Has Israel ever specified its own limits?

[Valteron]

Okay, I realize that when it comes to getting a hot debate going, Israel is right up there with gay marriage, and the funny thing about the question in my thread title is that it is NOT, repeat, NOT in any way meant to be argumentative or rhetorical.

I almost posted this in the Questions forum for that reason, but since anything a person says about Israel is likely to start a debate, maybe this thread can stay in GD.

In case you are wondering about me, I am not Jewish, but I have Jewish relatives I love, and I do agree Israel has a right to exist (which does not mean I approve of everything they do).

It seems to me that for Arabs, agreeing with Israel's right to exist is the watershed issue, the great divide, the ultimate question.

But after reading that Israel has rebuffed the US call to halt west bank settlements http://http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20...l_palestinians I began to wonder about something.

My question: Has Israel ever formally stated exactly how much land in the Middle East it would be satisfied with, or in other words, the precise limits of its territorial aspirations? Have they ever formally said "This much, no more, no less?"

It seems to me that on the Jewish side of things, this is the equivalent of Arabs recognizing that Israel has a right to exist.

So, what is the answer?

[FinnAgain]

No.
Israel does not have an eastern border, for example, only an armistice line which was specifically stated, at the time of the treaty, was not a border and was not to prejudice any future negotiations. It has been held for roughly half a century now that any final status of borders will be resolved through negotiation.

[Onomatopoeia]

I'd actually love to see a factual answer to your question. I have my admittedly biased opinion that, no, Israel feels it has no limits, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. With Netanyahu at the helm, however, I can envision an expansion of settlements until the possibility of a Palestine state is all but impossible.

[Valteron]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

No.
Israel does not have an eastern border, for example, only an armistice line which was specifically stated, at the time of the treaty, was not a border and was not to prejudice any future negotiations. It has been held for roughly half a century now that any final status of borders will be resolved through negotiation.

Well, I can see where Arabs can be frightened when a country whose armed forces are among the top 5 in the world, heavily financed by the world's only superpower, refuses to say how much land it considers that God gave the Jewish people. Even if that fear is in practice unjustified because modern Jewish culture is fundamentally humane and democratic, this fear could be used to mobilize the masses in the Arab world.

Comments attributed to the Rabbi quoted in the news story about the divine rights of Jewish people to the land could understandably frighten any Arab who owns land anywhere near Israel, could it not?

Millions of Arabs want to wipe Israel off the map for the "crime" of not being Muslim. Joshua and the Hebrews slew every man, woman, child and beast in Jehrico for the "crime" of being on land the Hebrews wanted and went on to brag about it in the Old Testament. (Ain't religion wonderful?).

Would it not ultimately be in the interest of Israel to say: "This much, no more, no less. We will exist or die. We will never try for more. Leave us alone with this much and we can be friends. But we will fight you to the death if you try to take this much away from us."

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Valteron

Well, I can see where Arabs can be frightened when a country whose armed forces are among the top 5 in the world, heavily financed by the world's only superpower, refuses to say how much land it considers that God gave the Jewish people.

Well, the factual answer to that question is easy: zero. Israel does not base its sovereignty on religious claims although some of its more vocal citizenry does. The canard that the conflict is a religious rather than a nationalistic one serves neither accuracy nor the process of finding a solution.

Originally Posted by Valteron

Comments attributed to the Rabbi quoted in the news story about the divine rights of Jewish people to the land could understandably frighten any Arab who owns land anywhere near Israel, could it not?

The link doesn't work for me and I don't see how the rabbi's comments would be relevant, in any case. Even if he was the Chief Rabbi, he doesn't get to set policy like that.

Originally Posted by Valteron

Would it not ultimately be in the interest of Israel to say: "This much, no more, no less. We will exist or die. We will never try for more. Leave us alone with this much and we can be friends. But we will fight you to the death if you try to take this much away from us."

1. No. And groups like Hamas and Hezbollah would not take up gardening instead, even if that happened.
2. How would you determine how much land Israel could annex? 5% 10%? 50%? 99%? Who gets to decide. Any number would be disputed and without a negotiated settlement in any case we'd end up back at square one.

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Valteron

Comments attributed to the Rabbi quoted in the news story about the divine rights of Jewish people to the land could understandably frighten any Arab who owns land anywhere near Israel, could it not?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Valteron

Millions of Arabs want to wipe Israel off the map for the "crime" of not being Muslim. Joshua and the Hebrews slew every man, woman, child and beast in Jehrico for the "crime" of being on land the Hebrews wanted and went on to brag about it in the Old Testament. (Ain't religion wonderful?).

Cite millions (bolding mine).

[Valteron]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Well, the factual answer to that question is easy: zero. Israel does not base its sovereignty on religious claims although some of its more vocal citizenry does. The canard that the conflict is a religious rather than a nationalistic one serves neither accuracy nor the process of finding a solution.



The link doesn't work for me and I don't see how the rabbi's comments would be relevant, in any case. Even if he was the Chief Rabbi, he doesn't get to set policy like that.



1. No. And groups like Hamas and Hezbollah would not take up gardening instead, even if that happened.
2. How would you determine how much land Israel could annex? 5% 10%? 50%? 99%? Who gets to decide. Any number would be disputed and without a negotiated settlement in any case we'd end up back at square one.

