Raise your hand if
you were shocked at
the breakdown of
the so-called Middle
East "road map." If you are
raising your hand, give
yourself a nice, hard slap
across the chops. Maybe that
will wake you up from your
reverie of self-delusion.
The "road map" was doomed
from the start. The Arab
enmity for Jews and the state
of Israel allows for no peace
process.
The time for half measures
has passed. Bulldozing
houses of homicide bombers
is useless. Instituting ongoing
curfews in Arab-populated
cities is useless. Roadblocks,
touch fences, midnight
negotiations and cease-fires
are useless.
Some have rightly suggested
that Israel be allowed to
decapitate the terrorist
leadership of the Palestinian
Authority. But this too is only
a half measure. The ideology
of the Palestinian population
is indistinguishable from that
of the terrorist leadership.
Half measures merely
postpone our realization that
the Arabs dream of Israel's
destruction. Without drastic
measures, the Arab dream will
come true. In the short term,
the establishment of a
"Palestinian state" based in
Judea, Samaria and Gaza
cuts Israel to the bone. In
some places, Israel would be
an unthinkable 9 miles wide.
In the long term, the growth of
the hostile Israeli-Arab
population within pre-1967
Israel bodes ill for the future
of the Jewish state. As
University of Haifa professor
Arnon Soffer says, "The
trends and indicators all point
to an economic and ecological
catastrophe waiting to happen
and of the death knell of the
ideological dream of a Jewish
state."
Here is the bottom line: If you
believe that the Jewish state
has a right to exist, then you
must allow Israel to transfer
the Palestinians and the
Israeli-Arabs from Judea,
Samaria, Gaza and Israel
proper. It's an ugly solution,
but it is the only solution. And
it is far less ugly than the
prospect of bloody conflict ad
infinitum. When two populations are constantly
enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that
somehow deep-seated ideological change will
miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live
together.
Unfortunately, this insanity is generally accepted as
"the only way forward." President Bush accepts it
because it is politically palatable. The Arabs accept
it because for them, it is a Trojan horse. The Israelis
accept it because they are afraid that if they expel
the Arabs, they will be called Nazis.
For anyone who lived through the Holocaust, or who
has relatives who died in it, being called a Nazi is
unspeakably terrible. That is the secret weapon of
the Arabs. Any time the Jews get wise and threaten
mass expulsion of Arabs, the Arabs pull out their
big stick, equating Nazism with Zionism. Their
cartoons merge swastikas with stars of David. Their
newspapers call Ariel Sharon another Adolf Hitler.
Their spokespeople cry "Genocide!" And the Jews
cower in fear that they could be equated with their
parents' murderers.
The Jews don't realize that expelling a hostile
population is a commonly used and generally
effective way of preventing violent entanglements.
There are no gas chambers here. It's not genocide;
it's transfer. It's not Hitler; it's Churchill.
After World War II, Poland was recreated by the
Allied Powers. In doing so, the Allies sliced off a
chunk of Germany and extended Poland west to the
Oder-Neisse line. Anywhere from 3.5 million to 9
million Germans were forcibly expelled from the
new Polish territory and relocated in Germany.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was
pleased with the result. In 1944, he had explained to
the House of Commons that "expulsion is the
method which, so far as we have been able to see,
will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will
be no mixture of populations to cause endless
trouble ... a clean sweep will be made. I am not
alarmed by the prospect of the disentanglement of
populations, nor even by these large transferences,
which are more possible in modern conditions than
they ever were before." Churchill was right. The
Germans accepted the new border, and decades of
conflict between Poles and Germans ended.
Arab-Jewish conflict is exponentially more volatile
than German-Polish conflict ever was. And the
solution is far easier. If there was "room in Germany
for the German populations of East Prussia and of
the other territories," as Churchill stated, there is
certainly room in the spacious Muslim states of the
Middle East for 5 million Palestinians and Israeli
Arabs. If Germans, who had a centuries-old
connection to the newly created Polish territory,
could be expelled, then surely Palestinians, whose
claim to Judea, Samaria and Gaza is dubious at
best, can be expelled.
It's time to stop being squeamish. Jews are not
Nazis. Transfer is not genocide. And anything else
isn't a solution.
