel, this is due to my lack of knowledge in the exact geography of the settlements. I will look further into this and maybe I will have a much clear view about it.
I personally have always been against the settlement policy and there are many Israelis who think likewise (these days over 60% of those polled). Israel is not interested in enslaving the Palestinians or ruling over them. when seriously approached in the past for making peace with its neighbors Israel was always willing to compromise for the longer term option of peace - it has done so with Egypt, it has done so with Jordan and it had done so when signing the Oslo peace treaty with Arafat.
Let me try and make one thing abundantly clear, If the Palestinians really want their state and peace and accept Israel's right to exist in secure borders and without terror or further territorial claims to parts of pre 67 Israel they can achieve a deal tomorrow - settlements would be removed and they will have their state .. instead they seem to be trapped in the dream of 'bringing the zionist enemy to its knees' or even worse 'pushing the Jews back to the sea' ... all we can do now is sit and wait for them to wake up from this nightmare.
<strong>jakkorz, I don't see what you are getting at .. please explain it better . who's words are you quoting there ? can you provide a source ?
I personally have always been against the settlement policy and there are many Israelis who think likewise (these days over 60% of those polled). Israel is not interested in enslaving the Palestinians or ruling over them. when seriously approached in the past for making peace with its neighbors Israel was always willing to compromise for the longer term option of peace - it has done so with Egypt, it has done so with Jordan and it had done so when signing the Oslo peace treaty with Arafat.
Let me try and make one thing abundantly clear, If the Palestinians really want their state and peace and accept Israel's right to exist in secure borders and without terror or further territorial claims to parts of pre 67 Israel they can achieve a deal tomorrow - settlements would be removed and they will have their state .. instead they seem to be trapped in the dream of 'bringing the zionist enemy to its knees' or even worse 'pushing the Jews back to the sea' ... all we can do now is sit and wait for them to wake up from this nightmare.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My deep apologies. I did not try to mislead you by that scenario to think that it is a quote, thus, I did not provide a source. Please forgive me.
Basically it boils down to one question if you can answer in one paragraph and a straightforward answer please. The question is:
What peaceful purpose(s) do the settlements serve in the OT?
The settlers are deeply opposed to the 67 borders.
(btw: Rashumon, I hope you relize that a idea of a unilateral is a real option (currently pushed by Haim Ramon of the israeli Labor party). And also that the purposal of full arab recognition of israel in exchange for withdrawal is on the tabel).
<strong>
My deep apologies. I did not try to mislead you by that scenario to think that it is a quote, thus, I did not provide a source. Please forgive me.
Basically it boils down to one question if you can answer in one paragraph and a straightforward answer please. The question is:
What peaceful purpose(s) do the settlements serve in the OT?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok good question. the way I see it the settlements can be divided into 3 types:
1. Natural expansion of Pre 67 Israeli towns and villages on the border areas - a good example to this is the extensive growth around Jerusalem since 67. Jerusalem has become the largest city in Israel and many of its neighbourhoods are beyond the 67 so called green line or literally sitting on it. the actual territorial cost of this from the Palestinian land is minimal though since these are generally high density residential areas that take quite a small amount of space. most Israelis would not even accept the definition of these as settlements.
2. Security oriented military/civilian settlements - these can be found mainly along the jordan Valley and were established to strengthen Israeli presence on the Israeli Jordanian border after 67 when these countries were still enemies .. these also serve as a way of controlling and maintaining Israeli control of the Jordan river and agricultural areas in the Jordan valley which is a vital source of water in this desert area. these settlements are rather few and contain small numbers of people.