I see your point on most of that. Makes sense. Okay, so Israel's claims to sovereignty are not based on religion. But there must be some common vision somewhere about what Israel considers Israel. I just wonder: If you are an Arab next door to one of the world's most powerful military machines, and the state that controls that machine refuses to say how much it will utltimately be satisfied with in terms of territory, would that be constructive or conducive to peace?

Right now, when I say I defend the right of Israel to exist (which I DO) I don't even know what Israel's right to exist I am defending.

[FinnAgain]

Well, it seems like you're now asking what should Israel say wrt its borders, not what the factual answer is to what it has said. That's a different barrel of monkeys.

I can look up my position statement somewhere here that I've posted later, if you'd like to discuss what Israel should do wrt borders, but since your OP wasn't meant to be argumentative or rhetorical, I'd posit that its question as to what Israel has said was answered.

[Valteron]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

Cite millions (bolding mine).

Perhaps I should have said "millions of people in the Middle East". Not all Muslims are Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslims. (I realize for example that Iranians are not Arabs). My mistake. I expressed myself inaccurately.

But havinfg admitted that, are you saying that of the hundreds of millions of Arabs and/or Muslims in the Middle East whose societies, Mosques, religious and political leaders daily express hostility and enmity to Israel, there could not be maybe 2 or 3 million (a tiny minority, but millions nonetheless) who would like nothing less than to see Israel wiped off the map? What does the chant "Death to Israel" by huge crowds mean, in your opinion?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Valteron

What does the chant "Death to Israel" by huge crowds mean, in your opinion?

To me it's always meant "Yay! We got the afternoon off work to come out here and chant!"

[Valteron]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Well, it seems like you're now asking what should Israel say wrt its borders, not what the factual answer is to what it has said. That's a different barrel of monkeys.

I can look up my position statement somewhere here that I've posted later, if you'd like to discuss what Israel should do wrt borders, but since your OP wasn't meant to be argumentative or rhetorical, I'd posit that its question as to what Israel has said was answered.

Well, you did answer my initial question, namely, no Israel has never specified what it would demand as borders.

I guess we just naturally slipped into question of whether it should, but if you want to end the discussion here, fine.

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Valteron

Perhaps I should have said "millions of people in the Middle East". Not all Muslims are Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslims. (I realize for example that Iranians are not Arabs). My mistake. I expressed myself inaccurately.

But havinfg admitted that, are you saying that of the hundreds of millions of Arabs and/or Muslims in the Middle East whose societies, Mosques, religious and political leaders daily express hostility and enmity to Israel, there could not be maybe 2 or 3 million (a tiny minority, but millions nonetheless) who would like nothing less than to see Israel wiped off the map? What does the chant "Death to Israel" by huge crowds mean, in your opinion?

i don't want to sidetrack the thread, which I think is on an interesting topic, by the way, but it seems to be very convenient for Westerners to presume some negative aspiration to an inordinately high number of Muslims without proof. Just because there are hundreds of millions of Muslims doesn't necessarily follow that millions of them hold a specific position on your topic, unless you have census data confirming it. And seeing large numbers of like-minded Muslims (or any other group) participating in a mass event doesn't extrapolate to anything.

[Valteron]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Well, it seems like you're now asking what should Israel say wrt its borders, not what the factual answer is to what it has said. That's a different barrel of monkeys.

I can look up my position statement somewhere here that I've posted later, if you'd like to discuss what Israel should do wrt borders, but since your OP wasn't meant to be argumentative or rhetorical, I'd posit that its question as to what Israel has said was answered.

My question was not argumentative or rhetorical in the sense that there is no pro-or anti-Israel agenda hiding behind it, although as I said I do agree with Israel's right to exist.

Also, after saying that my question was not argumentative or rhetorical, I DID say that I had posted it in GD instead of Questions because I appreciated that the answer could lead to debate. After all, a question like that is not exactly like asking "What is the capital of Idaho?"

[Valteron]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

i don't want to sidetrack the thread, which I think is on an interesting topic, by the way, but it seems to be very convenient for Westerners to presume some negative aspiration to an inordinately high number of Muslims without proof. Just because there are hundreds of millions of Muslims doesn't necessarily follow that millions of them hold a specific position on your topic, unless you have census data confirming it. And seeing large numbers of like-minded Muslims (or any other group) participating in a mass event doesn't extrapolate to anything.

Look, I do not want to sidetrack my thread either. It is not essential to this discussion that you accept that a single one of Israel's non-Jewish opponents wants to wipe it off the map.

Personally, I think that if you polled the one thousand million (i.e. billion) Arabs and Muslims from the Mediterranean to western China and Indonesia, nobody would be surprised to find a heavy degree of hostility to Israel. And I am pretty certain that a minority of at least 0.5% or more of those people would say that Israel should be wiped off the map. Now, 0.5% of one billion is 5 million. Hence, my use of the term "millions".

However, for the purposes of this discussion, I am asking you to accept that there is an important degree of fear and hatred of Israel among many of its neighbours. Can we agree on that?

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Valteron

However, for the purposes of this discussion, I am asking you to accept that there is an important degree of fear and hatred of Israel among many of its neighbours. Can we agree on that?