50 responses total.
Sigh - another one-sided screed, which only helps inflame the conflict. What is the source?
What's a little ethnic cleansing when G_d is on your side? Ick.
"Arabs dream of Israel's destruction" is a media created myth/hype. Being here in the middle-east for some time now, I don't know of people here hating Israelis. What they hate is the killing of palestinians by Israelis and the constant intervention of the US in their affairs. They see all this as a way to dominate their nations.
Could you wrap these things to a reasonable column width? None of us are using VIC-20s anymore, we can read more than 22 characters on a line. It'll be interesting to see lk's comments about this. I disagree with it but I've certainly heard the sentiment expressed fairly often, and I suspect there's a substantial minority in Israel that would like to see it happen.
Note that when when what became India and Pakistan were created (when the Brits officially left), the compromise was to have separate Hindu and Muslim states. Did it work? Was it the best way at the time? Dunno. There are Muslims living in India. And you have the continuing conflict in Kashmir.
This response has been erased.
I thought Jinnah was the one who insisted on a separate Muslim state?
Yes, it was Muslim league that demanded a separate state for Muslims under the leadership of Jinnah. Whether it was Jinnah's or Nehru's ego that forced the creation of Pakistan is something, I guess, we'll never know. I think, for Pakistani politicians, today, India and Kashmir have become indispensible politically. That is because if you take these two out of the political scene in Pakistan, the politcians would have to face much tougher questions like economic development. Compared to that Kashmir rhetoric is much easier to churn out and sway people towards them. The more a politician promises on Kashmir (its separation from India and accession by Pakistan), more is the attention he gets from the population. We joke that if the Kashmir issue was solved, what would Pakistanis get up and do/think about the next morning??
As for the large number of Muslims in Inida, the reason a lot of Muslims did not move is because India was always supposed to be a secular state. There is to be no state religion. Of course, of late, with the current government, I wouldn't blame anyone to think differently. Pakistan, on the other hand, was always proclaimed a Muslim state. Not very pleasant for non-muslims to live there, given that Islamic law is very different from civil law. There are still a few Hindus in Pakistan, but the number is miniscule (I had a friend who had relatives there. He visited once, and tells of how they had to sleep with guns under the pillows because they could never tell when there would be an uprising against the non-Muslims, particularly the Hindus)
This response has been erased.
Why would a sovreign nation accept any kind of oversight committee sitting over its elected government? Why did the British accept Jinnah as the representative of the Muslims? The opposite was proved when the majortiy of muslims chose to stay in India after the partition. The British played the politics of divide and rule from the very beginning. For instance, when local elections were to be held in 1909, the British divided the electorate based on religion. The congress opposed it because they wanted a secular nation. Would the US accept separate black constituencies from where only blacks can be elected? At the time of independace there were other Muslim leaders who contributed significantly more to Indepenadance than Jinnah and who remained opposed to partition. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Frontier Gandhi (Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan) are just two names I can remember off-hand. Infact, after partition Frontier Gandhi was jailed by the pakistanis.
Again, several books, research papers etc have been written on the partition of India. And the arguement is almost never ending. At best, "But the root is that if Nehru had backed down and agreed, in 1947, that a temporary oversight committee under the auspicies of the UN would be given access to India in 1957, Jinnah would have backed down and what is modern day Pakistan would still be part of India." is only speculation.
This response has been erased.
Jinnah was demanding it, of course he would be willing to go along with it. Personally, I agree with SJ2, I don't think any soveriegn nation would want someone sitting over them watching their every move. When India was to get it's independence, she was supposed to be secular nation. I can see why Nehru wouldn't want one sect to be given special preferances over another. What comes next? The christians demand protection, then the Sikhs, then someone raises a stink about inequality and decides to come up with a separate state? I haven't really heard about these demands. What exactly were they? Without knowing what the exact terms of protection were, it is hard to say whether Nehru was justified or not. The part about Mountbatten I've heard before. And it's quite interesting to hear his view that he would have waited for Jinnah to kick the bucket to transfer power and not have to deal with his demands? Could it be because he felt they were unreasonable too? If he thought they were reasonable, I don't think he would have made such a comment. I haven't really read much on the subject, and most of my comment are based on what I've read here. cross/sj2, could you point me to more reading on this matter?