3. Ideological settlements - these were established by religious nationalist Israelis who believe that the whole of the land of Judea and Samarya ( west bank) should be parts of Israel and that it is their historical duty and right to settle this land . Various Israeli governments supported these people to varying degrees but many Israelis (myself included) view these people as misguided nationalists who should not be encouraged. many of their settlements are isolated enclaves living in the depth of Palestinian population in the west bank. these settlers are a cause of great antagonism among palestinians and are very expensive to maintain and protect from terrorist attacks. It is widely recognized in Israeli society that most if not all of these settlements would and should be removed once a real peace treaty would be achieved with the Palestinians and a Palestinian state be established.
The more thorny issues arise with the first two types, Palestinians insist on defining all three types as settlements while Israelis very in their view of what should be kept under Israeli control and what should not. though I firmly believe that if the Palestinians were really up to the challenge of finding a solution to these issues it should be relatively easy to find solutions .. many have been offered ( like land exchanges and joint sovereignty over Jerusalem etc...) but all have been rejected by the PA.
<strong>The fact is that about 200 000 settlers, many of them extreemist are holding both the israeli and the palestinian population hostage.
The settlers are deeply opposed to the 67 borders.
IMG - <a href="http://www.btselem.org/Images/Maps/Settlements_Map_Eng.GIF"; target="_blank">http://www.btselem.org/Images/Maps/Settlements_Map_Eng.GIF</a>;
(btw: Rashumon, I hope you relize that a idea of a unilateral is a real option (currently pushed by Haim Ramon of the israeli Labor party). And also that the purposal of full arab recognition of israel in exchange for withdrawal is on the tabel).</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what i'm saying in my post Re settlers but you are mistaken if you think that because of these peace cannot be achieved. Sharon himself was responsible for the evacuation in 1982 of tens of thousands of Israeli settlers from the Synai peninsula when the Israeli Egyptian peace treaty was signed. if a real agreement were to be achieved with the Palestinians these west bank settlements would be removed and solutions would be found for the other places. this is not the main issue ( though it is a vital one to solve) the primary problem ATM is the violence which is costing too many lives on both sides .. That must stop for any political progress to take place.
Re Ramon's unilateral withdrawal plan - as I have said this idea is gathering pace ( though its still rather young and unpopular atm) but the point is that even if it happens it would only be an interim solution and the palestinians would suffer badly from it.
If you look at the current retoric beteen Pakistan and India there are obvious similarities to Sharon and Arafat. And it leads nowhere but down.
When it comes to the settlers, my understanding is that they actually are one of the main reasons for the recent violence. Palestinians feel their precens every they and their number have increased markably during the years after Oslo. The settlements (see the map) and the army presents need to maintain them are disruptive to all atempts on get a palestinian infrastructure working. All the army checkpoints inside the westbank have made the living conditions there unlivable. The reports on the deaths of unborn children due to women in labor beeing hindered from getting to birth clinics are horrible.
From israeli (your) perspective, the settlers do not pose a treath to peace, you know the will be have to moved if "peace" demands it. To the palestinians however they are the everyday proof that israel has no intentions of giving them their land back. They are the symbol of the occupation, and they think they're there to stay.
Jerusalem is the hard nut to crack here. There is no doubt that many of the settlements around Jerusalem has been built to hinder the joining of East Jerusalem with a future palestinian state. You claim they are "needed", while the fact is that the arab/palestinian population in Jerusalem have been, and still is growing at a faster rate than the israeli. Also some of the worst examples of unlawful takeover of palestinian property have come from Jerusalem.
So a "deal" on Jerusalem is crucial, and both sides will have to give here as well. There has to be a clear and open connection between Jerusalem and the west bank, but the palestinians will have to accept that not all the land will be given back. This should however be generously compensated for.
<strong>Well, I'm not to sure it's such a good plan either, but it is an alternative. What is most problematic with israeli policy today is that none of its leaders, neither likud nor labor, seems to believe in negotiation with the palestinian leadership.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No one in Israel believes in negotiations with the PA leadership ( specifically Arafat) these days. Israel has given them way too many chances to prove they want peace and all it got back was death and terrorism. there is nothing problematic about this policy its pure survival. Ramon's plan as well is based around the assumption that Israel has no partners for negotiations and therefore must simply withdraw unilaterally.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Are we to wait for a palestinian election before negotiations are resumed?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No ! we are to wait to a cessation of terrorism and a palestinian acceptance that violence will not help them one bit to get what they want. its very simple - stop attacking us and we will talk to you and be ready for concessions, continue the attacks and we will not talk but strike back until terrorism stops !