Yes.

Again, I apologize for the sidetrack.

[XT]

My question: Has Israel ever formally stated exactly how much land in the Middle East it would be satisfied with, or in other words, the precise limits of its territorial aspirations? Have they ever formally said "This much, no more, no less?"

They agreed to the original partition terms from the UN, if memory serves. That would have partitioned the Trans-Jordan region into an Israeli and Palestinian state (along with Jordan of course). Unfortunately the Palestinian's and the other neighboring states rejected that partition and chose instead to decide things through force of arms. It didn't work out so well for them, however.

So, yes, Israel has formally stated exactly what it's original borders would be...unfortunately as there was no initial agreement on this, the conflict was decided militarily (which, it turns out, Israel won...thus expanding their original borders quite a bit). I don't believe that Israel has formally re-designated what their borders would be after that, no.

It seems to me that on the Jewish side of things, this is the equivalent of Arabs recognizing that Israel has a right to exist.

Israel has made several concessions, including unilaterally giving back some of it's captured territories (such as Gaza, for instance). They have also put other territorial concessions on the table from time to time. BTW, several of the Arab neighboring states HAVE formally recognized Israel's right to exist and made their peace with them. The problem, of course, that some haven't and refuse to do so.

-XT

[DanBlather]

If I were Israel I'd be pushing the limits so that I have bargaining position. I think Zionism is not a valid reason for the creation of Israel, but given that it now exists I don't blame it for seizing more land each time it is attacked.

In the end there is going to be a two-state solution with Jerusalem being the only sticking point. I'd like to see it be an international demilitarized city state like Vatican City.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by DanBlather

I don't blame it for seizing more land each time it is attacked.

Odd how rarely one sees Israel asked if it recognizes Palestine's right to exist, isn't it?

[XT]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Odd how rarely one sees Israel asked if it recognizes Palestine's right to exist, isn't it?

The only thing I find odd is that you actually feel you are making some kind of point here. You do realize that Israel actually agreed to the original partition plan...which, de facto, acknowledged Palestine's right to exist. Right?

-XT

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by DanBlather

If I were Israel I'd be pushing the limits so that I have bargaining position. I think Zionism is not a valid reason for the creation of Israel, but given that it now exists I don't blame it for seizing more land each time it is attacked.

Bear in mind that Israel hasn't seized any land in 42 years. All it's done since 1967 is retreat.

Anyway, to answer the OP, the maximum limit of Israel's territorial aspirations is the Jordan river. The minimum is the Green Line, with the exception of Jerusalem, which very few Israelis are willing to see divided at any cost. I expect that the final borders will be somewhere in between - assuming, of course, that the issue is ever resolved.

[ElvisL1ves]

xtisme, that was in response to Dan's observation about Israel regularly moving the de facto border. He didn't, but could have, mentioned Israel's policy of creating Jewish settlements, under Israeli protection, even in parts of Palestine to which they have not yet moved the border or the wall. So the question is legitimate - does Israel recognize Palestine's right to exist? Although the factual question about its lack of a legal definition of its boundaries has been answered, the question about whether it would even be willing to do so is worth discussing, isn't it?

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

i don't want to sidetrack the thread, which I think is on an interesting topic, by the way, but it seems to be very convenient for Westerners to presume some negative aspiration to an inordinately high number of Muslims without proof. Just because there are hundreds of millions of Muslims doesn't necessarily follow that millions of them hold a specific position on your topic, unless you have census data confirming it. And seeing large numbers of like-minded Muslims (or any other group) participating in a mass event doesn't extrapolate to anything.

I trend to agree. I think Ahmandinajad speaks for Iranis and Muslims like Rush Limberger speaks for America. They can make noise and rouse small groups or weirdos, but do not represent the people.

[XT]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

xtisme, that was in response to Dan's observation about Israel regularly moving the de facto border. He didn't, but could have, mentioned Israel's policy of creating Jewish settlements, under Israeli protection, even in parts of Palestine to which they have not yet moved the border or the wall. So the question is legitimate - does Israel recognize Palestine's right to exist? Although the factual question about its lack of a legal definition of its boundaries has been answered, the question about whether it would even be willing to do so is worth discussing, isn't it?

It seemed like an odd response to me. It's fairly clear that Israel has acknowledged from the get go that Palestine had a 'right to exist'. Circumstances have changed, but Israel granted Gaza to the PA unilaterally...so, I'd say that they freely acknowledge Palestine's right to be a nation. What is in dispute is where the boundaries are set, and under what conditions. WRT the original borders agreed upon, I think that ship has sailed. The Palestinian's fucked themselves (well, and were fucked by their friendly Arab neighbors). At this point they will have to settle for less than what they would have originally gotten...or, perhaps some of their Arab neighbors will slice off some of their own territories to give them a bit more land (I'm not holding my breath there).

That said, I'm fairly sure the Israeli's would be willing to make some territorial concessions if the frigging Palestinian's would stop tossing rockets and not so smart bombs at them.

