Well I’m glad I’m mistaken. But I took your reply to FitzRoy statement that Jews should be allowed to live on the West Bank as disagreement.
There is no such thing as West Bank citizens as there is no such thing as a Palestinian Arab country (besides Jordan). So there is nothing to be equal to.
But ok. You show me the footage of Israeli Jews celebrating in the streets at the sight of murdered Arab children and I’ll show you equality. Show me the official Israeli schoolbooks depicting Palestinians as evil incarnate. Show me the unending line of Jewish terrorist suicide bombers. Show me the Jewish Rabbis preaching hate and eternal bloddy murder. Show me the polls showing widespread support for the destruction of all Arab countries and death of all Arabs. Show me Israeli summer (paradise) camps where Jews learn the art of murdering Arabs. The demonstration featuring Jewish children and babies with strap-on bomb belts. The mass of Jewish Israeli leaders decrying Palestinians Moslems as the blood sucking scum of earth. The popular Israeli ditties revelling in slaughter of Palestinian Arabs. The popular Israeli television series indulging in fantasies of vast Palestinian Arab conspiracies to murder Jews. Etc. etc. Show me that and I’ll give you equality.
Until such a time when there is an overwhelming likelihood that Jews in a Palestinian state will be treated as well as Moslems in Israel I’ll support Israel right to protect Jews on the West Bank/Gaza.
But the thing is, the Palestinians on the West Bank are ever as much immigrants as the Jews and there have been Jews on the West Bank for a long time and long time before 1948. And I suppose a sizeable part of the settlers are in fact born in the settlements and thus did not move anywhere. If you give them a choice between staying where they were born and getting murdered or moving to Israel and survive you’re not giving them a choice at all.
So symbolic gestures of enmity by some and murders by a tiny handful are grounds for permanently nullifying the rights of millions of people? Do you really need to see a cataloguing of the injustices perpetrated by the Israelis upon the Palestinians? Having your land taken from you and being subject to military occupation is a big deal. How is dancing in the sreets worse than sending tanks rampaging through them? If people are willing to fight and die for land, that means taking land is the equivilent of klling people. What about that human-chain-for-injustice just a couple of days ago? “Hooray! We stole land and refuse to give it back because we don’t care about anyone but ourselves!”
I’m capable of switching hats and being appalled at the visciousness of many aspects of Islamic culture, but what have you done for them lately? The situation the Israelis are in is like having a wolf by the ears, yet the only thing they can think of to do is to spit in his face. #1 get some help in calming the wolf and #2 give him back his bone.
Well, I appreciate your honesty, but I fail to see your point. As pointed out before, by your definition of “working”, it would also “work” for Israel to just indiscriminately bomb the Palestinians into oblivion, in the sense that it would stop the conflict. But the objections to the wall are not that it won’t “work” for Israel. I don’t see the point in leaving the Palestinians out of the equation and only considering what you believe to be good for Israel. What would possibly lead you to believe that’s out of the scope of this thread?
The title of this thread: “Like it or not, Israel’s fence seems to be working,” already misses the point. The reason people don’t “like” the fence is not that they don’t think it helps Israel, it’s that they think it hurts the Palestinians, and inflames the conflict.
Actually, yes it does work that way. The flaw in your logic is that while your observation that people tend to increase their resolve when attacked might be true, you are assuming that the converse is true, e.g. that people decrease their resolve when they feel safer, and become willing to negotiate. That is not true. Looking at my own country, if that were true, the white settlers, who greatly overpowered the Indians in military force, would have been more willing to negotiate, and the Indians would own about 1/2 the United States today. [Not meant as a parallel to the Isreal/Palestine situation, just to demonstrate the general principle.] No, feeling a sense of superiority to one’s adversary simply makes one inclined to grab for more power.
In other words, the answer to my question is, “No, you can’t be surprised if the other side doesn’t like it”, right?
Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Either you believe the fence is a measure solely to benefit Israel, OR you believe it’s an effort to facilitate compromise. You already made it clear that it’s the former. The wall obviously infuriates the Palestinians; I don’t see how you can possibly contend it will make them “simmer down”.
But the argument is no more valid than it was the first time. Saying Y is worse than X does not prove that X is not bad. Like I said before, I don’t take sides in the conflict. I don’t believe Israel is evil, or that they haven’t shown any restraint; they obviously have. But I also don’t feel that they are totally blameless in the conflict, nor do I think it serves any useful purpose to bicker over who’s at fault, or who started it. My only point was that saying, “Well, things could be worse”, is a weak argument. It’s always a weak argument.
Not to speak for Palestinians, but I’m fairly certain that they don’t want to live under your rule. How does that quote go? “It’s better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.”? Something like that.
Yes, Brain, No one has given a link regarding the Arab League’s response to Israeli offers. Still, successive Israeli governments kept believing that reason was around the corner and that a few more settlers weren’t too big a deal … not enough to suffer the internal political fall-out for anyway … and so it went.