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
If you look at the current retoric beteen Pakistan and India there are obvious similarities to Sharon and Arafat. And it leads nowhere but down.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see no comparison whatsoever other then the fact that these are two situations where you have a conflict.... I also fail to see the use of drawing this analogy.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
When it comes to the settlers, my understanding is that they actually are one of the main reasons for the recent violence.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
To many Palestinians and Arabs all Israelis are settlers .. from Tel Aviv to Eilat all of the land should be theirs. are we to assume this moral haze were because of settlement activity the lives of Israeli children become free game ? where will this end ? by who's definitions ? can you not see how ridiculous this mixup is ?
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Palestinians feel their precens every they and their number have increased markably during the years after Oslo. The settlements (see the map) and the army presents need to maintain them are disruptive to all atempts on get a palestinian infrastructure working.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only thing preventing a proper infrastructure forming was the PA's corruption and the fact that it preferred using all the EU aid money for buying weapons from Iran and BMWs for their families.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
All the army checkpoints inside the west bank have made the living conditions there unlivable. The reports on the deaths of unborn children due to women in labor beeing hindered from getting to birth clinics are horrible.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
These have only become so problematic since the launch of the Intefada .. before Oct 2000 there were very few of these checkpoints ( mainly separating Israel proper from Palestinian lands ) and they were not posing a serious problem for most Palestinians to get through... this really became a problem once the violence escalated and the checkpoints became a tool in Israel's fight against Palestinian terror. the IDF makes mistakes and any loss of life is evil and sad .. but there is a simple solution to all that .. stop the fighting , get back to the negotiating table and all these stupid checkpoint would not be necessary ....
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
From israeli (your) perspective, the settlers do not pose a treath to peace, you know the will be have to moved if "peace" demands it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure they present a threat for peace but nothing like a threat that those who are actually killing civilians pose. there can be no moral equality between murderers and settlers.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
To the palestinians however they are the everyday proof that israel has no intentions of giving them their land back. They are the symbol of the occupation, and they think they're there to stay.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So why did they ever agree to negotiate ? settlers have been there for over 30 years now ... what's different now... come on .. every one knows Israel is willing to compromise on these issues.
"Overall, contrary to the expectations raised by the Oslo Process, the Israeli governments have implemented a policy leading to the dramatic growth of the settlements. Between September 1993, on the signing of the Declaration of Principles, and September 2001 (the time of the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifada), the number of housing units in the settlements in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip rose from 20,400 to 31,4800 _ an increase of approximately fifty-four percent in just seven years. The sharpest increase during this period was recorded in 2000, under the government headed by Ehud Barak, when the construction of almost 4,800 new housing units was commenced. At the end of 1993, the population of the West Bank settlements (excluding East Jerusalem) totaled 100,500. By the end of 2000, this figure increased to 191,600, representing a growth rate of some ninety percent. By contrast, the growth rate in the settlements in East Jerusalem was much slower: the population of these settlements totaled 146,800 in 1993 and 173,300 in 2000 ? an increase of just eighteen percent."
In this light, how can one expect the palestinians not to react? Negotiate a few more years until there is no land left. The truth is that Israel has to take much of the blame for the failing of Oslo.
For the record, I strongly oppose the terrorist bombing, but as the Mitchell report states, the 2nd intifada started out with mainly peaceful demonstrations, to which IDF responded unreasonably violent, shooting to death dozens of unarmed demonstrators. This is where the recent violence has buildt up from. Don't tell give me the old Israel is only a responding to terrorism bs.