So, given the India-Pakistan-Kashmir experience, is expulsion of all Muslims (not necessarily non-Muslim Arabs, I guess) from Israel going to achieve peace with the Palestinians (and other Arab nations)?
Re #13, Cross read what I wrote. "Why did the British accept Jinnah as the representative of the Muslims? The opposite was proved when the majortiy of muslims chose to stay in India after the partition." I didn't say "Muslim league", I said "Muslims". The above might've been drawn from Jinnah's personal papers but how do you know that Jinnah might not have raised some other demand/objection had Nehru agreed to the oversight committee demand? Then we would have oversight committees for Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, Jews, Parsis, native tribes etc etc. Sorry, but Jinnah's demand for an oversight committee to protect the interests of the Muslims was lame. It might've made sense if India aimed to be a Hindu nation but not when it was committed to being a secular nation. Mynxcat - I just google for keywords like "partition of India", "Jinnah partition", "Muslim league demands" etc. The only books I have read related to India's freedom struggle are "Freedom at Midnight" and "My experiments with Truth". Re #15, The only way to achieve peace is if the people took over the control from the politicians and get going with a meaningful dialogue with a set timeframe for peace. It also needs well-meaning negotiaters on both sides. With politicians handling all this, its bound to get screwed because of dynamics of elections and popularity. Which politician would take a politically strong decision if it costs him his chair? None!!!
I think the author of #0 is accurate about the history. Transfer was
first (? At least first officially) suggested by the Peel Commission
of 1937. This was part of the first(?) suggestion to partition Western
Palestine (Eastern Palestine had already been severed in 1923 and made
into "Trans-Jordanian Palestine", Palestine across and to the east of the
Jordan river, which today is known simply as "Jordan"). Under the League
of Nations Mandate, Western Palestine was to become the Jewish homeland.
Jews were thus forbidden from entry into eastern Palestine.
The Jewish Agency officially accepted the idea of (another) partition,
but remained divided over transfer. The Arabs categorically rejected
any compromise including partition. They would later "transfer" out
almost all Jews living in Arab countries.
The advent of WW II put the quest for a solution on the backburner.
By 1947, the concept of "transfer" had gone by the way-side but the idea
of a partition was recommended by UNSCOP and accepted by UN Resolution 181.
It called for the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state, while maintaining
the right of Arabs and Jews to remain where they were or to voluntarily
transfer to the other state.
The Arabs violently rejected this latest compromise and began attacking
the Jewish community. When the British quit on May 14th, 1948, Israel
declared independence. No Arab state was established. Instead, the
guerrilla Arab hostility turned into open warfare as the armies of
surrounding Arab states openly joined the battle. What was their goal?
Contrary to sj2's current experiences, it was to destroy Israel.
In rejecting the UN compromise, Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary,
told the UN on 16 Sep. 1947:
The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely... that
your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not
decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You
won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can,
perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We
shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try.
We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we
lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine.
Note also that he considered Palestine no more Arab than Spain & Persia.
Azzam Pasha concedes that the UN compromise is "rational and logical" but
wished to drive out the Jews just as the Crusaders were evicted. The slogan
used for several decades was to "throw the Jews into the sea".
Thus began a series of historic events. Some Arabs harbor no hostility to
Israel and honestly believe that their opposition is due to a more recent
"wrong". For example, if Israel didn't "occupy" lands then there would be
peace. But the historic reality is different. The "occupation" was the
result of Arab aggression. The logic is circular. What was the goal of
the initial Arab aggression? To destroy Israel. Can we really believe that
Israel's "offense" is that it succeeded in defending itself?
Other Arabs protest that if Israel didn't kill Arab babies, poison wells
and use Arab blood to make Matzah, the Arab world would accept Israel.
Such "blood libels" in the Arab world predate the birth of Israel and
demonstrate the underlying hatred rather than a rational "reason". See:
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/40079.php
Prof. Benny Morris, a "revisionist" historian often quoted by detractors
of Israel, has written:
Palestinian leaders and preachers, guided by history and religion,
have traditionally seen the Jews as an inferior race whose proper
place was as an abased minority in a Muslim polity; and the present
situation, with an Arab minority under Jewish rule, is regarded as
a perversion of nature and divine will.
www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030421&s=morris042103
Thus it is not something Israel "does" but its very existence that must
be remedied.
