Somebody please justify Israeli settlements to me

Great Debates
61

I think this is a quite truthful description of what is happenning in the occupied territoties:
The army and the Settlers does as they please and the Palestinians shoots whith whatever they have.
Are the Palestinians that shoots, terrorists? Or do they live under terror? On the other side, You can also interprent the text thus, that the tanks a firing, not the Palestinians.

(I have a permission to publish this, and everyone has, if the source is mentioned.).
Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP):
Israeli Bulldozers Demolish Homes and Vast Areas of Agricultural Land, Rafah

Source: Hear Palestine News Service Oct 28, 2002

A second reading, gave me the impression that the Palestinians did not shoot.
If I would have been in this situation, I would have shooten.
Would You?

Anyhow, I do not think it would be nice to demolish any farmers crops.

Let us think that nothing of this is true.
Why then have Palestinians asked people, through Internet, to be their guests, in order to bring some peace (by the presence of foreigners) under harversting time?

62

Sorry for posting thrice!
The Russian server told that it was not able to this or that…, and I assumed that my post didn’t had come through.

So how do the Palestinians feel, knowing that the settlers are the reason Israelian army is in Palestine?

Islamic Association for Palestine, tells:

I know how I would react, but how would You react in this kind of situation?
How right the news above are, can be discusseed, but the truth remains:

  • Settlers has stold land and property
  • Settlers has destoyed property.
  • Settlers has killed people without beeing put into court.
  • The army of Israel could put the settlers inside 1967 boarders.
  • Palestine is occupied.
    So how to justify Israeli settlements?
    I can’t - can You?
63

Henry, what your posts here have so far demonstrated is your lack of understanding of history, and willingness to consider only those viewpoints that are in accord with your prejudices.

Since simplistic analogies are your thing, why not consider one that is at least reasonably accurate? For example:

Your family and mine are feuding about a piece of land that we have been tenant farming for a number of years. Many generations of our forebears have lived on that land, though mostly yours in recent years (our relatives were dispersed to many other countries and living under bad conditions). The landlord leaves, and a court enrages you by awarding the land in fairly equal parts to both families.

You respond to the court decision by attempting to kill members of my family and drive me off the land, and egg on your buddies to do the same. I repel your attack, and survive numerous provocations and assaults from members of your family and your buddies. After years in which the only result of your actions is a lot of dead relatives, you ignore another court’s settlement offer and continue your violence.

Over the years I have become heartily pissed off and decide for safety’s sake, revenge and because some members of my family are religious zealots who think God entitles them to your property, I will occupy some of it. Your family also contains numerous religious zealots who think God wants them to have my property and will reward them for killing members of my family.

All the neighbors are sick to death of both of us. But we continue to play them off against each other.

If, after all this time, you wave your arms in the air and call me a thief, should anyone believe that this is a) logical, and b) a good way to settle our conflict?

64

** Jackmannii**

I do not believe I have hard to understand history, but I have hard to understand old books.

My questions:
For how long period are You speaking about?

  • If it is longer than 100 years, I would say that the land should be bought back. But this depends. (I do not think there is any international laws on this? But 100 years seem to be the thing in former “so called socialistic countries”.)

  • What court? Can the returnering people show any paper what they have owned?

Let’s go further: You farm Your land, I farm mine. Good. We can maybe co-ordinate the selling?
But what do we do with these guys that I describe by a cite here below. Have You any feelings that would say that You could defend me?

If vice versa, I feel I should defend You.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021027/80/dd72h.html

I call these people facists. And I think it is only a small procent of rotten eggs in the basket, but why on earth does not the Israeli government/military do anything about it?

There are raports from different peace- and watch-organisations that they do just the other way round.
They do the life for the Palestinians very hard.

The Palestinians and the Israelian can work together in their peace-work.
Why can’t farmers. Maybe beause the conquerers stole the water resourses as well?

Would it not be easier to go back to the Taba-discussions an settle the 1967-borders?
If the remaining people would like to be there where they now are, I am sure that UN could arrange security and up-building of the New Palestina. UN could also “ask” the neighbouring countries to give back the land that belongs to the Palestinian.

WHy does not Israel want UN there? And why is not USA lifting a finger about it?
Because obviously any Israelian citicen is welcomed (by Israel) as a settler to Palestine. With papers or no papers, that his family has once owned something there.
Now Sharon is urging hundreds of millions of dollars for this purpose.

