The one page article says nothing about where the checkpoints are, merely that the writer can not drive for more than half an hour without hitting one.
Hard to say how actually frequent they are, given the small size of the countries involved.
I’m well aware that there are numerous legitimate grievances among the Palestinian people, among but not limited to those in the West Bank and Gaza.
There are legitimate concerns about racism and discrimination even for Arabs in Israel, but the courts have consistently come down against such actions. There are problems for those Palestinians who live in refugee camps in other countries, many of which have adopted laws designed to keep them living in the camps, and even made it illegal for them to find work outside of the camps. Other nations, like Lebanon, have a history of treating them very roughly and just a couple years ago, the Lebanese army shelled the hell out of refugee camp. IIRC they weren’t using surgical strikes either. Palestinians in the West Bank do not have freedom of movement even within the West Bank itself. Many have family/friends in Jordan but are unable to visit them most of the time due to the Jordanian border policies. There are valid demands that they have increased water rights, that Gazans have increased fishing rights. Fatah is corrupt and Hamas are theocratic thuggish genocidal lunatics. Much of the aid/money which is sent never get into the hands of the people. Unemployment is massive and they are unable to import/export freely. Ironically as well, one of their main trading partners has always been Israel, and due to security restrictions they are unable to travel and work in Israel without great difficulty and delay. Even ambulances have trouble traveling freely, largely due to the fact that there is a history of ambulances being used to smuggle weapons/bombs/terrorists.
Etc, etc, etc. That’s just a smattering off the top of my head.
Of course they have valid demands. They want a sovereign state with viable agricultural and water rights, with open borders so that they can travel to see family in Jordan or Egypt, Israel or wherever, or simply vacation. They want open airspace and a national airline. They want the ability to send fishing boats as deep into international waters as they see fit. They want a decent standard of living and a viable economy. They want the ability to visit their holy sites and don’t want security checkpoints on their land or, for that matter, to have to be treated as possible enemy combatants at every checkpoint in Israel proper. They want to have sovereign control and ownership over the land they are living on now. Which, of course, has legal but not necessarily pragmatic problems. For roughly 400 years, the vast majority of land in the region was Miri or waste land, that is, land which could not be privately owned and which tenants could only ‘rent’ by continuously cultivating it. This system was kept by both the British and Jordanians when they were the sovereign powers in control of the land. So legal claims to property rights fall short, but it is obvious that a pragmatic solution must be reached. I have gone on record, numerous times in the last week or two unless I miss my guess, as stating that Clinton’s Bridging Proposal would be a very good goal to shoot for (with modifications in Final Status negotiations), as after land swaps and periods of increasingly scaled back Israeli control to guarantee a smooth transition, it gave (what would become) a sovereign PA roughly 97% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. I’ve gone on record as saying that the US should apply its economic influence to attempt to get all settlement expansion stopped. I’ve gone on record as stating that there is a pragmatic necessity to provide funds Palestinians who were dispossessed, largely because any Palestinian territory itself must have viable social services as soon as possible, but also because it would be a good gesture to settle bad blood and the Final Status of the refugees. I believe that it would have to be negotiated because, as pointed out above many didn’t even own the land they were living on. A unilateral decision of how much they were owed would be silly, and most evenhanded folks recognize that. Israel no more gets to determine what the refugees should get than does Abbas or Haniyah, or the Saudis or whoever. But a negotiated settlement allows an agreed upon value to be set and paid rather than simply declared by fiat.
I’d add that I wish that any peace deal would also include the participation of the Arab powers, who would likewise compensate Jewish disposed citizens from the period around 1948, but I recognize that the world as a whole simply doesn’t care about the fact that they had their property/homes stripped from them and they’re unlikely to ever get any political traction because Israel already absorbed the cost of repatriating most of them while the Palestinian leadership itself and the Arab regimes in which their refugee camps have been based have done their best throughout the decades to keep them in camps as a political issue and (in the case of the Arab governments) to distract their own people and give them an external enemy. As the old sad joke goes, the Egyptians are more than willing to fight to the last Palestinian.