If what Israel got back was nothing but violence, it was because it was not willing to give anything substantial. Its a tragedy that not one of four potential israeli leaders (2 likud, 2 labor) consider negotiations with Arafat an option.
The reason I mention India and pakistan is because they say exactly the same things. "India has almost lost its patience with Pakistan", "Pakistan will not submit to Indian pressure etc. etc." The same words, the same lack of potentially stabelizing and peaceful long-time results.
Most palestinians are willing to accept something on the lines of the 67-borders, stop quoting the few how don't.
Palestinian corruption (nomatter how bad) did not expand israeli settlements, stop acting like it did. The fact is that the recent millitary operations have destroyed more than corruption ever did.
The checkpoints where needed more with every expansion of the settlements they didn't "re-appear" because of the new intifada.
And I ofcourse agree, that there is no moral equality between murderers and settlers. Unless the settlers commit murder, which there is statistically over 50 examples of since Oslo. (There are a lot of extreemist among the settlers)
I hope I don't come across as to agressive. I really appreciate your open mindedness, but I think you are letting the day by day happenings define your view on this, and fail to see some of the bigger perspectives.
[ 05-27-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>If what Israel got back was nothing but violence, it was because it was not willing to give anything substantial. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please .. new come on ... this is ridiculous ! Israel helped the PA establish itself, it withdrew from most of the West bank and almost all of Gaza it armed the PA's security apparatus ( with Arms that are being used against its citizens nowdays) and over all of that it was willing to remove most of the settlements and withdraw from effectively all of the OT in Taba and Camp David summits.. how many times do I have to say this ? the PA was offered all that you say they want and they rejected it ! more then once !
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Its a tragedy that not one of four potential Israeli leaders (2 likud, 2 labor) consider negotiations with Arafat an option.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO ! the tragedy is that Arafat is still using terror despite all the warnings he has had, its a tragedy the you and others cannot see Arafat's agenda clearly and still think Israel can do business with him when its clear to all who look at the situation that the man is obsessed by his failed armed struggle and with redeeming his lost honor ... virtually all of the recent ( last few weeks) suicide attacks performed against Israel have been done by Fatah activists directly answerable to Arafat .. Israel cannot talk to a man who does not stand by his word and uses terror against its civilians while claiming to want peace ! THAT'S THE TRAGEDY !
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Most Palestinians are willing to accept something on the lines of the 67-borders, stop quoting the few how don't.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well then why don't they stop attacking us ?????
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Palestinian corruption (no matter how bad) did not expand Israeli settlements,
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Israeli settlements did not create Palestinian terrorism either despite the fact that building them was an immoral stupid act by Israel....
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
The checkpoints where needed more with every expansion of the settlements they didn't "re-appear" because of the new intifada.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's simply false ..I have been to the OT many times during the 90s and you had virtually nil road blocks when things were quite ( nothing to do with settlements ) the few that were there were very lean and hardly ever stopped anyone. nothing like the way it is these days.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
I hope I don't come across as to aggressive. I really appreciate your open mindedness, but I think you are letting the day by day happenings define your view on this, and fail to see some of the bigger perspectives.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so at all .. the whole point of this thread is the bigger perspective... I am ready to take full responsibility for Israel's mistakes as I have said dozens of times.... but ONE THING MUST BE CLEAR .. the violence must stop for any progress to take place and the Palestinians must learn to compromise just as we have learnt to compromise....
Analysis / The barrier will finally come
By Ze'ev Schiff
Recent suicide strikes will at last put an end to delays in the construction of a fence around the West Bank. The defense minister held discussions last night to immediately implement an emergency separation fence resembling the barrier which closes off the Gaza Strip. Some 20 contractors are to work on the fence.
The positioning of the fence will depend upon the physical contours of the land. In many cases, it will not be put up exactly along the Green Line, the border which was in effect until the 1967 Six-Day War.
