It is unclear why the Jewish chose to build exclusive communities in the first place. They are all Jewish right? Jewish communities? So are we talking about just communities that were built, or are we talking about communities built with the idea that they were for Jews? What is the reality in the settlements? And the claim is not about who they are. It is about whos land they are living on. If a group of people assimilated from all over the world settled there I feel sure the same protest would exist from Palestinians.
OK, Does Israel = Jews in your opinion? And if you have claim to ownership of the hill racism is a moot point.
You covered the choices pretty well in one of your posts above and you concluded that none of them lead us anywhere and pretty much everybody is boxed into a narrow set of alternatives that all keep us pretty much where we already are.
What I am saying is that what we can do is to start THINKING about the emotional dynamics of this conflict. The first thing is to clarify what they are. I’ve started by helping to clarify an issue of racism which not everyone in this thread was aware of.
Others should contribute to this dixcussion to help clarify the issues from all sides. Then, we can try to figure out what went wrong with Oslo so that, when the dust settles, we might have some good ideas ready to pull out of the drawer as an alternative to making the same mistakes over again.
Is that psychobable?
I call it an open ended, open minded approach to issues that need an injection of creativity since everybody seems to be going over the same points over and over again without finding any way out of the maze.
Yes, I would like to have the right to move to England. And if I had a group of people that wanted to set up a coummunity there, I would expect the authorities there to cooperate with my pettitions to purchace land and set up urban infrastructure. If they denied my request for a particular site on the basis of practical enviornmental development considerations, that would be fair. I would look for another site. But if they denied my request by saying, “Nah, we don’t think having a Jewish community here would be a good idea”, then that would be racial discrimination.
Legaly, I could go to England, although I wouldn’t want to,rent a flat, buy a house, organize a communty, whatever and the governement would not be allowed to obstruct me on racist grounds. Since I am interested in living here, in Judea, I expect whoever governs here to abide by the same basic minimal concepts of fairness.
I think most Israelis realise that I am not the one causing the problems, that the Arab rage has been directed at all Israelis regardless of where they live, and that if they succeed in booting me off my land here, the next stage will be to boot all the Israelis out of Tel Aviv and anywhere else.
Lets figure out a way to give the Palestinians a chance to prove that they can be trusted to protect my rights to freedom and property ALONGSIDE my Arab neighbors. If they can do that, the rest of Israel would gladly accept redrawn boundaries and new security arrangements.
Here’s my suggestion. Let a group of volunteers from the Jewish community request a plot of land for a new community inside the Palestinian contolled area. If the Palestinians reject it out of hand then they are not ready for peace. If they accept it, and use it as a test case to prove that they can be trusted, then we may be onto something positive.
akohl, no, you cannot immigrate to England and settle there, at your whim. It is not your legal right. It is up to England to decide whether or not they want to accept you as an immigrant into their land. Visit sure. Settle, no it is not your right.
You do have the right to settle anywhere inside Israel, but until such time as the West Bank is annexed, it is not Israel.
Gawd, you can’t imagine how much it pains me to be, at all, on the same side of a discussion as s.w., but it is hypocritical to say that any Jew can come move to Israel by virtue of his mother’s bloodline (or conversion according to Orthodox standards), to not allow that same opportunity to anyone else in the world, and then cry racism because someone says that you don’t have the right to move whereever you want. Is it reasonable for any Arabs to just move into Israel in whatever numbers they want? Will you accept any number of Cuban refugees too?
I see some possible futures as less awful than others. I think I know what went wrong at Oslo, but I do not see how pinning the blame for the collapse helps to find out where to go from here.
Jews took the initiative to build the communities. They were set up as Jewish communities were only Jews live alongside Arab communities where only Arabs live.
Israeli settlers are not just Jews; they are also Zionist Jews. Zionism is the secular messianic movement founded in 1897 by Theordore Herzl. Mount Herzl Cemetery is named after him. It is the Israeli equivalent of Arlington. The current name of the movement is the World Zionist Organization. For an understand of the connection between the Government of Israel and that organization see STATUS LAW which was developed jointly by the Organization and the Government and was adopted by the Knesset on November 24, 1952. Paragraph 4 of that law reads ‘The State of Israel recognizes the World Zionist Organization as the authorized agency which will continue to operate in the State of Israel for the development and settlement of the country, the absorption of immigrants from the Diaspora and the coordination of the activities in Israel of Jewish institutions and organizations active in those fields.’