Btw. Should REUTERS also read history, and are they also
“demonstrating their lack of understanding of history, and willingness to consider only those viewpoints that are in accord with their prejudices.”

(This phrase above is rephrased from the original: “…demonstrated is your lack of understanding of history, and willingness to consider only those viewpoints that are in accord with your prejudices.”)

65

Yes, of course. It is always the fault of the Palestinians.

Completely false, in every respect. We should give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are simply mistaken, as opposed to just lying. I find it hard to believe, though, that someone in your position is not aware of the facts, but let’s give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to clear up your misconceptions, then.

First off, there has never been any offer to the Palestinians for “almost all of the West Bank,” nor anything even remotely close. Barak’s offer was for control of most of the Palestinian population within the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and “parts of Jerusalem” (!) within the occupied West Bank (a generous offer indeed! :rolleyes: ). Israel would retain control of the majority of the land within the West Bank, all the land they found desirable, basically. The Palestinians would be granted the land considered basically worthless by the Israelis. Furthermore, the parts of the West Bank to be “given” to the Palestinians were to be these little cantons, South African style Bantustans, completely separated from each other by Israeli settlements and highways. In essence, the Palestinians were to be herded onto these little islands, impoverished and separated from each other, while the Israelis took the best parts and connected them all with highways.

From now on, then, we can assume that if you say Barak offered the Palestinians “most of the West Bank” that you are lying. Hopefully you will correct your understanding to conform to the actual facts so that you will not be put into this position.

As for 1967, it is quite amazing to say that the Palestinians “thought they could defeat us.” I am simply mystified as to your justification for this assertion. Going even further back to 1947, it becomes even more ridiculous, as this was the initial dispossession of Palestinians off of the land they had lived on for centuries.

And, no, you do not have a right to take Palestinian land because you assert (without evidence) that your ancestors lived there a couple thousand years ago.

66

What about Palestinians whose ancestors lived in that land? Where there are dual historic/religious claims to the same bit of land, who should get to live there?

67

A few resources for any who actually would like to dabble with facts rather revisionist disinformation …

First off, as to the claim that “there has never been any offer to the Palestinians for ‘almost all of the West Bank,’ nor anything even remotely close” … hmmm. Who would know what was on the table? How about the people who were at the negotiations?Ross says the following

Malley is more critical of Barak and Clinton than Ross (and sympathetic to Arafat’s position) but states

I think that such qualifies as “most”.

Now as to a fair history of the conflict, try MidEast Web. It gives a fair concise review of the circumstances surrounding each war and gives this pertinent historical view on the development of the settlements -

Without a doubt the '67 war changed everything.

Go through the history with what ifs? What if the Arab side had accepted the partition? Israel would still probably be that postage stamp sized country today. What if the Arabs had not been massing for attack with the stated goal of Israel’s destruction in 1967? They never would have lost the West Bank and Gaza? What if the Arabs had negotaiated with Israel immediately after the '67 war? Settlements never would’ve gotten a foothold and a land for peace deal would have been made then? What if Arafat was willing to deal during the Clinton final days? A fledgling Palestinian state would exist today in at least 95% of the West Bank and Gaza with Palestinian control of much of East Jerusulam. Today Israeli and Palestinian officials could’ve been talking about jobs and sharing tax revenues, economic coventures, increasing tourist revenues, and renegotiating water rights … the mundane business of living in coexistance. But every step the Arab side has been unable to get past the hate, to accept that they cannot, will not get everything that they want, and end up getting less than ever before.

68

Ross is a liar. You should be more careful about referring to FoxNews as a source.

Even the source you quote in the very same post, www.mideastweb.org explains this lie. From here: http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm ,

In addition to not getting 97%, the Palestinian controlled areas would be separated by Israeli settlements and highways, so that the Palestinians would be forced onto these South African style Bantustans. Furthermore, Israel would maintain all significant water rights in the West Bank. This is crucial, as water in that region is one of the most precious commodities, often more so than oil, and will become more precious in the coming years.

Ross continues to dissemble thusly,

What the hell is an Arab neighborhood, beside those parts of Jerusalem that Israel has not already taken over!? Basically, this just says that Israel will maintain control of that territory it stole by force, and it will generously concede the worthless territory to the Palestinians.

69

You are awful loose with your accusations.

So Ross and Malley, who were both there, both are lying?