No, the settlers have no right to be there. Israel could have annexed the area, but she did not. Therefore as occupier her obligation is to care for the occupied. Settelrs are not in that interest. The government had no right to allow settlers to build. But there they are. And just as I’ll grant that it matters not that the identity of “Palestinian” is a modern creation that came as a response to the creation of Israel, because an identity it is today, so does it not really matter how they got there, dealing with them is an issue that cannot just be swept away without some compromise.
No, the fence is not primarily motivated as a land grab. It is unfortunately being manipulated to do that as a secondary goal by Sharon, which is idiotic on his part.
The Palestinian leadership would object to the fence under all circumstances, even if it was along the Green Line to a tee (excepting Jerusalum), because they would then have no choice but to stop blaming Israel and try to manage the area themselves. And again, making defacto concessions on all settlements in a unilateral action, without getting anything in return, would be foolish of any Israeli administration.
The fence works to decrease terror attacks in a way that is fairer to the Palestinians than any other option open to the Israeli side at this time. Stp the terror by bombing into oblivion? Not a prefeerred option. Targetted killings? Kills too many innocents and doesn’t work as well. The fence? A few inconvienences, no one killed, and it works very well. Or just live with terror. Cause there aint no one to negotiate with right now.
It should be done better with less disruption into Palestinian areas. The Israeli Supreme court says so much as well and will make sure it is done. But it should be done.
But the Israeli Arabs live in a state where they are voting citizens. If the Territories became independent, and the settlements remained – would the Jews there become Palestinian citizens? Or would they remain Israelis and keep their settlements as politically separate Israeli enclaves within Palestine? If the latter, then obviously the Israeli Army would have to maintain some kind of presence there to protect them – and how could Palestine be truly independent, if it had to tolerate the presence of foreign enclaves and foreign troops within its borders?
When Israel formed Arabs within its borders became Israeli citizens with full rights of citizenship. Would Jews who chose to remain in a nascent Palestine be granted citizenship and the rights thereof (including police protection from attack based on their religon and/or ethnicity) in that entity if they chose to stay and requested such? I’ve heard some settlers claim that they would like to request that very thing.
Paul,
No one has a right to live whever they like, no matter what the rules are. The analogy here is admittedly flawed, but it is fairly reasonable to some degree: An Englishman cannot just set up a house in Wales on someone else property and not expect to be evicted someday, even if he is ignored for years. He will be evicted. So should Israeli forces do the evicting or Palestinian forces? Which makes more sense when you are trying to build a long term peace.
Truth is that those settlements close to the Green Line would be incorporated into Israel in return for some territorial exchange. Others would be left behind. Dismantled and evacuated or told stay at your own risk and know that you are subject to Palestinian law. L’hit’ra’ot baby.
I usually don’t come here (GD) since this is time-consuming, but it’s raining today and I can’t run, bike, or play tennis. I’ve skimmed through the posts, and wish to state a few things.
Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria — the West Bank — since ancient times. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living in the territories in recent decades was during Jordan’s rule from 1948 to 1967. This prohibition was contrary to the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state, and specifically encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land.”
Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are “illegal.” International law scholar Stephen Schwebel notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory. (American Journal of International Law, (April, 1970), pp. 345-46.)
According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution. Rostow noted, “allows Israel to administer the territories” it won in 1967 “until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved,” Rostow wrote. (*New Republic *, (October 21, 1991), p. 14.
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war. The intention was to insure that local populations who came under occupation would not be forced to move. This is in no way relevant to the settlement issue. Jews are not being forced to go to the West Bank and Gaza Strip; on the contrary, they are voluntarily moving back to places where they, or their ancestors, once lived before being expelled by others. In addition, those territories never legally belonged to either Jordan or Egypt, and certainly not to the Palestinians, who were never the sovereign authority in any part of Palestine. “The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there,” according to Professor Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. (American Journal of International Law, (1990, vol 84), p. 72.
As a matter of policy, moreover, Israel does not requisition private land for the establishment of settlements. Housing construction is allowed on private land only after determining that no private rights will be violated. The settlements also do not displace Arabs living in the territories. The media sometimes gives the impression that for every Jew who moves to the West Bank, several hundred Palestinians are forced to leave. The truth is that the vast majority of settlements have been built in uninhabited areas and even the handful established in or near Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave.
Since substantial construction of the wall, terrorists’ activity has declined noticeably. I’ve read from several sources that it has declined 80% - 90%. I can’t find a link right now, but this site is interesting.
I think that the addition “for Israel” was implicit in the title of this thread (Paul - am I right?); as such, I was addressing what I considered to be the question, namely “has the barrier reduced terrorism just by physically being there?”, in the affirmative.
Again, I have no argument with your contention that the barrier certainly does not serve any Palestinian interests; you may be surprised to know that I (and quite a few other Israelis) also actually realize that in the long run, the barrier cannot be a permanent solution.
