Nothing wrong with an occupation. These things become necessary in a military context. Letting looters run wild, or worse encouraging it is when you run into problems. Say you’d hived off the better parts of Baghdad and airlifted in Americans to live there. No-one has any problem with the correct response to that.
(edit) To be clear Xt 2 separate things: Occupation and; Looting. See?
Not if by “reality stays reality” you mean “occupied territory is assumed by international law to be legitimately annexed by the occupier as part of its own state territory”.
AFAICT, that assumption would run afoul of Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
Just 'cuz you successfully occupy a territory in war and continue to exercise de facto control of it after the war does not imply that you officially own it.
The context was a reaction to The Khartoum Resolution of 1967, also referred to as “The Three No’s”. Or at least to the Israeli take on them at the time.
From there it became a political item. Many on the land for peace side felt that the Arab side would come around and deal any time and that therefore pandering to the settlers a little bit more, in return for their support, required to form a ruling coalition, would be easily undone when the deal got made. Surely a deal would be made soon … Time went on and the “facts on the ground” got bigger and bigger.
There* are* a few in Israel who believe in the Zionist version of Manifest Destiny (“Greater Judea and Samaria”), but very few. Most would be very supportive of pulling back to something very close to (but not exactly) the 1967 borders if it came with real security and peace. Most would love to have a successful and peaceful Palestinian neighbor to work together with on long term develop projects of mutual interest. But very few are willing to do anything they see as possibly making Israel proper more at risk without being very sure that such is what will result. And without that the settlers keep getting pandered to.
The reason for the peace treaties is that Israel adopted a policy of land for peace, and used it with Egypt and Jordan (who dealt for water rights and because of no particular love for the Palestinians). Syria has the tools, if they want the Golan back they need only do the right thing. If the Palestinians want the West Bank free and clear, again, they need only do the right thing. That they haven’t, and won’t, is evidence that the antipathy cannot be stifled even long enough to get the land through Israel’s long-standing policy.
There will be no peace. The bubbleheads on both sides find it far more profitable to foment enmity. That is never going to change so long as Israel exists.
So DSeid and Airman Doors your position is then that if the Palestinians did this or that, then the Israelis would withdraw all their people from the “settlements”?
Out with it. We need to see this in black and white.
One word: Lebensraum.
Actually Sev, not that I expect you to be able or willing to see this, I was providing the historical context that post 1967 was a missed opportunity. And merely answering the question asked in the bit I quoted: “why the Israeli government first got this idea in the first place” They got the idea because of how they understood what the Khartoum Resolution meant. According to Arab leaders it was not its intent, but it is easy to understand how it was interpreted that way, and honestly hard to see how its true intent was supposed to be parsed out.
I went on to explain the difficulty of the current circumstance. The bulk of the Israeli public won’t support pulling out settlements until they can be assured of peace and the faction of the Palestinian side that would make that peace are in no position to deliver it, especially while settlement construction is ongoing.
But yes, I know you need to see this in Black and White. The actual complexities are too much.
Shame on you.
Then drop the emotionalism and tell us the factual difference.
Well, it was my impression that that request was directed primarily at Airman’s more categorical claims that, say, Syria and the Palestinians “need only do the right thing” to resolve the situation.
I too would like to have it clarified whether Airman or any other poster here is really, earnestly, making the case that there’s any course of action that Syria and/or the Palestinians could adopt that would actually result in Israel’s formally relinquishing the occupied territories in their entirety.
It’s not that I don’t agree that the situation is complex. I’m just a bit skeptical of any subtext to the effect that “the situation could be so simple if only the Arabs would do the right thing which of course they’re not going to because they will fundamentally never accept Israel’s existence and that’s the real problem irrespective of whatever Israel’s actually choosing to do at any particular time”.
A lesbian lass of Khartoum
Once took a fag up to her room
And they argued all night
Over who had the right
To do what, and with which, and to whom!
Diplomacy in a nutshell.
