Do you object to checkpoints on the borders? Because that’s well within Israel’s right. You can’t possibly mean that Israel should remove checkpoints to enter into Israel proper. That’s absurd. May as well ask Obama to open checkpoints running along the US-Mexican border.
You seem to be under the impression that Israeli military presence stops along the borders of the West Bank. Tis not so - the IDF has set up any number of checkpoints within the WB, which the locals object to (even more so that the soldiers manning those checkpoints are not always the most civil of fellas).
One assumes that should Palestine become a sovereign state, those soldiers would have to vamoose.
'Tis why I asked you about borders that line Israel proper (at least on the Gaza side, this is pretty obvious).
I never said that all checkpoints where on the borders. Hell, I could go to a mall in Tel-Aviv and my purse would have to be checked first. Not sure if you travel much, but security agent anywhere aren’t always the most* civil of fellas*.
Then no, I don’t think checkpoints on the borders are objectionable per se. I have a suspicion Israeli border guards might be overdoing it a bit, but it’s understandable considering the tactics used by the actual terrorists.
Well the incentives would run in different directions. Surely a rocketing campaign would be popular among a lot of the citizenry. And counter-measures by Israel would result in a lot of death and destruction which would generate sympathy and aid money.
Again, just look at the situation in Gaza.
Also, have a look at this graph:
As you can see, there is big money to be made in going against Israel.
I’m not so sure.
Now, I’ll admit I don’t really have a finger on the pulse of Palestine, but I’d wager that the majority of Palestinians want what anybody wants - food, a roof, free [del]beer[/del] fruit juice, fucking the redhead from Accounts Receivable, and for today to be boringly the same as yesterday. I know that Hamas has a lot of support in Gaza, but that has not a little to do with the fact that every other option who is not Hamas is wholly corrupt, or laughably inefficient, or both. Hamas gets shit done, regardless of their fondness for things that go boom.
As for the sympathy and aid money, I do think they pale in comparison to a dead husband, wife or child - again, for the average man in the street. I don’t think anyone ever enjoys being collateral damage. I won’t deny that to the man on a mission, it’s only negative reinforcement - but how many Allahu-Akhbar terrorists are there, really ? As a percentage of the Palestinian population ? And how many of them are honest to Og Palestinians, rather than Jihadis who come from other Arab countries just because Palestine is where you go when you have a hankering to kill Jews ?
No, really, honest question, how many ? Do we know that ?
That may very well be true, but it’s the incentives of the leaders that matter. The citizenry may want food, shelter, etc. but the leadership may still be better off starting trouble with Israel just like leaders have started trouble since time immemorial to improve their popularity.
PLO official: Palestinians, Israelis must be totally separated
- must mean that the Palestinians have bought into the Lieberman population swap solution then. No Palestinians in Israel. No Jews in Palestine.
I don’t see any way around the land swap.
That makes it sound akin to Bophuthatswana, rather than a real country.
I’m not sure how that works either – among other things, kind of a rough thing on Palestinian Christians to be marooned in a Palestine that is more or less explicitly identified as a symbol of Muslim nationalism.
Palestinian Christians have been fleeing both the occupied territories and, to a lesser extent Israel proper in droves for a while now.
Currently there are more Palestinian Christians living in Chile then in Palestine/Israel.
I don’t see where your coming from, this refers to the prospect of Palestine keeping Jewish settlers, not to seperating Arab Israelis from Israel.
The Jewish settlers are in East Jerusalem and the West Bank in contravention of internationallaw, they have no right or legal status there it is entirely within a future Palestinians states right to insist that these people be removed.
Now the Palestinians could take a concillatory line and allow a few of the settlers to remain in the West bank however, this is impractical for several reasons.
-
the settlers contain some of the most extreme, violent and racist elements of Israeli soceity. It would be like asking Liberia to take in several 1000 KKK members. which brings me on to my second point.
-
Given that some settlers have carried out a campaign of harrassment involving destroying their crops, posioning their water supplies, burning down mosques, against the Palestinians, not to mention that many of them live on land confiscated from Palestinians, they are not the most popular people in the WB and would be at risk themselves. which brings me on to my 3rd point.
-
Any friction between the settlers and the Palestinians could be used by Israel as a pretext to invade. The best solution for all is that Israel has very little involvement in any future Palestinian State.
What about the Jewish residents who were there in 48 and returned in 67? Do they have to leave, too? Is it fair, then, for Israel to ban all Palestinians from entering? An AP headline today said that Israel restricts movement of Palestinians. The main person of the story was a Palestinian who lived in the West Bank and had a hard time getting to work inside Israel proper. He wasn’t even Israeli!
Can’t have it both ways. The Palestinians want the Right of Return and they want to expel Jews from ‘their’ land.
Half of Israel’s Jewish population in the early years were Jewish Arabs - most of them expelled/driven out/fleeing/etc. The difference between tens of thousands of Jews versus the Palestinians is that they actually did something with themselves. There was never any right of return or reparations for them.
Finally, the Jews in Ariel are not like the ‘price tag’ racists.
And they can withdraw aid and support and work visas - right?
:dubious:
I guess it could continue being the welfare child of the UN.
I haven’t seen any other wire with this story yet.
-
The actual number of Settlers representing eho could legitmately claim WB residence under a ‘Right of Return’ is miniscule as to be almost irrelevant to the issue of a future Palestinian state keeping any Jewish settlers.
-
israel won’t even let it’sown non-Jewish citizens return to their pre-1948 homes, if it wasn’t so sad I would laugh out loud every time I heard someone invoke the Right of Return vis a vis the settlers.
The Palestinians are yet to receive any Right of Return or reparations so I fail to see your point and Israelplayed it’s part in the immigration of Jews from Arab countries. And please let’snot get into Israeli stereotypes of the ‘lazy Arab’.
I would say the settlement enterprise itself is racist and whilst yes certainly the most violent and extreme settlers tend to live in the smaller settlements, however the residents of the large settlements still represent a right-wing anti-palestinian racist demographic. These are not people that it would be desirable from any point of view to have as part of a future Palestinian state
When Israel starts giving aid to the Palestinians in can start withdrawing it.:dubious:
One of the main purposes of Paqlestinian State would be stop the Palestinian economy being subserviant to the Israeli economy. So yes the likeihood would be that Israel would lose ut’s Palestinian labour force (or at least what remains of it).
without thde crippling restrictions placed on the Palestinian economy by Israel it would not need the level of aid it currently receives.
As I said Israel would have almost nothign to do with a future Palestinian State, this is what the Palestinians want.
I disagree with you about the legalities, but let me ask you this:
If a person living in State X is there because he is descended from someone who was transferred illegally to State X, he has no legal right to stay there?
According to Steve Huntley from Chicago Sun, yes, the sky will fall and then burry itself 6 feet under.
My favourite excerpt is the article opening paragraph:
The negotiations with Israel are non-existent, futile and, if history is any guide, a huge waste of time and effort. Regardless of who you think refused the whose latest bestest offer.
If US Government, i.e. Congress, which is apparently extremely divided over any bill or acclamation put forth, can band together faster than you can say “cut anything from budget but don’t cut funding to Israel” to put together a unanimous statement that they sure don’t like those frisky Palestinians looking for freedom legally with UN – I’m not sure how US can get any farther alienated.
I especially like the tidbit on “foment a new outbreak of violence and blood-letting” – reminds me of war criminal currently in Hague court, Radovan Karadzic famous threat that if Bosnians continue with their independence request “one nation will disappear” (see http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1932377,00.html).
For US Dopers - how does it feel to be the only country in the World against Palestinian pursuit of statehood?