“But again, I believe that the driving impulse behind those settlements is the exasperation of those on the right in Israel, and their determination that the Palestinians can not be trusted and therefore should never be given a state”
This is pure nonsense. A large part of the settlement movement is about the ideology of “Greater Israel” which is partly driven by Jewish religious fundamentalism and the desire for supposedly Biblical boundaries for Israel.
You are making excuses for an indefensible policy.
“Also Peres was Prime Minster from 1986-88”
But he wasn’t elected which is what Alessan was talking about.
BTW in my previous post it should be "would" instead of "will" in the following since we are obviously talking about a hypothetical scenario: ie. "It's unlikely there would be a genocide. My best guess is that lots of Jews would be expelled and the rest will continue living as second-class citizens"
Sorry, I was wrong 1984-1986 when he was prime minister, though I don’t see why you’d say he wasn’t elected as though he was the head of the national unity government his party, Labor, polled the most votes in the 1984 election.
I think most Western democracies would react in a better fashion. Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza is pretty much a colonial-style occupation against a hostile population. Basically all Western democracies abandoned such policies decades ago. Like I said other countries like Russia and China have behaved worse than Israel in similar situations.
There’s over 40 posts here, and most-to-all of them contain some sort of debate. Why should I spill out a specific question to debate about when people are obviously intelligent enough to find their own points to argue and carry on a rational and intelligence discussion? It’s too bad you, El_Kabong, contributed a whole-lot-of-nothing to this discussion.
Oh Sam - come on - you’re an intelligent guy. Do you REALLY believe Israel just wants that land for “security”? If so - why doesn’t it limit its presence there to military installations?
The Israeli government has ENCOURAGED civilian settlers to live there - incentives include cheap loans for housing, reduced rates for leasing state land, free kindergarten tuition and transport to school, low income tax - here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3145057.stm
Believe what you want to believe but try not to get taken in by total lies. Regardless of who has the right to that land, it is clear - unequivocally clear - that Israel is trying to grab it permanently.
And the occupation of the “West Bank” is not “vital to national defence in absence of peaceful existence with a neighbor”? Look at This map and tell me that again. Measure the distance from the PA to Tel-Aviv, Haifa and Beer-sheba (not to mention Jerusalem, which is of course right on the front line).
Note: the settlement (as opposed to military occupation) of the West Bank is a stripe of a completely different color. For the most part I feel that the settlers are, in and of themselves, just about the worst PR we can get… bunch o’ loons (and I am not left wing!)
Agreed. There ain’t no such thing as black and white. We’re just trying to stay alive, and we’re getting it right part of the time, and wrong most of the time Just like everyone else…
Again, I’m glad to find agreement on the settlers. Regarding the West Bank, no, it is not vital to Israel’s national defense, at least nothing like the Golan Heights are. The Golan Heights are mountainous, overlook northern Israel, are very easy to defend, and most importantly are facing Syria. The West Bank is flat, and Israel never was in serious danger from that direction, even when facing the Jordanian Army. It is also surrounded on three sides by Israel, who has historically been far superior to its opponents in mobile operations. I can’t imagine Israel allowing a viable military threat to its existence to grow from a future Palestine, action would be taken to prevent it. Actually, I can’t imagine the Palestinians creating a viable military threat without being provided with a mountain of military equipment from a third party free of charge.
Wrong - The west bank is quite mountainous (Think of Jerusalem, which is TOPOGRAPHICALLY part of the West Bank)
Which means we have an awfully LONG border with this region. Put this together with the mountainous quality of the terrain, and you get a practically indefensible border.
I’m far more worried about continued TERRORISM, rather than an attempt at all-out war. The alternative to occupation is building the “fence” along the frontier, which the US administration, in its infinite wisdom, has essentially ordered us to cease and desist on.
I’m writing this as dozens of murdered and injured children (and dozens more grownups) are still being taken from the bombed bus in Jerusalem. May the dead rest in peace. May their families and friends know no more sorrow. May the injured recover fully.
I feel so awful about the bus bombing today, Noone. Maybe these people on this thread will now see my entire point for bringing up this OP. But, of course, they’ll simply ignore what has happened today and will keep arguing their radical liberal non-sense. At least I know a few on this thread see the light…
You are correct, I should have qualified it as comparatively flat, the Golan is a far more serious military obstacle than the West Bank is.
Here is where we’re looking at it from different angles. The border was perfectly defensible militarily until 1967 and most military traffic during wars headed out of Israel in this area, hence my original statement that the West Bank isn’t vital to Israel’s national defense. From a Jordanian or Palestinian military prospective, it’s an exposed salient. The US administration hasn’t been terribly wise lately about many things in my eyes. Giving up the occupation in favor of a fence leads back to the problem of the settlements being on the wrong side, though. Perhaps getting rid of the settlements and building a fence is the best of possible solutions, but from my understanding getting rid of the settlements won’t be an easy task.