-XT

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by xtisme

they freely acknowledge Palestine's right to be a nation. What is in dispute is where the boundaries are set

If, as Alessan notes and recent Israeli policy implies, the boundary can be all the way east to the Jordan River, then where is Palestine? What "right to be a nation" is left to the Palestinian people? Even the cession of Gaza is reversible, and Israel's military actions there since have gone far beyond any reasonable claim of defensive activity.

That said, I'm fairly sure the Israeli's would be willing to make some territorial concessions if the frigging Palestinian's would stop tossing rockets and not so smart bombs at them.

There's some responsibility on both sides, you'll have to admit. Perhaps removing the settlements, and moving the wall back, might make it clear that there is at least some of the West Bank that Israel does not covet for itself.

So, do you now agree that the question is legitimate?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Well, the factual answer to that question is easy: zero. Israel does not base its sovereignty on religious claims although some of its more vocal citizenry does. The canard that the conflict is a religious rather than a nationalistic one serves neither accuracy nor the process of finding a solution.

Perhaps, but Zionism's territorial claims are historical, i.e., based on identification with the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah -- most of whose territory is now inhabited by an Arab majority, and presumably always will be. That's a sticking point. Menachem Begin, IIRC, always made a point of referring to the West Bank as "Judaea and Samaria."

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Menachem Begin, IIRC, always made a point of referring to the West Bank as "Judaea and Samaria."

And the entire region from the Med to the Jordan as "Eretz Israel".

[XT]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

If, as Alessan notes and recent Israeli policy implies, the boundary can be all the way east to the Jordan River, then where is Palestine? What "right to be a nation" is left to the Palestinian people? Even the cession of Gaza is reversible, and Israel's military actions there since have gone far beyond any reasonable claim of defensive activity.

I think Alessan was just saying that would be the maximum, theoretical limit. Alessan also pointed out that Israel hasn't added any additional territories since 1967...so, they don't seem to be itching to grab more land or wipe out the Palestinian's.

Of course, anything is reversible, and I suppose it's possible that if the Palestinian's keep up this stupid, hopeless conflict that eventually the Israeli's might get so sick of it that they do something permanent. But I doubt it.

here's some responsibility on both sides, you'll have to admit. Perhaps removing the settlements, and moving the wall back, might make it clear that there is at least some of the West Bank that Israel does not covet for itself.

Sure, I think that concessions have to come from both sides. The problem has always been that concessions by Israel have been followed up with violence by the Palestinian's. This isn't to say that Palestine and the Palestinian's don't have a side too...they do, and they deeply resent their situation, with some justification IMHO. However, until they can be trusted not to stab Israel in the back, it's rather difficult for Israel, which is a democracy and answerable to their own citizens, to make major territorial concessions, especially when such concessions might leave Israel strategically weaker. In addition there is the problem of those same citizens having to give up their homes if such concessions are made. While you CAN force citizens to do so (Israel has already done so, and caused a negative backlash among said citizens), it's difficult for a politician to do so...especially when the party you are doing this for turns around and launches rockets at you, or gets some nutball to strap on explosives and take a stroll through a local mall.

So, do you now agree that the question is legitimate?

Certainly I think it's a legitimate question. That's why I joined in the debate.

-XT

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Israel hasn't added any additional territories since 1967

Then where did all those armed "settlements" come from? What do they mean?

Sure, I think that concessions have to come from both sides. The problem has always been that concessions by Israel have been followed up with violence by the Palestinian's.

More than a bit oversimplistic there, even wrong, but that's a different debate.

it's rather difficult for Israel, which is a democracy and answerable to their own citizens, to make major territorial concessions

Is it a "concession" to return what isn't yours?

especially when such concessions might leave Israel strategically weaker.

Any good-faith negotiation addresses the real interests of both sides. That one got resolved over the Sinai, for instance. While details will differ, the process can be the same elsewhere. All it takes is statesmanship.

In addition there is the problem of those same citizens having to give up their homes if such concessions are made.

Many, many people in the region have had to give up their own homes, sometimes by border shifts, sometimes by construction of a wall, sometimes by bulldozing. Government-sponsored settlements in foreign, occupied territory have less claim than most homes to be sacrosanct.

[FinnAgain]

1. By most reasonable definitions, most of the settlements are not on annexed Israeli territory. The vast majority of the settlements' land, in fact, is not on land that was every privately owned by Palestinians, in the first place. Conflating settlements with annexation is a particularly silly red herring.

2. The claim that every Israeli concession has been met with violence is not only not an oversimplification, it is 100% fact. You may (or, apparently, do) want to obfuscate the issue by talking about turning over land that isn't "theirs", but that ignores that the vast majority was never privately owned either and was state land of one flavor or another, and was never owned by any sovereign PA. "Giving it back to its owners" would entail giving it back to, tenuously, Jordan, or more properly the Ottoman Empire... which hasn't existed for about a century.

Wanting to pretend that concessions weren't concessions due to semantic gamesmanship on your part is less than savory.

3. Sloppy analogies are not the hallmark of a well developed logical train of thought. The Sinai is markedly difference in many particulars than Gaza or the West Bank, and the Egyptians are not fungible with the Palestinians, let alone with all the factions amongst the Palestinians. Arguing that if it worked between Egypt and Israel over the Sinai than it must, also, work between Israel and Hamas over the disputed territories is sloppy in the extreme. Requests for statesmanship are simply a bromide when dealing with groups like Hamas whose goals include the ethnic cleansing of the region.