Settlements are one of the ways Israel seeks to expand its boundries. Settlements are how Israel seizes and controls Arab lands. Zionist have been doing this since before Israel became a state. For example, Zionist Yosef Weitz wrote in his dairy ‘I made a summary of the list of Arab villages which in my opinion must be cleared out in order to complete Jewish regions. I also made a summary of the places that have land disputes and must be setttled by miliary means.’ (Weitz Diary A 246/13. entry dated April 18, 1948 p2358 CZA)
Also see documents in the Israeli archives on the subjects of ‘conquest by settlement’ and ‘creations of fact’.
Settlements violate the Geneva Civililians Convention of 1949 to which Israel is a signatory. Article 53 prohibits the destruction of property; article 49 prohibits ‘regardless of motive’ the transportions or deportation of protected persons (civilians) from the occupied territories and also prohibits the occupying power from transfering its own population into the area it occupies.
The settlements are war crimes; the settlers are war criminals. Eradication of all settlements s not just pragmatic, it is also required by international law.
Under the Israeli law of dual citizenship, any Jew anywhere in the world is a sort of latent citizen of Israel. All he needs do is come to Israel and his citizenship is virtually automatic.
Settlements are seen by Arabs as an aspect of occupation. They are a major obstacle to peace in the region.
You’re right. Israel should have annexed the areas before allowing Jews to settle there. That would have made things simpler, I suppose. Unfortunatley, the government didn’t. But it still had to govern the areas responsibly. Banning Jewish ownership of land and community building would have been unfair.
And your right about England. They do have the right to say, “We have enough Jews here”. But if they said that, if would be wrong. And so if they refused me they would probably say, "we have enough middle aged unemployed webmasters here…"I’d be insulted. But I couldn’t claim that it was because of anti-semitism. Actually I still could. But you could take it with a grain of salt.
Its not just bloodline. You can convert to Judaism if you want.
And I’m not saying any number of Cubans. But Israel has Arabs. Israel never said, we will not allow Arabs to live here. Of course we don’t want the Arabs to be a majority in our country. But an effort is made to secure the life and property of Arab citizens in Israel. I think the Arabs in Israel fare ok compared to their brothers in the PA and other Arab countries.
I am soooo sick of this crap. It doesn’t matter how you are Jewish. Jews are held in favor by Israel. It is a racist policy. A group of people unified in their interest, held above others as preferred candidates for citizenship. This is racism. If you can’t see that you are biased and your opinion is of little value in figuring a practical solution.
Well this would be discrimination. You still have a ways to go to show that they are holding one group above another. they are definitely discriminating against your group but that doesn’t always indicate racism. OTOH when you clearly state preference for one group, that is racist.
There is another option for Israel as Sam Stone, december, Zev Chafes, and Krauthammer are implying:
Take over the West Bank and Gaza completely, kill as many Palestinians as one can, drive the rest out, and create a greater Israel in the process. Problems? None really; the other Arab countries can’t do anything about it, as they were handed by Israel the last time; US and England will be all a tither, but so what? Israel will say that it was up to themselves to stop terror in their own country.
Wow. Somehow I don’t think Israel would be able to do that without causing a major conflict on a world scale. Between the Arab nations and European nations Israel would have its hands full. Besides, they should make every attempt at a peaceful solution first. Where there is a will there is a way. The will is the problem. The way is there somewhere.
Now you see why I hate to be anywhere close to the same side of a discussion as s.w.! (S)he has polluted these boards with this vitriol before and I’ll not facilitate the hijack of this thread into the sewers by responding to such rhetoric more than this-
Hey, I know that my having phrased the op doesn’t give me any right to control the converstation of the thread, but, please can we keep the name-calling and blame pointing to a minimum in this one thread.
For the duration of this thread I ask that we at least pretend that we believe that each side is honestly portraying their current goals: that Israel is NOT interested in expansion or oppression, but is interested in security; that the Arabs are no longer interested in the destruction of Israel but want an autonomous state in the land that Israel won in 1967. The purpose of this discussion (despite the hijack that I participated in) is to determine what the options are for each side, and what would be the likely result of each option.