Israelis don’t line people up, shoot them and throw the bodies in ditches.
Israelis don’t gas people by the million.
Israelis don’t enslave people and use them to construct a war machine.
A tiny nation declared independence in 1947 and immediately eight Arab nations declared war on them. Germany wanted to rule Europe, the Israelis want a place to be safe.
How am I doing at explaining the difference? 
Oh, I forgot.
Israelis don’t pass out candy to children when one of their enemies dies.
While I acknowledge and agree with the importance of this difference, we can’t just use the sympathetic appeal “Israelis want a place to be safe” to disguise the fact that the place Israelis have chosen to be safe in comprises many places that other people sincerely regard as rightfully their own.
Of course Zionism isn’t in any way the moral equivalent of Nazism. However, that doesn’t mean that Zionist claims to rule conquered territory are automatically more valid than Nazi claims to rule conquered territory. Especially not from the perspective of the conquered.
Where the Palestinians choose to live compromises the Israeli wish to live there as they have been doing off and on. It’s been going on for about 5,000 years.
The Israelis don’t shoot rockets at their neighbors. They do send tanks after folks who do.
Oh dear god.
:rolleyes:
If that was the case, shouldn’t they be building settlements in Germany?
Once again, :rolleyes:
Well given that I was named, and even named first, I think it was aimed at me too. A silly thought I am sure.
No, I do not think at this point there is anything that Syria and/or the Palestinians can do that would “actually result in Israel’s formally relinquishing the occupied territories in their entirety” … on the other hand, are there agreements that could be made that include land swaps centered around those admittedly arbitrary borders, and other concessions, say over water rights and favorable treatment in tax revenues and … the list could go on for a while … that could result in an Israel that has reason to feel secure and a Palestinian state that has real economic and political viability? Oh yes, definitely.
Syria could have a one on one solution with Israel any time, just like Egypt did. The Golan issue is very soluable.
As to your response to carnivorousplant goes - let us accept that from the POV of the Palestinians they are “the conquered” and that they perceive a right to all of what they consider greater Palestine, which of course includes pre-1967, heck pre-1948 Israel. And that Israelis have a different read on the history. Let us even assume that your personal read is the same as the Palestinians. Honestly I don’t care to debate that yet again. The fact is that there are those two different views of the past (and probably several others) and there is the current reality. The current reality is that Israel is not going away and neither are the Palestinians. Israel will only settle on a solution that provides them an adequate assurance that they will not be attacked in the future and a fall back plan in case they still are. The Palestinians may want lots of things to meet what they consider to be a “just” settlement, but what they need is an economically and viable state, and achieving that means that they should focus more on items like water rights and issues of economic development than the hot button issues that are deal breakers. Repeating over and over again that Israel has no right to exist does little to address that which keeps Israel from making moves on their side.
Now don’t get me wrong. I have, with great repetition, called both for Israel to cease the settlement building and dismantle some unilaterally in order to strengthen the hand of those who would settle with them against those who would hold out for Israel’s disappearance, and for the US to pressure them to do so. But likewise a move that states that Israel has a right to exist now and forevermore would allow for positive movement in kind. And the Palestinians should be pressured for that.
Oh don’t worry yourself about that, they’re continuing to grow.
Fair enough DSeid, thanks for the clarifications. I agree that various land and concession deals are a reasonable path to a viable two-state solution, and that recognition of the state of Israel on the part of the other states in the region is a necessary destination on that path.
I would nitpick, however, that the requirement of formally declaring that “Israel has a right to exist now and forevermore” is unwarrantably extreme. No nation-state on the planet has existed forever, and none has any inherent right to exist for all eternity in the future. We don’t know what’s going to happen to any nation-state centuries or millennia from now.
All that any nation has a right to demand is that its existence be recognized and accepted now. And Israel certainly is entitled to expect that from its neighbors.
Fair enough. But none of this Hamas we will accept Israel on a ceasefire basis in return for concession but our long term goal remains to be an existential threat to that state.