4. Arguing that all of the settlements, in toto, are somehow placed in a "foreign" land shows either that one is ignorant of the facts or unconcerned with them. Some of the 'settlements' are, in fact, Jews who returned to areas that Jews were ethnically cleansed from circa 1948. As everything in the region goes, nuance and an attention to detail are far more important than false-to-facts sloppy rhetoric that sounds good but on exposure to sunlight, dissolves.

[bengangmo]

Originally Posted by xtisme

The only thing I find odd is that you actually feel you are making some kind of point here. You do realize that Israel actually agreed to the original partition plan...which, de facto, acknowledged Palestine's right to exist. Right?

-XT

Didn't the partition plan also significantly expand Israel's borders at the time?

And yes, I do find it interesting that you don't hear too much from Israel about the rights of a Palestinian state, or doing much to make it happen.

Every time it seems to me that Israel expects the other guy to act first

[bengangmo]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Bear in mind that Israel hasn't seized any land in 42 years. All it's done since 1967 is retreat.

Anyway, to answer the OP, the maximum limit of Israel's territorial aspirations is the Jordan river. The minimum is the Green Line, with the exception of Jerusalem, which very few Israelis are willing to see divided at any cost. I expect that the final borders will be somewhere in between - assuming, of course, that the issue is ever resolved.

So all the "settlements" since 1967 are figments of our imagination are they?

[XT]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Then where did all those armed "settlements" come from? What do they mean?

That Israeli's have moved into the territory they had occupied since then (1967), obviously. They didn't need to capture more territory...they simply moved into territory they already had under their jurisdiction (winning wars tends to make such things easier). You do realize that not all of those settlements were encouraged by the Israeli government, right?

More than a bit oversimplistic there, even wrong, but that's a different debate.

Simplistic? Certainly. If you wish to get into more detail we can. Wrong? I doubt it...again, I'm perfectly willing to thrash that out if you so wish.

Is it a "concession" to return what isn't yours?

I suppose it depends on one's definition of what is or isn't 'yours'. Conversely, you seemingly are asserting the Palestinian's rights to something that wasn't originally theirs. From a possession standpoint though I'd have to say that, having won several major wars fought over that land, that the victor has more rights to decide it's disposition than the vanquished...especially since neither side really owned the land in question in the first place.

Any good-faith negotiation addresses the real interests of both sides. That one got resolved over the Sinai, for instance. While details will differ, the process can be the same elsewhere. All it takes is statesmanship.

Disregarding the Sinai thingy, which doesn't seem applicable, I'd agree...in theory both sides need to negotiate in good faith and both need to address the real issues. And I'll further concede that Israel sometimes doesn't do either. However, the Palestinian's make it easy for Israel to do so, since any gesture by Israel toward peace is generally met with violence in one form or the other. At this point I'd have to say that it's going to be on the Palestinian's to bend over backwards to convince Israel and the rest of the world that they are serious.

It's a shame that it had to come to this, as I actually think the Palestinian's have gotten a very raw deal (especially from their Arab friends)...but, you know, when you allow crazy folks to live among you and take pot shots at your supposed enemies then there are some serious trust issues involved.

Many, many people in the region have had to give up their own homes, sometimes by border shifts, sometimes by construction of a wall, sometimes by bulldozing

That's true. Ironically, some of those people were Israeli citizens living in these various settlements, and it was the Israeli government doing the bulldozing. As I said, not all of the various settlements have been encouraged by the Israeli government...and, with the shift in politics sometimes even settlements that were encouraged have to be abandoned...forcefully and bitterly in some cases.

But you were speaking of the plight of the Palestinian's, no doubt. And you are right...it's certainly happened to them. Sometimes with justification, sometimes without. As I said, I think the Palestinian's have gotten a rather raw deal...especially in the early days when they were encouraged to leave their homes and join the ever victorious Arab armies, poised to wipe Israel from the map. Additionally, many otherwise peaceful Palestinian's have been inconvenienced and worse because of the behavior of their nutball, fanatic brethren, and have been painted with the same broad brush. They have to endure long waits in check points, be searched, and as you say, even lose their homes and places of work to make way for even more checkpoints and walls.

I feel for them...I truly do. And it's unlikely to substantially change at this point, unless there is a major effort on their part to get rid of the crazy among them and to prove to the Israeli's and the world that they are actually capable of being trusted, of being serious about peaceful co-existence with Israel and the Israeli's. Until then...nothing substantial will ever change.

Government-sponsored settlements in foreign, occupied territory have less claim than most homes to be sacrosanct.

Horseshit. Even if we assume that all of the settlements were 'Government-sponsored' (which they aren't), the Israeli's have every right to settle there...because they DID occupy it by conquest during a war of aggression they didn't launch. If the Palestinian's had settled for the UN partition originally, had their Arab neighbors not decided to contest it by force of arms, then everything would be hunky dory and the Palestinian's would have their land. Even leaving the whole winning of the war thingy though, much of that land was never privately owned. There is and was nothing 'sacrosanct' about it.

-XT

[XT]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

Didn't the partition plan also significantly expand Israel's borders at the time?