So let’s add capacitor’s option to the list (and it is NOT what has been suggested or implied by ANYONE else). I’ll rephrase it: Israel annexes the occupied lands entirely and displaces the Arabs living there using as much force as needed. Looking at it independent of its moral repugnancy, it is unlikely to accomplish Israel’s goal of security. The Israeli people, many of whom are already discomforted by settlements at all, would vote out an administration that did such a thing. Israel would lose the support of the US and be subject to continued attacks, perhaps even all out war with Arab nations, with risk of worldwide catestrophic consequences. I think that we can ignore that suggestion as sarcastic trash talk.
**I’m no expert, but this is certainly not the version of events I’m familiar with. This report, which I quote from the Foundation for Middle East Peace webpage, states flatly:
[QUOTE]
For Menachem Begin…Jewish settlement throughout the “Land of Israel” was and remains an expression of the enduring vitality of Zionism and its moral vision. For Begin and many Israelis, there is no vital distinction between the Jewish settlements before the state was created in 1948 and those Israel has established in violation of international law in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem after the 1967 war. All Israeli governments, Labor and Likud, pursued settlements after 1967 in order to consolidate Israeli control over the occupied territories and prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state.
The Zionist experience of state building in Palestine in the first half of this century led Israelis leaders to believe that civilian Jewish settlements were the building blocks upon which sovereignty was created and which defined its territorial limits. These leaders viewed security, sovereignty, and settlement as inextricably linked. For them, security achieved by settlement was an existential concept rather than a military imperative. As Moshe Detain explained, Jewish settlements in the occupied territories are essential “not because they can ensure security better than the army, but because without them we cannot keep the army in those territories. Without them the IDF would be a foreign army ruling a foreign population.”
During the first decade of occupation after the 1967 war, Labor-led governments established the infrastructure and institutions for the creation and expansion of permanent Israeli settlement in the territories. Labor’s approach was incremental, but after 1977, Begin’s Likud government embraced settlements as its raison d’être and the key to the Likud’s political renaissance. Aside from the ideological imperative to settle the land, Begin viewed settlements as his opportunity to create a political constituency rooted in the settlements of the West Bank just as Labor had done with its kibbutz and moshav settlements in pre-state Israel….
In September 1977 Begin’s minister of agriculture, Ariel Sharon, unveiled “A vision of Israel at Century’s End,” calling for the settlement of 2 million Jews in the occupied territories. The Likud plan proposed settling Jews in areas of Arab habitation and for numerous settlement points as well as large urban concentrations in three principle areas:[ul][li]a north-south axis running from the Golan through the Jordan Valley and down the east coast of Sinai;[/li]
[li]a widened corridor around Jerusalem; and[/li]
[li]the populated western slopes of the Samarian heartland of the West Bank.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I would be very interested to hear your view of the history of the settlements, especially if you feel the version presented above is historically inaccurate.
Not really, as I see it. The claim is being made against a group of people who have illegally moved into someone else’s country and taken their land. Now, in this particular instance, the vast majority of settlers happen to be Jewish; but if they had been Armenian, or American, or Swedish, the response would be, or at least should be, the same. I submit that you’re hiding an illegal land grab behind this accusation of “racism.”
By the way, DSeid, the webpage referred to above also claims to have a “bold” proposal for peace as well, based on something called the “Taba plan.” They argue that one of the major flaws of the Oslo accords resides in its attempts to take “incremental,” confidence-building steps towards a lasting solution. The result was the opposite: an incremental increase in hostility and a chronic sense of futility from both sides. Rather, they call for a kind of “once and for all” two-state agreement enforced by an international oversight group.
You can read the full text of their proposed solution here.
I say the US should bring in its most powerful weapon.
Yes, I’m talking about Disney.
There is no situation so complex that cannot be resolved into a simplistic, mawkish morality play;their ham-fisted morals cannot
be missed by even the densest of viewers, and who didn’t cry when Old Yeller died?
I say it’s high time they took this on…They could make it as sort of a sequel to that film they made about Moses…It could be a musical…a re-working of the old Romeo and Juliet theme…yeah, yeah…they could call it West Bank Story…
(harp glissando as scene disolves to a West Bank rooftop. Two lines of Palestinian youths-boys on one side, girls on the other- are singing and dancing)
*
"I want to live in Palestine!!!