I want there to be a viable two state solution with peace security, prosperity and a high standard of living for both sides. And I want it ASAP.
I’m also not coming at the issue from a position of ignorance. I understand that without a real peace, there can be no peaceful coexistence (I’d hope that’s obvious but based on the number of people who want Hamas’ demands to be met, it seems like some people still miss that fact). Or as put on Mideastweb: [
It is obvious that if Hamas were given freedom of movement and open borders tomorrow, all we would see is Hamas being within rocket/mortar range of each and every single Israeli city, town, and village. Any honest observer knows what happens next. And, it is obvious (as least to me) that no sovereign, democratic government on the planet would accept such attacks continuing. Any government which allowed Hamas to rocket Tel Avid would find itself ousted by a no confidence vote virtually immediately, and would be replaced by a massively hawkish government as the pendulum swung in the other direction to compensate. By the same token, if any sovereign Palestinian state waited a little while and then launched a war, we’d just be back to square one.
I have seen (some) good signs from Fatah in the West Bank however, as they recently controlled their populace and didn’t permit violent protests to develop ‘a stone’s throw’ away from Israeli troops. Although that in and of itself has produced resentment, it does seem that Fatah is actually interested in a peaceful government with sovereignty. Oh, to be sure, it still spews the same rhetoric. But while Hamas’ rejectionist position is proven by its actions, Fatah’s rejectionist rhetoric (might be) falsified by its willingness to achieve domestic calm so as to be a viable negotiating partner for Israel. Even children who are radicals would have a hard time continuing in that vein if their home was peaceful and prosperous and, especially, if the PA was active in cracking down on terrorism and genocidal incitement.
I believe that the best way to marginalize Hamas is to have a sovereign West Bank which can demonstrate to them the ‘carrot’ of peaceful relations, and provide a glaring object lesson as to what path works, and what leads to misery and bloodshed for both nations. I believe that the sooner we get a viable two state solution, the sooner the citizens in Gaza will start slitting some Hamas throats. And the sooner there is a viable pair of states who can coexist in peace and prosperity, the revenue from tourism alone will help the Palestinians’ economic and social interests immensely.
I’m not unaware of the complexities of the situation, I just find myself having to debunk counter-factual claims much more often than talking about Where We Go From Here. Anybody can check out, for instance, my disagreements with DSeid. He and I disagree on some fundamental points, like the effectiveness of his ‘snapping turtle’ strategy of defense. But I have never known him to be anything other than scrupulously honest and accurate, and he mythbusts both traditional Zionist and anti-Zionist positions that aren’t factual. Because he’s able to see nuance and keep his position grounded in fact rather than myth, he and I can disagree (and even contradict each other on factual points with valid cites and see those points conceded) . I’d be more than happy to discuss pragmatic solutions to this conflict which has gone on far too long. But that is hampered by constant myth busting, or people who simply argue to support their agenda, or who distort the facts to score rhetorical points, or what have you.
The situation, as one really should expect for a conflict that’s been going on for more than a century and which involved much of the civilized world, is not without its complexities and nuances. Whitewashing the situation in order to shill for an agenda simply makes honest debate that much harder.
Losing wars or being on the wrong side of one tends to have this effect I’ve noticed. Being belligerent also doesn’t really make it so the winner is going to be spontaneously magnanimous to previous agreements or understandings, especially when they paid for the captured territory in the blood of their own citizens.
Out of curiosity, since I’m sure this answer was obvious with only a cursory understanding of the regions history, what reason do you give for why those settlements are there?
(I stress that this is not a mean-spirited joke, and not meant to be taken as such. FTR, while I still think Finn’s debating methods in this thread were less than honest, and I still disagree with him on many counts, his last post has done much to improve my opinion/impression of him.)
Well, basically “might makes right” . And I expected you had in mind a motive more subtle than what you wrote, and I couldn’t figure out what you had in mind (for instance that the Palestinians had done something specific and that the settlements were required for a related specific purpose).
