Looks like war, again...

[curwin]

First, I think such comments as «ethnic cleansing» in re abandonment of the West Bank and Gaza strip settlements are fundamentally incorrect, wrong-headed, unhelpful and obscure reality

For a frame of reference, could you define “ethnic cleansing”? Then I can say whether or not I feel the term would apply to removal of the settlements according to your definition.

Should Israel decide to withdraw from the settlements, which are after all in violation of international law

The above statement is not true.

From ( http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/20.Jul.1998/Opinion/Article-0.html ):

(I realize it is from an editorial, but the facts are the same, and I thought it was still better to quote the source than to write it as if it was my own)

Israeli settlements are not illegal, as even the US has effectively admitted. As much as the US opposes Israeli settlements, in 1983 it shifted from calling them “illegal” to branding them “obstacles to peace.”

The reason was that it could no longer argue with Israel’s plain reading of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which speaks of “forced” transfer of populations.

Further, Israel does not “occupy” the West Bank, since that term applies to controlling territory that was captured from another country in a war of aggression. Judea and Samaria were not legally part of any country, but were unallocated portions of the British Mandate, and in any case were captured by Israel in a defensive war.

If anything, Israel has been extremely cautious legally, in that it did not annex any of the territories it captured in 1967. Even the Golan was not annexed - though Israeli law has been extended over it - while most of the West Bank remains under military administration, emphasizing its legally unresolved status.

[curwin]

As to the demographic question for Israel:

I did not say Israel should simply annex all the territories and not give democratic rights to the 2-3 million Arabs. All I said was that if they were to annex and grant citizenship it would mean the end of Israel. No questions asked.

Therefore there are other solutions – not annexing the land, annexing part of the land and granting the Palestinians autonomy or a state in those areas not annexed, or some sort of population transfer that would allow Israel to continue to exist.

But to the heart of the issue – does Israel have a right to do whatever it takes to exist, even if it defies international norms? I have to say yes. There were international norms and morals before World War II, and not only did the Nazis act brutally, but the rest of the world did nearly nothing to either help the Jews or stop the killing. I am a Jew and I have a responsibility to provide for my children a country where they won’t be persecuted.

Every person deserves a state where they have a vote. (Not that nearly any western country applies this principle. Those living in territories of the US, and even in Washington DC have no voting representation in Congress). But the solution to the problems here have to allow Israel to continue to survive as a country.

[Alex_B]

I honestly don’t mean this flippantly or to start a flaming session but…

Would the people who defend Israels attacks on Palestinian targets condone similar actions by the British government in response to bombings by the Real IRA? Obviously the situation isn’t exactly analagous as the Palestinians don’t even have a state to call their own, but it seems to me a lot of people have contradictory views over the two situations.

Alex

[curwin]

Alex B-

I’m not sure I exactly understand your question, but this OpEd does a pretty good job of comparing the terrorism in Israel to how it would be viewed in America:

Jonah Goldberg: Biography and Latest Articles - Jonah Goldberg