All of the land will be mine, all mine!!
Never a Cohen or Morgenstein…
I want to live in Palestine!!!*
(Cut to an Israeli settlement…A group of young Israeli toughs are sashaying down the street…snapping their fingers in unison…)
“When you’re a Jew, You’re a Jew all life-long…
From the hat on your head,
to your circumcised schlong…”
(snap!snap!..)*
You get the picture— her Dad’s a Zionist; he’s the Son of a PLO official. Theirs is a star-crossed love that cannot be, yadda, yadda, yadda…
I’m telling ya, if they play their cards right, I see a Nobel Peace prize for Tim Rice and Elton John
Well, another solution yet to be offered is the destruction of Israel. If we may suggest to destroy or displace the Palestinians we might as well suggest that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan and France, under its new leadership, form a military coalition and kill as many Israelis as possible and displace and scatter what is left, forming a state of Palestine much greater than is possible with Israel in the picture. The US will whine but a tough Oil policy will help to keep the greedy Americans at bay and a media blackout has proven effective at hiding attrocities too.
I think it accurately describes what most Israelis feel right now. While Sharon has seen a bounce in popularity since Operation Defensive Shield went into effect, IMHO most Israelis recognize that this will be a short term solution – 60-70% of the populace supports separation. There are even private initiatives starting to build a wall before the government has mandated it.
The Israeli Left appears to be regrouping, and this time their strategy looks like it has a new dimension beyond negotiations. Negotiate, and if it doesn’t work (again), then withdraw and build a wall.
There are three problems with it, though. It is a centrist viewpoint, and Israeli politics is currently polarized with the peak of the bell curve lying to the right. Secondly, the Palestinians are dead against it, in fear that a temporary separation wall will become a permanent border with continued violence. Thirdly, it would be a huge sociopolitical logistical nightmare in relocating settlers and deciding, unilaterally, where to build the wall.
I think it accurately describes what most Israelis feel right now. While Sharon has seen a bounce in popularity since Operation Defensive Shield went into effect, IMHO most Israelis recognize that this will be a short term solution – 60-70% of the populace supports separation. There are even private initiatives starting to build a wall before the government has mandated it.
The Israeli Left appears to be regrouping, and this time their strategy looks like it has a new dimension beyond negotiations. Negotiate, and if it doesn’t work (again), then withdraw and build a wall.
There are three problems with it, though. It is a centrist viewpoint, and Israeli politics is currently polarized with the peak of the bell curve lying to the right. Secondly, the Palestinians are dead against it, in fear that a temporary separation wall will become a permanent border with continued violence. Thirdly, it would be a huge sociopolitical logistical nightmare in relocating settlers and deciding, unilaterally, where to build the wall.
There’s no way in hell , no chance whatsoever the Israelis will unilaterally withdraw. Might as well discuss the effects of a martian invasion of Israel.
Well yes it is sarcastic but it sheds some light on the attitudes here. Capacitor suggest this first;
Do you think this is constructive? The OP ask for practical solutions without finger pointing and blame game. Some posters try to bring in demographics and racial issues.
That is BS and you all know it. How is Israel going to keep a majority of Jews while being a minority in that region? Who cares? That is Israels problem. If the people are committed to democracy, and I don’t think they are, a change of the majority means a change in power. If you function well as a democracy and treat the minority with a degree of respect you won’t have much to fear from a change in power. OTOH, if you treat the minority like crap and take their stuff, they will hold a grudge and will act accordingly when it is their turn at the power. The pendulum effect. The farther you pull in one direction the farther it is bound to swing in the other direction. If Israel wants to be a democracy then by God be one. If it wants to be a Theocracy then by God be that. But whatever they do, they should be honest in the attempt. Democracy does not entail killing and driving people from the country in order to maintain a majority. There are other names for that.
Now we have someone playing the racism issue. I did not bring it up. I respected the OP and refrained from this because it is not a practical issue in the matter. But if you want to host this clap trap I will respond. Here is another jewel;
OK, so let the Palestinians request a plot of land in Israel for a Palestinian community. If Israel rejects then they are not ready for peace. Sheesh. All of this is secondary to what most agree is the reasonable next step. End the occupation, draw the borders, erect the fence and take it from there.