No, not necessarily. You are from France, right? Where do you think all YOUR territory came from exactly? I’m from America (well, I’m an American anyway)…I know EXACTLY where the bulk of our own territory came from.
The thing is that might doesn’t make right…but winning a war does give a country a bit of leverage wrt territorial acquisitions that came about from said war. The fact that the Palestinian’s have been so belligerent makes it easier for the Israeli’s to pursue the policy of colonization that they have. Had the Palestinian’s not pursued the course they have it would have been much more difficult (if not impossible) for the Israeli’s to have built the settlements they have.
Nope…wasn’t trying to be specifically subtle there. I was genuinely curious about your thoughts on the question I asked.
As for specific…there are numerous specifics that have influenced both the spread of the settlements and the restrictions on travel for the Palestinian’s in the region. You can point to each escalation and progression in what the Israeli’s have done in the region and look back for the specific causes or pressures that have made the situation we have today. By no means are the Israeli’s innocent of wrong doing in this situation…but by the same token the Palestinian’s (and the neighboring Arab countries who curiously never seem to come in for any comment in these type threads) also bear a large burden of responsibility. In fact, the lions share of it IMHO. The US and the Euro’s should also come in to accept their piece of the blame door prizes too (especially the Brits, but the French as well).
The factual statement which XT made was that due in large part to the actions of the Palestinians and their neighbors, the settlements exist. It is 100% factual that without the Six Day War, there would be no Israeli presence in the West Bank, and thus no settlements. Further, Israel immediately offered the territories back but was met with the Three Noes: no recognition of Israel, no peace with Israel, no negotiation with Israel. And, of course, the Palestinians themselves supported the leadership of the PLO, a group which made peace impossible as they considered all of Israel to be “occupied” territory, much like Hamas does now. In point of fact, the PLO was founded years before 1967, before there was a West Bank or Gaza strip to be fought over. The PLO charter, in turn, which has never been revised despite noise to the contrary designed to placate inattentive onlookers, calls for all of the region including Israel to be under Palestinian rule, that armed struggle is the only acceptable means of interacting with Israel, and that they specifically “reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine”. Had a PA arisen that had been prepared to peacefully recognize Israel in 1967, it seems obvious that the Three Noes would have only applied to the Arab regimes but that a Palestinian state would have been a real possibility.
XT’s statement is factual. The West Bank would not be an Israeli occupied territory if the Six Day War had not been initiated, if the Arab nations had accepted the territories in exchange for peace, or if the PLO itself had not arisen with a strategy of total rejectionism and opposition to peaceful coexistence.
History shows that the existence of settlements in the West Bank are the result of a number of forces, from Arab and Palestinian rejectionism which caused the 1967 war and allowed its results to become entrenched, to Messianic Judaism influencing settlers’ ideology, to Israeli attempts to alter ‘facts on the ground’ which would give them a better negotiating position, to the US not taking a hard line against them, and so on.
Of course, some would prefer to ignore the messy nuances of history and simply declare that it’s all Israel’s fault because they think might means right.
I meant that when I read :“those settlements are there due in large part to the actions of the Palestinian’s and their neighbors”, I thought you had something more specific and subtle in mind than the explanation you gave later. Some sort of direct causation making the settlements necessary.
And “Basically, might makes right” was my answer to the question : “what reason do you give for why those settlements are there?” IOW “Because they can”, since there’s a push to extend Israel’s border besides the green line, and even in some segments of the population, to include all of Palestine.
Is Hebron a settlement, a colonial outpost? Some would argue that it is, and it’s totally wrong.
But Hebron was a continuously populated Jewish community since ancient times, and was rendered Judenrein due to the Hebron Massacre and the British removal of Jews from the area. Jews moved back to it in 1967. A case of settlement, colonial growth, or a reclaimed Jewish town? If Palestinians deserve compensation for moving off of land that the vast majority never owned, and the majority left of their own free will due to a war their own leadership started, why then are Jews demonized for moving back to a traditionally Jewish city which they’d due to organized pogroms and been away from for roughly only 30 years?
