Here are some maps the Washington Institute for Near East Policy came up with, regarding three potential land swap plans:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/interactiveMaps/index.html
Missing a key step.
You don’t get to tolerate a uniquely low standard of conduct by Israelis without first making a clear acknowledgment of that position. I am not the best at choosing the form of words to use, so you are invited to exercise your own discretion.
So, correctly:
1 - Looting / Settlements by Israelis
2 - Official acknowledgement of the innate / incurable moral deficiency of Israelis
3 - Land swaps
See? Obvious.
Do the Israelis get to bring up cafe bombs, suicide bombers, rocket attacks, hostage taking/killing, random attacks on Israeli citizens, etc etc? Just want you to clarify what all is on the table here.
-XT
Leiberman suggested something like this and was lambasted for it. The UN poo poos such ideas as you’d forcibly be requiring people to give up their cititzenship- in this case, muslim arab israelis, since jews in the west bank are under israeli sovereignty.
300,000 people aren’t going to be moved. It just wont happen. You’re talking about whole towns- with hospitals, schools, roads, parks, government, etc. – the people who built that wont leave so easily. These aren’t just little right wing enclaves, and some represent affordable living near the major employment centers. Israel is tiny.
Israel has disbanded settlements before- Gaza, Golan Heights, and Sinai. The people in the far side of the WB, yeah, they’ll have to suffer. But the suburbs of Jerusalem aren’t moving…and that’s probably what it will come down to.
Again.
They certainly should have the option of staying and becoming citizens of Palestine, sure. No doubt some actually will take that option. But don’t be too sure that a pretty large percentage will continue to choose to live under an Israeli government instead - if that means packing up the truck and moving a few miles away, so what? How is that just not going to happen?
Don’t assume a priori that the subject of settlements can’t be discussed. That’s just more excuse-making.
No. The PLO will not stand for Jewish settlement on ‘their’ land. And what will not happen is Israel evacuating suburbs of Jerusalem. Yes, that is ‘not an option’ as it would disrupt all of Israeli society and economy. You think that Israels settlements are illegal, but you can’t make that claim because there is no state that is Palestine. Now, arguably the Israeli government lost some ground when it recognized the PLO in the 90s, but there was no.agreement to stop the settlements.
Forced West Bank evictions for purposes of Jewish settlements are another issue. But really, I find ut rather obnoxious that the group with the least amount of power expects a sovereign nation that has withstood said groups’ attacks on their state to give them equal concessions.
What Abbas is doing, though he won’t say it right, is holding up a white flag in one hand and a gun in the other. He’s not looking for peace- not after making nice with Hamas and going to the UN.
Eta: typos. Adam phone
We’re damn*
err, damn
Fucking auto correct.
After just being told by a Mod to not compare an entire people to animals, you come back with a claim that that nation has a “moral deficiency” that is “innate” and “incurable”?
You’re trolling. You are not contributing to the discussion, merely trying to raise the hackles of your opponents.
This is a Warning to stop it.
[ /Moderating ]
There is no trolling there at all. In these discussions, I am not persuaded that policy re Israel can simply gloss over its crimes of war and against humanity. If contrary to my preference, ones decision is to tolerate such crimes then courage and integrity require 2 things: -
- You make an explicit statement to that effect; &
- Explain your reasoning.
I have yet to see any disagreement at all with my understanding of the reasoning at work. That is:
- We afford impunity for war crimes so long as they are committed by Israel
- due to an innate defect in Israelis, who cannot be considered morally competent.
This is the reasoning of people I disagree with. Rather my view is that Israelis are morally competent. Their war crimes should not be tolerated or treated with impunity. By their own conduct, the appropriate punishments are due.
Who said Israel is morally incompetent? And what war crimes has the state been convicted of?
Heavy words you use, but no meaning attached.
Ps: cite - and not wiki, pro Palestinian groups, or al-Jazeera.
That’s because everyone else is ignoring you.
Further, the actual trolling in this and many other like discussions is the sleazy insinuation that it is a light and trivial matter to tolerate crimes against humanity, so long as they are Israeli crimes against humanity.
The attitude has decades supportive insinuations in the US press and is the very ignorance this board exists to fight.
Poor form to talk about who is on your ignore list. Bad show sir.
I don’t mean “on the ignore list” I mean literally in this thread because you aren’t being rational.
Yeah, cuz Sevastopol would be the only poster in this thread (or any Israel thread, for that matter) not being rational.
LMAO! 'cause the Israel Brigade makes soooo much sense.
Just a short sampling of the rabid pro-Israel fervor that runs amuck in all these threads:
Israel “debates” are the longest running joke on the SDMB.
Want to learn about the conflict? Don’t get your [del]propaganda[/del] information here.
Then what is he looking for?
This isn’t a court of law, and you’re not going to succeed by arguing technicalities. The land in question is part of Palestine. Any costs that are incurred by Israel’s evacuating it are the results of Israel’s actions, and hence your insistence that “it can’t happen” do indeed constitute more excuse-making.
Here’s an analogy for you: Do you have any idea how many centuries of deaths resulted from England’s settlements in the occupied Irish territories? Or how many Englishmen insisted, superciliously, either that Ireland had never been a proper country and they weren’t civilized anyway, that the land takings were simply a fact on the ground, that even discussing their departure was just silly talk, or John Maceishly, that “The Irish lost, so they can just bugger off”? Do you see any parallels there?
Someone giving you back your own property after he’s stolen it is not “giving concessions”.
Same question as BG, then: What does he want? And a follow-up: What makes you think so? And another follow-up: What do you think both should and can happen (and let’s hope it’s something more than “the Arabs can go fuck off”)? :dubious: What sort of future are you committed to?
And yet, when all’s said and done, the British got to keep their major settlement blocks (Ulster), 100% of Ireland was not returned, and the world accepted it.
Sure, I see the parallel.
What the world accepted was that the situation, after the centuries of deaths you somehow forgot to mention, was resolved by peaceable and respectful negotiation by parties who each finally accepted that the others’ interests were as valid as their own.
How long do you think it should take for you?