Are you talking about the UN partition plan for Palestine? If so, then no...how could it? There WAS no Israel to expand. That was the point of the partition...to divide part of the Mandate of Palestine into two separate provisional states.

And yes, I do find it interesting that you don't hear too much from Israel about the rights of a Palestinian state, or doing much to make it happen.

You mean like unilaterally giving the PA large swaths of land? That kind of thing? Yeah, I haven't heard much about that either....

Every time it seems to me that Israel expects the other guy to act first

Oh, I think the Israeli's generally do expect the Palestinian's to act first...generally with things like car bombs, suicide idiots, rocket attacks, ambushes...

Oh...did you mean something else?

-XT

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

So all the "settlements" since 1967 are figments of our imagination are they?

They're constructed on land which may in the future be handed over to the Palestinians in the framework of a Palestinian state, if and when such a thing comes into existence.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Alessan

They're constructed on land which may in the future be handed over to the Palestinians in the framework of a Palestinian state, if and when such a thing comes into existence.

Seems to me -- and to most of the world -- they were constructed for the express purpose of preventing a Palestinian state from ever coming into existence.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

i don't want to sidetrack the thread, which I think is on an interesting topic, by the way, but it seems to be very convenient for Westerners to presume some negative aspiration to an inordinately high number of Muslims without proof. Just because there are hundreds of millions of Muslims doesn't necessarily follow that millions of them hold a specific position on your topic, unless you have census data confirming it. And seeing large numbers of like-minded Muslims (or any other group) participating in a mass event doesn't extrapolate to anything.

Where the fuck is your head?

Do you think there's a "Death to Israel: YES/NO?" right next to "Religious Affiliation" question on the the U.S. Census?

I'm sorry, if I see a full sports arena on game day, in an arena that seat, say, 30,000 people, I can reasonably assume that there are approximately tens-of-thousands of people present and who enjoy sports.

If multiple middle-eastern countries who are predominantly Muslim claim "Death to Israel," it is not unreasonable to assume that yes, millions of Muslims want to wipe Israel off the map for the crime of being not-Muslim.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

2. The claim that every Israeli concession has been met with violence is not only not an oversimplification, it is 100% fact.

It occurs to me that I should clarify that this is the fact WRT Israel/Palestinian society, not all of Arab society as a whole.

In B 4 Gotchaya.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

I trend to agree. I think Ahmandinajad speaks for Iranis and Muslims like Rush Limberger speaks for America. They can make noise and rouse small groups or weirdos, but do not represent the people.

A discussion I had with Yemenis I work with in Yemen around whether Spain should be returned to Muslim rule would lead me to believe that the hope of Israel surviving if they had the power to eliminate it is pretty much nil. What once belonged to Islam will always belong to Islam is pretty much the mantra.
Purely anecdotal, of course. But if talking to a half dozen, well traveled, foreign educated workers means anything at all, I wonder what those who don't travel and only know what their local imam tells them think.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Seems to me -- and to most of the world -- they were constructed for the express purpose of preventing a Palestinian state from ever coming into existence.

Obama seems to realize that, too.

The road map plans commits Israel to dismantle settler outposts and freeze "all settlement activity," including what is know as "natural growth." But the near-daily barrage of U.S. demands that Israel halt settlement growth has surprised Israeli officials who argue that they greatly restrained growth under an unwritten 2005 agreement with the Bush administration. Under that deal, Israel was to stop providing incentives for settlers to move to the West Bank and built only in areas it expected to keep in future peace agreements.

But the continued growth even in those settlements -- and an unwillingness by various Israeli governments to dismantle outposts -- has left the impression in the Arab world that Israel would not agree to a peace deal. The Obama administration appears to have calculated that pressing Israel on settlements will help demonstrate to the Arab world that the U.S. is serious about pursuing peace, even at the risk of appearing to undermine Netanyahu's nascent government.

Netanyahu has the chance (again) to be another Begin, but he obviously doesn't want to, and after all he's who the Israeli people have chosen to be in charge based on knowledge of his position.

Netanyahu has been a long-time skeptic of proposals to create a Palestinian state, and refused to commit to the concept during his visit to the United States.

So, for now and for the near future, the answer would be "No". The ramifications are, of course, entirely predictable.


xtisme, why did you dismiss the Sinai analogy so abruptly? There are differences, certainly, there are always differences, but aren't there some useful lessons there too?

they simply moved into territory they already had under their jurisdiction (winning wars tends to make such things easier).

After a war, the nations involved do normally tend to realize they're stuck living side by side no matter how friendly their relations are, and make some sort of accommodation as neighbor to neighbor. If the victor doesn't expel or exterminate or permanently subjugate the loser's population, that is. But for decades Israel has chosen that last course of action, and the reaction they get is the inevitable one.

You do realize that not all of those settlements were encouraged by the Israeli government, right?

Sure, but many have, and based on that example the others have had every reason to believe they were following the government's intentions, and would have the government's protection. Haven't those expectations been borne out?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

There are differences, certainly, there are always differences, but aren't there some useful lessons there too?

Yah, they're good lessons if Israel wanted to deal further with Egypt.
Not so much for other completely different situations.
But you already knew that.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

If the victor doesn't expel or exterminate or permanently subjugate the loser's population, that is. But for decades Israel has chosen that last course of action, and the reaction they get is the inevitable one.