We’ve already been told by one person that because Palestinians left land and ‘had a right to stay’, that they deserve compensation. Evidently it’s time to whip out the second set of standards, because Jews who were denied their ‘right to stay’ but returned are not there by right or as repayment for past harms, but only because Israel can get away with it since might makes right.
It’s deceptively easy to reflexively claim that everything outside the Green Line is simply wrong. But like Einstein said, everything should be as simple as possible… but not any simpler.
Actually, I would say you are having double standards here - if the Palestinians had no inherent “right to stay” or “right to live here” in the Israeli parts of the country based on their historical use of the region, then surely the Israeli don’t either in areas that were formally given (and which they agreed to give) to the Palestinians ?
Isn’t/wasn’t giving the Israeli free reign to punitive resettlement or allowances to break former treaties because they won a war they didn’t officially start akin to the whole heaping on Germany in 1918 because those bastards started the war thing, which was a major part in Hitler’s rise to power ? Or the whole Alsace-Lorraine 1870/1914/1930s contention ? Fat load of polarizing bollocks *that *was…
And you’d have a point, if I held the position I pointed out was a double standard, namely, that the Palestinians deserve immediate compensation for having their ‘right to stay’ denied but the Israelis are “colonists” for trying to return to land that they lived on when their ‘right to stay’ was denied.
Yep, now you’re getting the point. If the Israelis don’t have that right, then neither do the Palestinians.
And if the Palestinians do have that right, then so do the Israelis.
But it’s still an oversimplification, because no ‘right to stay’ exists, and no right to compensation if one leaves and doesn’t get to live on land they don’t own in the first place exists. And even if it did, the war itself and its conduct/consequences were largely due to the actual start of war and its nature, meaning that the question of who is responsible for refugees is not a simple question. To mention nothing of how the war’s aftermath was settled.
Or the fact that the precedent for how international population transfers have been handled differs significantly, or that it was a regional conflict where only some of the players are expected to compensate refugees who were created from the exact same conflict, and so on and so on, and so on.
My point is that “they had a right to stay, so you must pay them immediately (some undetermined sum that isn’t reached by negotiation) if they aren’t allowed to return to land that isn’t theirs, but Jews who were expelled do not have a right return to their ancestral homes, else it is colonialism” is neither an objective nor a balanced nor a just position. There should undoubtedly be an equitable solution to the question of refugees and displaced persons, but looking at only one side does not help and keeping two sets of standards to use for the side you favor and the side you do not, is inherently unjust.
There are numerous problems here. To begin with, the area was never given to a sovereign Palestinian authority. It was offered under the Partition plan, for instance, but the Palestinians rejected that. Estoppel comes into play. You can’t refuse a contract and then demand, later, that you’re entitled to having its terms enforced.
Second, I’m not sure what claims you’re making about what Israel agreed to give the Palestinians. There were certain treaties in place and the Palestinians’ elected government specifically stated that all of them are null and void. The PA also defaulted on numerous provisions of previous agreements and none had yet reached Final Status agreement with a transfer of land to a sovereign PA.
It’d be helpful if you cite which agreements you’re basing your claim on.
I’m not the one arguing for compensation to the Palestinians - I’m not sticking my sword in *that *knot :p. Equal rights, wealth and living conditions would already take a miracle - but I’m of the opinion (rightly or wrongly - I’m an idealist, I won’t deny the charge) that once that state is reached, no matter how it happens, and no matter how much gnashing of teeth and random violence goes on on both sides of the fence when it happens, in 50, a hundred, two hundred years ? Nobody would care to remember who did what to whom first outside of historians. Not enough for violent actions anyway.
I’m not saying this situation appeared ex nihilo, or that all the blame is on one side or the other (in fact I have repeatedly argued *against * painting either side all white or black) but in objective, present reality, it seems to me there’s some unfairness and inequality going on, and a good bit of “sins of the fathers” as well. I can agree that to a point, the roadblocks and so forth are a cruel necessity, but there’s no such argument for the settlements.