My heart goes out to the victims of this and all such indefensible acts.
The problem is the wall was not erected primarily in order to perform a defensive function, infact most of the suicide bombers entered Israel through Israeli checkpoints along the green-line anyway. Also several Arab villages have been entirely surrounded by the barrier and the plan (well this certainly was the governments orignal plan, but not all stages have got approval to be built yet) is to build it all the way round turning the West Bank into a sort of giant prison camp (it’s hard to see the logic of cutting off the Westbank from it’s Eastern border if the wall’s meant to stop Palestinians from entering Israel). It’s been built almost entirely within the green line meaning that in the event of a peace settlemnt it would be within Palestine anyway.
Of course “radical liberals” and others feel awful about the bus bombing. Innocent people were killed in a ghastly act of terrorism.
But it doesn’t justify Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank, and attempts to grab more and more Palestinian land. These bombings are largely a reaction to that occupation. No - it doesn’t make it right - but if Israel thinks that continued illegal occupation and oppression are going to eventually wipe out these attacks, then they are as stupid as Uncle Sam in Eye-raq.
I think what makes me most angry is that it is the Israeli government - and the right wing expansionists - that are making the rest of Israelis suffer for their ideals - putting them at risk for their ideals.
What I think is that Israel should be able to do what we did with Afghanistan the Taliban/Al Qaeda and offensively go after the Palestinian terrorist groups. Then, there wouldn’t be any “occupation of territory” to argue about, because Israel would then – after removing terrorist threats – welcome their neighbors to live together in peace. After all, that’s what everyone wants. If Israel could be assured that there isn’t Palestinian threat anymore, then they WOULD let them live wherever they want, even in Jerusalem. Right now, they have strict borders and laws because they are looking out for themselves and their own national security, and I say good for them.
On a side note, though, I truly don’t agree with the occupation of the West Bank. But I think they’re at a stalemate. Israel is occupying the West Bank with national security in mind (it’s true, but why they are building civilian establishments is beyond me…shouldn’t it be just military bases?), and they will leave when the terrorism from Palestinian thugs stop. And Palestinian may (or may not) be terrorizing beCAUSE of the occupation (and many more reasons I must say) of the West Bank. So they’re each waiting for one to make a move in the others’ favor, and it’s probably not going to happen unless Israel is forced into releasing the West Bank (which may lessen terrorism, but I doubt it would cease), or Israel goes after the terrorist groups and their national security reasons to occupy the West Bank will be no longer.
Agree with me or not, but that’s how I see it. I think we really just need to see this played out…I just want to see what Abbas is going to do about the Islamic Jihad and the Hamas with their bus bombing…I’m betting a quick spanking and that’ll be the end of the two terrorists’ groups punishment. Why shouldn’t Israel be skeptical about this peace movement and the notion that Palestine terrorism will cease when they do this or cease when they do that…it’s not being ceased right now, even after the Palestinian Authority agreed to put an end to it. Believe me, it’s a gamble, and the lives of the Israeli people is nothing to play Roulette over.
Read the article. I think that’s a sufficient response…I mean, what else can the guy do? But we’ll see if it pays off…again, one can’t help but be skeptical, you know? Can you blame me, or Israel for that matter?
Erm, what do you think Israel has been doing for years? In fact, one of the leaders of Islamic Jihad was killed in Hebron last week, which has been claimed as a justification by them when they claimed responsibility for the Jerusalem attack.
[QUOTE]
In response to my own post (laugh) I just read that Abbas has cuts ties with muslim militants as a result of the bus bombing attack earlier.
[Read the article. I think that’s a sufficient response…I mean, what else can the guy do? But we’ll see if it pays off…again, one can’t help but be skeptical, you know? Can you blame me, or Israel for that matter?/QUOTE]
I agree with you, there is not a lot more Abbas can do, he has cut off talks with the radical organisations and promissed to crack down on them. Unfortunately his resources to do so are not great and his authority is still quite tenuous - if he is perceived on the street not to be gaining any worthwhile concessions from Israel whilst cracking down on organisations that are seen to be continuing the Intifada, then it could seriously backfire for him.
You’re making the assumption that all of Israel’s neighbors are opposed to ‘terrorist’ acts, which is wildly naive. Israeli has been going after terrorist groups since 1948, much as the US went after the Taliban and Al Queda, and occupying territory since 1967 and if anything terrorism in Israel has been increasing. Israel doesn’t welcome its neighbors; it has fought them for over 50 years, rightly or wrongly, or do you suppose that Israel will suddenly win the war against terrorism (vague concept as it is) and abandon its occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip overnight?
Just like everyone else…