I see we're at the "making stuff up as you go along" portion of the discussion. Israel has never sought to "exterminate" anybody, nor to "permanently" do anything, as proven by the fact that they've made numerous agreements to ensure Palestinian sovereignty which were then violated by the previously mentioned campaigns of armed violence/civilian targeted violence. Further, Israel hasn't expelled the Palestinian population who lived in Jordan/Egypt... or else there wouldn't be any Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza. Kind of a hard mistake for you to make there, do you even really believe that Israel expelled the Palestinans from Gaza and the West Bank, or was it just fun to say?

Further, If you're claiming that the Palestinians really were "their" (eg. Jordan and Egypt's populations) then both Egypt and Jordan have rejected regaining sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, so their citizens couldn't claim that right, either. Of course, by calling them Jordan and Egypt's citizens you're claiming that territory won in a war of aggression and seized against the Palestinian people's will by external governments is, in fact, a legitimate territorial possession of those governments. One would have to wonder why Egypt and Jordan invading and denying the right of Palestine to exist was hunky dorey and acceptable to you.

So you're wrong on every single factual particular.
Funny, that.

Of course, still no retraction on your numerous previous factual errors. Shall I assume that you are, then, passing on from the "making stuff up as you go along" phase onto the "having made stuff up, trying to change the subject once you're called on the carpet and making up fresh stuff" phase?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Not so much for other completely different situations.
But you already knew that.

Begging the question. A fallacy, don'tcha know.

I see we're at the "making stuff up as you go along" portion of the discussion. Israel has never sought to "exterminate" anybody

You might try actually reading posts before mischaracterizing them. You'd be in for a lot less embarrassment that way.

Further, Israel hasn't expelled the Palestinian population who lived in Jordan/Egypt... or else there wouldn't be any Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza. Kind of a hard mistake for you to make there, do you even really believe that Israel expelled the Palestinans from Gaza and the West Bank, or was it just fun to say?

Where the holy fuck do you see that?

Of course, by calling them Jordan and Egypt's citizens you're claiming that territory won in a war of aggression and seized against the Palestinian people's will by external governments is, in fact, a legitimate territorial possession of those governments.

Or that?

So you're wrong on every single factual particular.
Funny, that.

Every "factual particular" that you imagined me saying, that is. Funny, that. And not in a good way.

Of course, still no retraction on your numerous previous factual errors. Shall I assume that you are, then, passing on from the "making stuff up as you go along" phase onto the "having made stuff up, trying to change the subject once you're called on the carpet and making up fresh stuff" phase?

[FinnAgain]

Egyptians are not Palestinians, Egypt is not Palestine, the circumstances surrounding them and Israel are vastly different is begging the question?
I suggest you google "logical fallacy" followed by "begging the question" followed by "fungible, definition."

And no, I read your post and quoted it. You may not want to own up to it, but you're now at the level of one of our other posters on this topic who, when caught with his own words, also likes to declare that others are to be "embarrassed" by daring to call him out. Now, you may not want to admit it, but any weaseling you could attempt would still fail, as Israel has neither expelled the Palestinians from the territories, nor exterminated them, nor placed them in any "permanent" position. So you're simply wrong and, as I predicted, you've moved on to the phase where, when you're caught out on your errors you're going to change the subject. On this dodge, it's how I quoted your exact words but somehow didn't "read" them and should be "embarrassed" for reading what you wrote and noting that it's bullshit.

And sorry, if you are being serious and you really are totally clueless as to why referring to the Palestinians as the population of any nation that Israel had beaten in combat would mean you were referring to them as Jordanian or Egyptian, then either you lack the absurdly basic level of understanding required to participate in a discussion of the issues or...
Assuming that you're so clueless that you really don't know that a nation of Palestine never existed, that it was never beaten in a war by Israel, that the people we now know as Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were Jordanians and Egyptians respectively? Well, I'd suggest google.

Google is your friend.
Then when you know what you're talking about you might understand why someone would respond to your claims as if they were talking about the actual history and current events of the region.
Ya know, just for consistency's sake.

Of course, I'd also point out that you're continuing to ignore all the factual errors I pointed way back in my first post addressing your numerous mistakes. Of course ,rather than address them, (since I've mentioned them once and referred to them a second time to bring your attention to them), you've attempted to change the subject.
If only I could have noted something about how you might be making numerous factual errors and changing the subject to avoid dealing with them.
If only.

[FinnAgain]

Ah well. I'll take pity on you and save you some google time. After you learn what the basic situation is, you can google more efficiently anyways. I'll go slow.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

After a war, the nations involved do normally tend to realize they're stuck living side by side no matter how friendly their relations are, and make some sort of accommodation as neighbor to neighbor. If the victor doesn't expel or exterminate or permanently subjugate the loser's population, that is. But for decades Israel has chosen that last course of action, and the reaction they get is the inevitable one.

1. The war XT was referring to is known as the 1967 war. If you decide to google it, you should probably take the clue that this war occurred in, yep, 1967.

2. The West Bank and Gaza were seized from Jordan and Egypt, respectively. This is the territory that XT was referring to. Knowing what happened in '67, who was involved and what territory was exhanged would be a good thing for you to learn.