I also think that partition is a good middle term measure, and will, ultimately, allow both sides to approach the long term solution, which will have to be some sort of bilateral agreement.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. It may important to note that even during periods of relative calm, the Israeli-Palestinain conflict remains news around here rather than sliding into oblivion, so people still think about it. And when people think about a situation with a relatively cool head, they tend to arrive at more moderate conclusions.
YMMV, and I don’t mean that in a snarky way. Maybe it’s just a proof of different group psychologies at work in our respective groups.
Right. I didn’t think I was dodging that! but again, I thought the OP was Israel- and statistics-centric, and mainly addressebdthe issue from those perspectives. Hey, you aren’t really expecting complete objectivity from me, are you? :dubious:
I believe the barrier was devised as a unilateral step by israel, and was not meant as a measure to necessarily benefit (nor necessarily harm) the palestinians. I also believe that, as a somewhat incidental side-effect, it creates a middle-term situation which may work for the good of both parties. I’m not sure I’m expressing myself quite clearly here…
And I agree with you 100% there. But not all debaters are quite as even-handed as you are being here, and I was pointing out that the Israeli rule over the OT’s while far from being a gentle heaven on earth or something like that, is not the ultimate yardstick against which evil should be measured. Chalk it down to over-defensiveness, OK?
I fail to see how we are saying anything different here. I was, again, not addressing Palestinian feelings, but rather my sentiments toward some debaters who seem to be ill-informed, in disregard of the facts which they should be able to look at dispassionaltely, or both…
All in all, I sense we are far more in agreement about many issues than you may think.
I didn’t get that impression, but no sense in continuing to argue about it.
But I feel that you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You went to great lengths to emphasize that you are only giving consideration to whether the fence benefits Israel. You say this over and over, and declare any discussion of the impact on the Palestinians to be off-limits for this discussion. But then you keep throwing in these little hints that you think it aids both sides. I don’t think you can make that determination by only examining one side of the equation.
That would seem irrelevant to the point, though. We weren’t discussing if people think about it.
I just don’t think that’s the case. If the Isreali people get used to having areas that are currently disputed being protected by a wall, and settlers start to feel more secure from this protection, it’s going to make them less willing to give up that land. I don’t see how they’re going to think, “Gee, I feel really secure here - now I feel like moving out and letting the Palestinians have this land.”
O.K., I guess I just don’t see the point of divorcing the situation from external reality like that. Again, let’s take my country, the U.S., as an example. If we were to ask the very narrow question, “Was the war in Iraq successful in ousting Saddam Hussein?”, the answer would be yes. But that says absolutely nothing about how successful it was in terms of solving long-term political problems or maintaining international support and respect, nor gives us any insight as to how much opposition there is to the war. So what’s the point of asking such limited questions?
Your expressing yourself clearly, but again, I feel like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you’re touting the wall as a great gesture to spur compromise on both sides (albeit inadvertently so), I submit that it would have made infinitely more sense to build it along the Green Line.
Fair enough. It’s an emotional subject, and lots of propaganda is flying around. I’ll agree with you there.
blowero - Judging by the nip of cold at my heels and the echo of receding footsteps, I’d say this thread is officially dead, but one last point anyway…
Looking back at the debate, I’d say we’ve unfortunately probably been debating at cross-purposes. I was looking at the barrier through Israeli eyes, and trying to give my thoughts as to where things may go from here. You appear to me to have been looking for someone to see things from the other point of view - the Palestinian one. I’m afraid I’m not too good at doing that…
Long term, in any case, something will have to give on both sides, or we’d better settle in for another 100 years of simmering conflict I don’t know what final form the resolution of the conflict will take. Probably something nobody is expecting right now. I do know that the likelyhood of the barrier affecting this resolution, in any direction, is slight. More psychologically important things have changed and will yet change than a mere construction project.
One last thing - I honestly don’t see where I was talking out of both sides of my mouth before. ISTM that I was talking on two different levels, rather than in two different directions - the levels I already mentioned above. I looked at the barrier as a short-term, mainly politically-motivated measure on the Israeli side, and tried help assess whether it was fulfilling its purported purpose (yes). I also tried to look at what may happen in the future as a result of this short term measure. As I’ve already said, I think that middle term it may be beneficial to allowing some cooling off on both sides. Long term I strongly doubt it will have much effect.
As to the question of whether partition and some “quiet time” will make Israelis more or less likely ro compromise, we’ll just have to continue disagreeing. But I think I may know Israelis slightly better than you do…
I honestly hope you’re right, that the wall is going to “quiet” the Palestinians, and that a reduction in attacks from Palestinians (assuming that claim is true) isn’t just a calm before the storm. But I have never heard of a slap in the face ever calming anyone down, and I fear this is just wishful thinking on your part. And I hope you’re right that it will make Israelis more willing to compromise, but I doubt it. You may think you know the Israeli people, but I know human nature. The longer you hold onto something, the less willing you will be to let it go.
I’ve skimmed through the posts, and wish to state a few things.