I also accept I may be wrong in this, for this treaty or that historical reason - I’m no historian nor lawyer, and haven’t devoted years of research time on the subject. but I would certainly understand a Palestinian or Israeli feeling that way.
But the soon-to-be Israeli accepted the partition plan, didn’t they ? Seems to me, if they wanted to show the UN their respect and goodwill, they’d have stuck to it no matter what, no ? If only as a PR gesture. Even today, that would be one heck of an extended hand.
Yes, but you need two parties who agree for an enforceable contract between two parties.
The result in 1948 was less about the Partition than it was a civil war that resulted in one sovereign government that was Israel and Jordan/Egypt holding the rest of what was Mandate Palestine. It’s also worth pointing out that there was no Palestinian state not because Israel blocked it, but because Egypt and Jordan did. Which means that there wasn’t a second partner as defined by the Partition in any case.
No, for several reasons. To begin with, the Partition boundaries were exceedingly narrow points. Which would render Israel exceedingly vulnerable to a military attack that could cut it to pieces. So for that very pragmatic reason, Israel wouldn’t have suck to the Partition. There’s also the fact that once a sovereign state was created, the states to the north, east, south and west were still at war with it. Who was it supposed to give the ‘extra’ land to? There was no Palestinian state as envisioned by the Partition, so leaving some of the land as ‘no man’s land’ or giving it to Egypt/Jordan wouldn’t have seemed very rational.
It won’t happen. There simply isn’t the political will to draw back behind the Green Line. Getting the political clout to withdraw totally to the Green Line is, itself, is doubtful. There is also a very sound pragmatic reason for at least one of the settlements, Ariel. Without it, Israel’s “waist” is about 9 miles wide at its pre-1967 boundaries. For a country that’s used to being attacked in wars of annihilation, convincing the people to create borders which are almost indefensible in a real war is, to say the least, a tough sell.
Gee, now THERE is an unbiased and clear eyed assessment of the situation there. It’s always good to hear this kind of straight talking in an article right in the first paragraph:
Yup, no bias there. Just a fresh and straightforward assessment of the realities in the region. As well as a heart rending photo of a wounded policeman! If they would have only included some pictures of dead children and puppies it would have been a stunningly successful piece of journalism!
Yep, the same untruths, half truths, facts taken out of context, invented non-facts, denial of international law while parroting its language, rhetorical sleight of hand “To be sure, Hamas is not an entirely innocent party in this conflict. [Because Israel is wrong and made Hamas do what it’s done]” etc, etc, etc. We’ve seen it all before. We’ve argued it all before.
Well, almost all. I must say that his formulation by which, if you wage war against a nation’s military/government you’re really waging war against its people, is breathtaking in its mendacity. It’s also somewhat novel, at least to me. I’ve not seen anybody here with enough chutzpah to try to get away with crap like that, and that’s saying something as we’ve had posters claim that it was a lie to say that rocketing civilians was an attack or that bottle rockets would be more of a threat than actual rockets.
Establishing the state of Israel in May 1948 involved a monumental injustice to the Palestinians. - FACT
On 2 June 1948, Sir John Troutbeck wrote to the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by “an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders”. - FACT
Looks like even the simplest and easily provable facts have… wait for it… a bias.
It’s like from the movie Liar Liar when Jim Carrey character says:
Your honor, I object!
Why?
Because it’s devastating to my case!
And, as expected, you object.
But I have to admit, now that I consider this and other few discussion on the similar subject a pure comedy, it would be nice to live in a different Universe - where some of the hard-core pro-Israeli posters live - but that Universe is single-minded so, really, of no interest to many.
So what? Sir John could (and probably did) state any number of stupid or silly things. Even assuming this is being taken in context with his original intent (it’s not worth my while to check since this is such a stupid discussion), who gives a shit?
Well, why don’t you, I don’t know, actually try and prove them then?? Or was that too much trouble?