MidEastWeb is great because they are a very balanced source. They are interested in promoting peace. In this case, however, they are only as good as their sources. "These maps are provided by FMEP, and are not disputed by the sides. " Nor have they ever been confirmed by either side. As Malley puts it, “Ask Barak, and he might volunteer that there was no Israeli offer and, besides, Arafat rejected it. Ask Arafat, and the response you might hear is that there was no offer; besides, it was unacceptable; that said, it had better remain on the table.” FMEP apparently no longer posts these maps (or if they do I can’t find them), but if I recall correctly they had got them from Gush Shalom, who never said where they got them from. As MidEastWeb itself (honest broker that it is) says “It is not clear how much of these reports represent the Israeli proposal from first-hand sources, how much are due to ‘leaks’ from various sources, and how much reflect the American bridging proposals, which were not necessarily accepted by either side.” So what do we believe … the corroborated information from both Malley and Ross, who were first hand sources that were there, or maps from a third party, at least second hand to them, that have never been confirmed or denied by either side?

Even that 70% figure was still “most”, and that does not include the territory due to transition into Palestinian direct control over the next 12 years. On the scale of this conflict a 12 year transition time for the remainder is not all that long. Also when I’ve looked at those maps I see contiguity, not subdivision, maybe they mean that the connections are thin in parts, but well heck, so is Israel.

“What the hell is an Arab neighborhood?” Have you been to Jerusalem or are even passingly familar with it? Israel may have control of the whole city but there are distinct sections … says Malley, “In Jerusalem, all that is Arab would be Palestinian, all that is Jewish would be Israeli. Palestine would exercise sovereignty over the Haram and Israel over the Western Wall, through which it would preserve a connection to the location of the ancient Jewish Temple.” It is unlikely that any such offer will ever arise again.

Interestingly the management of the water resources was not a sticking point at the time. The PA side was fine with letting Israel manage it as long as they were guarenteed their quota of the supply. It apparenntly fell apart over not being offered full control of the Temple Mount site and over less than 5% in land swaps. When the more important issues should have been what kind of economic coventures would be forthcoming, how to handle taxes with investments made in the West Bank and with workers living in Palestine and working in Israel, help with building an educational system … the mutual interest in making a newly established Palestine into a functional economy that could effectively partner in matters of shared concern with its neighbor on the West. In the long term, those were the issues that really mattered. Instead we have children growing up in an occupied territory whose career ambitions are to kill themselves in a muderous terror attack. Children unable to get on schoolbusses without fear of being the target of those attacks. Both sides are should have better. Could have been looking forward to better.

In short, you have established a record of posting a variety of untrue statements, and doing so in an incredibly incediery manner. You have stated that posters have said things that they have never said. You have falsely accused people of racism and of lying.

Quite a job in only 38 posts.

70

Yes. Since they were there, it is impossible that they are not fully aware of the facts. Therefore, it cannot be a mistake when they report factual untruths. Thus, they are lying.

It’s a Rorshach test. You see what you want to see. Of course, no people on earth would accept a territory criss-crossed with foreign-controlled roads and settlements, and call it an independent state.

It is common practice, when you are quoting somebody to either present the entire quote, or to place ellipses where the words you cut out should be. Noticeably, when you presented the last quote, you cut the second half of the sentence, and placed the question mark at the end, so as to make it appear that this was the whole sentence. This gives a very different meaning to the sentence.

Yes, I know what is meant by an “Arab neighborhood.” The point is that Israel will maintain control over those areas of Jerusalem it already controls, and all those parts it desires. Thus, ceding the slums the Palestinians have been herded into to the Palestinians is no concession at all.

71

Dseid wrote:

What I can not understand from where did the FMEP get the 12 - 20 years “transition time”?
Look at the maps from Gush Shalom (the Israeli-Palestinain peace organisation).

It is very interesting that the Israeli army would have surrounded Palestine 100% for a not precised time.
Gush Shalom says not (even) in 50 years etc. Just look at the maps and the explanations.
Mark that Israel has not been interested in discussion of the Taba-offer. Why? That offer is seen in these maps as well.

The missing map:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf

72

Missed this one first time round:

First of all, that was an attack on Egyptian territory being occupied by Israel, not an attack on Israel proper. Perhaps I was a bit unclear. Israel proper has never been attacked since 1948.

As for the “unprovoked” part, certainly what Egypt did was a crime. It did attempt to resolve the situation of Israeli-held Egyptian territory peacefully, but that does not give them the right to armed aggression. In this case, though, there were U.N. resolutions ordering Israel to vacate, so you could make a case that Egypt had a right to invade its own territory being occupied by Israel. I don’t buy it, but it holds a lot more water than a lot of other claims that people round here seem to buy into. I mean, if Mexico invaded California and held it for 6 years, we wouldn’t call on attack on Mexican bases in California unprovoked.