3. You stated that relations normally normalize unless the victor "expel[s], exterminate[s] or permanently subjugate[s] the loser's population." As the losers who lost the territory under the discussion were Egypt and Jordan, you were claiming that their (the losers') populace were Egyptians and Jordanians.

You clearly stated that the two options were that the nations involved would "make some sort of accommodation as neighbor to neighbor" or your "exterminate blah blah" jazz. Then you clearly claimed that Israel chose the last course of action. Even if you were to weasel and state that you only meant "permanent subjugation", even the most cursory knowledge of history would put paid to that fiction, as well. Along with "1967 war" and "fungible, definition", you might want to google, say, "Clinton Bridging Proposal."

4. The population under occupation, who had previously lived under Egyptian and Jordanian rule, are who we now know as Palestinians. You alleged that they were, in fact, " the loser's population". That means you alleged that they are, in fact, displaced Egyptians and Jordanians.

5. Additionally, by referring to them as "the losers' population", you were endorsing the view that when Egypt and Jordan conquered the Mandate territory and blocked the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, that they gained legal control over the territory/population to the point where the people there became Jordanians and Egyptians.

I hope this has helped you learn the very basics of an issue which, for some reason, you decided to debate from a position of ignorance. If you need suggestions of any other keywords for a google search, don't be shy to ask.
Ignorance is only a problem as long as it is deliberately condoned by those who hold it.

[ElvisL1ves]

A most interesting post, FinnAgain. Now, if only it had anything to do with anything anybody else has said here, or for that matter the subject matter of the thread ... if only...

[FinnAgain]

Yeah, you really and truly do not understand why quoting your own words, in the exact context in which they were made and with the exact comment which they were a response to, has anything to do with your own words, their context, or what they were responding to.

And, I suppose, I should add that you're truly totally unable to comprehend why the topic that you were discussing is a topic of discussion in this thread. Why, you just can't understand it, really and truly. You're not game playing, nopers. Now that the topic you're discussing, and your string of mistakes is at issue, now you just don't understand what your own words have to do with your own words, or the tangent your raised has to do with a tangent in this thread that was being discussed.

You're baffled, really.
Ayup.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Seems to me -- and to most of the world -- they were constructed for the express purpose of preventing a Palestinian state from ever coming into existence.

Does any nation ever do anything for just one reason?

Some of them were. Others were created as a negotiating ploy - as a way to force the other side to come to the negotiating table during the decades the Arabs refused to even discuss peace. Others were started for other reasons entirely. It's all moot now - by this point, the whole thing has taken a life of its own.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Does any nation ever do anything for just one reason?

Israel does...and it's always the most evil reason one can imagine.

(ok, I'm kidding...but it seems that this is the standard interpretation of any action Israel takes. FWIW the US's actions are usually looked at in an equally one dimensional fashion. The difference is that we really ARE evil....MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)

-XT

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Yeah, you really and truly do not understand why quoting your own words, in the exact context in which they were made and with the exact comment which they were a response to, has anything to do with your own words, their context, or what they were responding to.

If you had been doing that, you might have had a point there. If you had any interest in discussing the thread topic or anything related to it, you no doubt would be doing that.

If you can come up with anything to actually add here, please do so. If not, don't waste your time, okay?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Israel does...and it's always the most evil reason one can imagine.

I realize you're joking, but simplistic demonization of that sort is common in any conflict, including this one. And is it really different in character from observing that "the Arabs just want to destroy Israel" and "Every time Israel makes peace overtures, 'the Arabs' (who by implication are monolithic, with a hive mind, and not even entirely human) just attack in return" and so forth? Is it really?

There can't be peace unless that sort of nonsense is discarded or discredited, at least by the leaders. Nor can the blame for its lack be placed on only one side, even predominantly.


And I'd still like to see why you think Sinai is obviously and utterly inapplicable in any way as a model or even an inspiration for a West Bank agreement.

[XT]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

And I'd still like to see why you think Sinai is obviously and utterly inapplicable in any way as a model or even an inspiration for a West Bank agreement.

The most basic reason is because the Sinai Peninsula was captured by the Israeli's during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. It was EGYPTIAN territory that was lost during that war. That of course is the key aspect. The 1979 (IIRC) peace treaty allowed for the complete withdraw of Israeli occupation forces (ETA: by sometime in the early 80's, removing Israeli settlements that were there) from the entire peninsula (after there had been no real hostilities between Israel and Egypt during that period...also, even before that and shortly after the fighting, again IIRC, Israel had already agreed not to occupy the canal zone, so there was already a basis or foundatation for a peaceful resolution).

Those are the key differences. The West Bank was never Palestinian territory, since there was never a Palestine. It would be Jordan who Israel would be negotiating with over the disposition of the West Bank (if we were looking for anything even remotely parallel), since that was THEIR territory. Only they have already waved away their claim to it. Additionally, there has been no similar peaceful period between the Israeli's and the Palestinian's, nor anything what-so-ever for Israel to base any level of trust on. The situation is almost categorically different and is definitely not a good 'inspiration' to base any kind of future agreement or resolution on, since they have no real bearing on each other.

-XT