In the past, Israeli officials have delayed construction of such a fence due to concerns that it would effectively demarcate the country's future borders. When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon spoke about creating border zones, he was clearly referring to the establishment of a barrier some 10 kilometers inside the West Bank. In contrast, Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told associates yesterday that he views the fence primarily from a security standpoint: Its purpose, he believes, is to block terrorist crossings. For Ben-Eliezer, considerations of how the fence might affect future negotiations about borders are not of primary importance. Also, for Ben-Eliezer, the security consideration precedes Palestinian economic and civil interests.
Unlike in the Gaza Strip, it is clear dozens of settlements will remain on the other side of the West Bank fence. The fence, therefore, will not only run between the Palestinian Authority and Israel's Green Line border, to a certain extent, it will run between Jewish settlements and Israel's Green Line border and Israel will have to create corridors leading to and from such isolated settlements.
The separation fence will not provide total protection. Israel Defense Force soldiers and weapons will have to supplement the fence, and IDF operations within Palestinian lands will continue. In tandem with the fence construction project, the IDF expects to continue operations in Palestinian cities whenever intelligence information points to terror preparations and activities in them.
Carrying out such operations, the IDF does not show any special deference to "A," Palestinian Authority-controlled areas. The discovery that Tanzim, essentially Fatah, operatives have been behind recent suicide strikes has strengthened this tendency not to differentiate between "A" lands and other areas in the territories. Israeli security officials believe yesterday's bombing in Petah Tikva was the work of Tanzim men.
Also yesterday, Israel notched an importation operational success: Thanks to effective intelligence information, security forces were able to track down the terror band which carried out the recent street promenade attack in Rishon Letzion. The intelligence reports reached Israeli officials on Sunday night. The estimate was that as soon as the gang members sensed Israel was about to close in on them, they'd seek sanctuary in Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity or a local hospital. This in fact happened, but Israeli soldiers staged an ambush near the church and the terrorists fled, before being apprehended.
<hr></blockquote>
[ 05-28-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
1. Settlements MUST be dismantled!!!!!
2. Terrorism MUST stop!!!!!
<strong>What I see on that map is shamefull. If you honestly believe that what that map exhibits is in no way responcible for the Palastinian attacks then you need to think again. Surely their methods are outright wrong and not justified . . . but looking at the settlements . . . and knowing from interviews with settlers, what they think of Palastinians (as subhuman), I can't help but think that two things need to happen SIMULTANEOUSLY
1. Settlements MUST be dismantled!!!!!
2. Terrorism MUST stop!!!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am getting tired of saying this ... I am against the settlements ( as are most Israelis)
but the main point is that removing them was a main element of the Camp David plan and PM Barak and President Clinton's suggestions at the Taba summit . the Palestinians rejected all that ...
Violence must stop FIRST or else Israel's actions would be seen as a victory for terror and violence and then the attacks will never stop they will get worse and worse ...
A very logical simple solution - ceasefire - negotiations and then Israeli withdrawal !
but the point is is that these Israelis that acknwledge this should look closely at themselves and recognize that the inaction with regard to settlements is a very large part of the problem (the other parts being that many PA just want to irradicate Israel)
during the Oslo peace the settlements were expanding!!! come on admit it and do something about it..> not because of the terror bombings, but because they are wrong and racist and unjust.
i can almost see the reasonong by the Israeli right: on the ouside they say "the violence must stop first" on the inside they say 'the violence, if it only costs one or two a week, provides us with reason to stay where we are....and even maybe to keep building... if they keep it up clearly we will be justified in booting them completely out or our righteously god-appointed lands of milk and honey...so, keep it comin." Cynical, I know, but sometimes I wonder . . . after all what about those attempts to bomb schools recently?!?!?
Israel is not the innocent lamb it wants us to believe . . . and I see this and support Israel in many ways.... just not with settlements and no more expansion.