In any case, what I said was true, Israel–Israel proper–has never been attacked since 1948.

73

Jackmanii wrote in this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2562003#post2562003

It is true that if You are referring to a book many thousands of years old, I do not quite follow Your “logic”. As I already wrote.

I have also asked You to answer some questions. I just make a short list here with numbers, so that You have easier to answer.
Here I am referring to Your earlier opinions and my earlier questions.

My questions:
1) For how long period are You speaking about, when You are speaking that Yur family has been living there? When did they move in last time?

2) If it is longer than 100 years, I would say that the land should be bought back. But this depends. (I do not think there is any international laws on this? But 100 years seem to be the thing in former “so called socialistic countries”.) Right or wrong.
What is the proper time?

3) What court? Can the returnering people show any paper what they have owned?

4) Re-read the REUTERS’ story about how the settlers attacked the Palestinians, the Israeli peace activists and some pensionered Americans. It is quoted some posts earlier. Is REUTERS lying? What are Your opinion about it?

5) Why on earth does not the Israeli government/military do anything about it?
There are raports from different peace- and watch-organisations that they do just the other way round.
They do the life for the Palestinians as hard as possible.

6) The Palestinians and the Israelian can work together in their peace-work.
Why can’t farmers. Maybe beause the settlers stole the water resourses as well?

7) Would it not be easier to go back to the Taba-discussions and settle a peace at the 1967-borders?

8) Why does not Israel want UN there? And why is not USA lifting a finger about it?
Obviously any Israelian citicen is welcomed (by Israel) as a settler to Palestine. With papers or without papers, that his family has owned anything there. What is the legal aspect here?
Now Sharon is urging hundreds of millions of dollars for this purpose.
Where and what should I learn about this?

9) Btw. Should REUTERS also read history, and are they also “demonstrating their lack of understanding of history, and willingness to consider only those viewpoints that are in accord with their prejudices.”

(This phrase above is rephrased from Your original: “…demonstrated is your lack of understanding of history, and willingness to consider only those viewpoints that are in accord with your prejudices.”)

10) Did You look at the Gush-Shalom map. What are Your views on that?
So if You are so kind to answer these questions and give me a lesson of history, and I’ll be happy.

And please, if You have a custom to refer from one thread to another, mention the thread, not just putting there slander about e.g. me, because You know perfectly well that I can not begin to defend my views in another thread.

Thank You beforehand.

74

I find it impossible to see how this discussion can not bring into question Israel’s right to exist – so I’m going to question it.

The view that Israel should be the home land of the Jews seems to be based on the view that it was promised to them in the bible, as well as their original home before their ill-fated resistance to the Roman empire. In terms of WWII – Israel was the preferred home land, over the better parts of Germany (for example), by both the Jewish survivors and the allies. I’m sure that the racism that lead to such incidents as the sinking of the Lusitania also lead to the idea that one just did not do that type of thing (breaking up Germany) to Europeans no matter how evil they had been. The choice of Israel as a home land is religious bigotry, racism, and based on historical wrongs which happened so long ago that it becomes a crime in itself to try to undo them. It is not just the racism of Zionists, but a collective racism of the west.

Israel is like a lot of other countries, Canada, United States, South Africa… it is just a lot earlier in it’s history of depopulating the native population, creating a land without a people, than we are here in North America. The racism that went into forming Canada is not necessarily well known, at least among the white population. One link:

http://members.tripod.com/intern_canada/Internment/Internracism.htm

On a different level, that racism still exists today in the “European” view of Canadian history. For example, one might ask when were women given the right to vote in Canada. Federally it was 1918. In fact native woman (Hindus and others) were not granted the right to vote until much later. This is still the “European” view of history. Women who were part of the Iroquois Confederacy had the right to vote before the founding of Canada and it was taken away from them.

Israel is not doing anything particularly different than what has happened in the history of a number of countries (Highland clearances for example), it’s just that now at least some of us realise that it is wrong, it is racist. Indigenous populations should have the right to exist in peace without being colonised.

The view that Israel has a right to exist is similar to saying that South Africa (apartheid) has a right to exist. No, it does not, but expelling the white families is also not acceptable. The crime has been committed too long ago, and it is now not possible to undo it. Even in the much shorter existence of the state of Israel, it is not possible to deport the Jewish population to somewhere else, not even to the better parts of Germany.

The common view is that there should be a two-state solution. I can’t help but think that this too is racist. It would be like South Africa providing some limited autonomy to the Bantustans, African homelands. Without attaching any support to the PLO, I would favour the view that Israel should annex all occupied territories and institute a law of return to Palestinians.

Going back to the settlements – they make a lot of sense, as long as the view is to create a Jewish (racist) state. I would go a little further and say that all theocracies are racist.

Finally, there are some differences in the history of Israel that need to be understood and addressed. Over the last 3 thousand years (longer?) The Jewish people are probably the most oppressed group on the planet. When looking at what people say in defense of Israel, this oppression shows through. There certainly seems to be an internalization of the role of victim. In the last 2000 years the group that has been dominate in their oppression has been the Christians.

The suffering and oppression of the Jewish people is no excuse for the Zionists to inflict suffering and oppression on others.

75

I find it impossible to see how this discussion can not bring into question Israel’s right to exist – so I’m going to question it.

The view that Israel should be the home land of the Jews seems to be based on the view that it was promised to them in the bible, as well as their original home before their ill-fated resistance to the Roman empire. In terms of WWII – Israel was the preferred home land, over the better parts of Germany (for example), by both the Jewish survivors and the allies. I’m sure that the racism that lead to such incidents as the sinking of the Lusitania also lead to the idea that one just did not do that type of thing (breaking up Germany) to Europeans no matter how evil they had been. The choice of Israel as a home land is religious bigotry, racism, and based on historical wrongs which happened so long ago that it becomes a crime in itself to try to undo them. It is not just the racism of Zionists, but a collective racism of the west.

Israel is like a lot of other countries, Canada, United States, South Africa… it is just a lot earlier in it’s history of depopulating the native population, creating a land without a people, than we are here in North America. The racism that went into forming Canada is not necessarily well known, at least among the white population. One link:

http://members.tripod.com/intern_canada/Internment/Internracism.htm

On a different level, that racism still exists today in the “European” view of Canadian history. For example, one might ask when were women given the right to vote in Canada. Federally it was 1918. In fact native woman (Hindus and others) were not granted the right to vote until much later. This is still the “European” view of history. Women who were part of the Iroquois Confederacy had the right to vote before the founding of Canada and it was taken away from them.

Israel is not doing anything particularly different than what has happened in the history of a number of countries (Highland clearances for example), it’s just that now at least some of us realise that it is wrong, it is racist. Indigenous populations should have the right to exist in peace without being colonised.

The view that Israel has a right to exist is similar to saying that South Africa (apartheid) has a right to exist. No, it does not, but expelling the white families is also not acceptable. The crime has been committed too long ago, and it is now not possible to undo it. Even in the much shorter existence of the state of Israel, it is not possible to deport the Jewish population to somewhere else, not even to the better parts of Germany.

The common view is that there should be a two-state solution. I can’t help but think that this too is racist. It would be like South Africa providing some limited autonomy to the Bantustans, African homelands. Without attaching any support to the PLO, I would favour the view that Israel should annex all occupied territories and institute a law of return to Palestinians.

Going back to the settlements – they make a lot of sense, as long as the view is to create a Jewish (racist) state. I would go a little further and say that all theocracies are racist.

Finally, there are some differences in the history of Israel that need to be understood and addressed. Over the last 3 thousand years (longer?) The Jewish people are probably the most oppressed group on the planet. When looking at what people say in defense of Israel, this oppression shows through. There certainly seems to be an internalization of the role of victim. In the last 2000 years the group that has been dominate in their oppression has been the Christians.

The suffering and oppression of the Jewish people is no excuse for the Zionists to inflict suffering and oppression on others.

76

Excellent post, kea!

I agree with most of what you say, except for the part about the annexation of the occupied territories. In principle, I agree that the best solution would be to make one state where everybody has equal rights. I am not sure this is feasible, though.

The tragedy of the whole situation is that, in the end, nobody wins. Israelis are simply perpetuating a cycle of violence by oppressing those that they now have under their boot. Numerous Zionists have warned of the loss of the Israeli soul with their dispossession of the Palestinians, and their continuing oppression. Zionists have gone from being the oppressed to the oppressors. It is a tragedy that they did not end the cycle when they could have. It is still possible.

If we take a long-term view of things, we have to recognize that Israel only continues to enjoy the support of the U.S. because of its strategic importance in the region. Once this usefulness is over, Israel will be abandoned. Since the U.S. is the only force that stands in the way of Palestinian rights, so-called “supporters of Israel” must ask themselves what they will do once Israel’s position as the “gendarme on the block” in Nixon’s words, is no longer necessary.

Those who have been the oppressors for a long time naturally internalize a great fear of being overrun by those they have oppressed. At this point, any attempts to assimilate Palestinians into a single state of Israel will be a long and tortuous process that could lead anywhere. It seems to me, that given the history of the region, that the clearest way to a lasting peace is the two-state settlement.

77

Yes, excellent post kea.

78

Welcome, kea!
I comment Your first post later. It is an honour, I think.

79

Henry, you have a bad habit of ignoring counterarguments, instead posting irrelevancies and nonsequiturs backed by references to dubious sources (Islamic Association for Palestine, HearPalestine etc.).

For one thing, I am not a settler, not an Israeli and I think that the settlement policy Israel has been following is wrong and an impediment to peace. And criminal acts by settlers cannot be excused. What I also recognize, and which your teeming predjudices do not allow you to, is that these self-destructive policies are an outgrowth of violent, murderous and similarly self-destructive policies on the other side. In other words, this is not a black and white situation of Evil and Goodness, as you seem to think. And it will not help matters to spout invective and make mass characterizations of people as racist and Nazi. And the Israelis aren’t going anywhere else unless there’s another Holocaust.

And it would be lovely, if as you say, peace could be arranged on the '67 borders. The Arabs who attacked Israel in '73 apparently did not think so.
This is just one example of your vast, possibly willful ignorance of history.

Further communications with you here are not likely to be fruitful.

You and kea have a nice chat about the Canadian right to vote.

80

An excellent post indeed. Thank you kea for making those points. For you see, I have no delusions that any logic or citations or facts can influence the opinions of people like you and those others who have signed on to that statement. But it is nice, it is important, for those intelligent posters and lurkers even, for those with open minds, for those who really are looking for the facts and arguments upon which to come to informed judgements (I think of posters like jjim, for example, who I think was really trying to understand the different perspectives), to see you for what you are.

Israel has no right to exist. That is your bottom line.

I really won’t try to debate that, to spend too much energy documenting the continued presence of Jews in Zion even after multiple attempts to expel them, to to document how it was the Jewish homeland before the Turks stole it from …(several breaths later)… who stole it from the the Hebrews, about how that to Jews it has always been The Holy place, not just a holy place, not just one province but the whole kit and kaboodle, about how it has been a Jewish State now for over fifty years. No, really, such would be a waste of time. If nothing else it is just not constructive.

But some comment is needed. Because the op had asked why. What justification is in the mind of Israelis to justify the settlements? And this is the answer.

Various peoples have been trying to erase the Jews from the face of the planet for thousands of years.* The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem lead riots against the Jews before Israel even existed, when he was kicked out by the British he worked for the Nazis helping set up death camps. It was he who was instrumental in getting the Arab League united in the goal of the destruction of Israel in its early days. For decades after the stated goal was that Israel has no right to exist, we will make the sea run red with Israeli blood. After those calls and actions for this long, Israel should believe that all Arabs will want to coexist in peace? Just pull back to difficult to defend permeable borders and trust us. No buffer needed. No promises made. You don’t trust us? What!? You racist!

After the goal of Israel’s total destruction is proven, for now, impossible, they say, okay, we accept that you are going to exist, and it isn’t understandable that some Israelis believe that such an acceptance is only good for as long as the means to do something more destructive is unattainable?

Because here it is. Settlements or no settlements. Occupation or not. These posters believe that Israel has no right to exist. And they (to the best of my knowledge) aren’t even Palestinian. And some who believe that are like kea, who would be content if only Israel as a Jewish state was destroyed, so overcome by an Arab plurality that it was Jewish no more. Others are more traditional, and like the ways of the Mufti. All of Israel is an occupying force and any occupier is fair game … nothing like a sea running red with blood y’know.

There is no talking to these people. Israel will survive. Deal with it. And decide if the Palestinian people should continue their current course, one of empty promises by their so-called leaders that they can have it all, that they deserve it all, of the perpetual elevation of Israel as the source for all that ails their current condition. Or negotiate a settlement in good faith that doesn’t get it all, but has a future that really has a promise.

*An internalization of the role of victim? No, a committment never to a victim again. I believe that Israel is making a mistake with the settlements, an understandable mistake, but a mistake. But Israel will not make the worse mistake of putting herself at worse risk.