Most recently this was spelled out by Yasser Arafat, who without as much
as a counter-offer walked out on the Clinton Compromise. It offered to
create an internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on 97% of the
disputed territories (contiguous in Gaza and Judea & Samaria [formerly
Jordan's so-called "West Bank"]) from which all Jews would be removed,
along with the alleged "Jewish-only" roads), including the Arab neighborhoods
of eastern Jerusalem, joint sovereignty (in some form) over the Temple Mount,
the so-called "right-of-return" of "refugees" to this nascent state, and
$30 Billion to compensate and resettle them.
Ask yourself why Arafat rejected this compromise and re-turned to violence:
1. Despite the benefit of what he was getting, he couldn't compromise on 3%
of the territory which is historically Jewish and populated almost exclusively
by Jews.
2. Because Israeli troops would have remained in the Jordan Valley for an
interim period of 6 years.
3. Arafat didn't want to pay the real "price" of the compromise -- to end
the conflict and make peace; to forgo future claims on the rest of Israel.
If the reason is #1 or #2, then Arafat is a fool. I don't believe it.
Yet reason #3 takes us right back to the issue. The real goal is the
destruction of Israel as we know it. This is the foundation of the PLO
"Covenant" which rejects non-violent solutions. The 1974 "phased plan",
however, authorized Arafat to take what he could get by feigning peace
and then restarting the war (is that what happened in Sep. 2000?).
Recall that the late Feisal Husseini termed Oslo a "Wooden [Trojan] Horse"
designed to get Arab fighters into the disputed territories.
Note also the irony that for 25 years Arafat couldn't establish a toe-hold
in the disputed territories. His recruits came from "refugee camps" in the
Arab world where life was miserable as these "refugees" were denied the
rights guaranteed to all other refugee populations in the world. The right
to education, work, moving, resettlement and citizenship. In contrast,
Arabs living in the territories under Israeli rule experienced a 20-year
economic boom and unprecedented prosperity -- and vastly more political
freedom than enjoyed by Arabs living in any Arab country.
If I recall correctly, sj2 spent time in the United Arab Emirates. These
generally speaking are less warlike than the "confrontation states", but
what about Kuwait? Palestinians Arabs who lived and worked there for
decades were denied citizenship and other benefits and were then expelled
because Arafat supported Saddam in 1990. Yet Arabs don't advocate war
against Kuwait until some pretext conditions are met....
If the Arabs wanted peace and mutual coexistence through compromise, it
could have happened in 1937, 1947, 1956, 1967... and it could happen next
month. Just as Israel welcomed Sadat with open Arms in the 1970s, after
decades of war, when an Arab leader interested in peace stepped forward,
Israel was there waiting for him.
Recall also that Egypt was expelled from the Arab League for making
peace, despite extracting a full Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai as
the price of this peace. Some apologists will claim Egypt was expelled
for making a separate peace, but it should be noted that President Carter
had invited other Arab leaders to join the original Camp David Summit and
they declined. Why...?
Lastly, we all seem to agree that Hamas, Hizbellah, Islamic Jihad, the
PFLP and other terrorist groups oppose peace with Israel because they
want to destroy it.
So to return to gull's question, I disagree with the article. Transfer is
not an option. Yet ironically it is gull who supports "transfer" when it
comes to the Jews living in the disputed territories.
I remain a stead-fast supporter of the Oslo Accords, though have learned
from the past 10 years that we must find a different way to implement them.
I remain committed to UN Security Council Resolution 242 and to the spirit
of compromise presented by President Clinton.
I assume when you say I advocate "transfer" you're talking about dismantling of settlements. But it's hardly the same thing. Settlements exist because they push back the potential borders of any Palastinian state. No one really believes that any settlements that exist when such a state is created will become part of that state. In fact, the people who create these settlements proudly declare that they're winning new land for Israel.
Semantics. What *some* people may say hardly justifies forcibly removing people off the land where they may have lived for 35 years. And possibly the same land that their parents and grand-parents lived on prior to being ethnically cleansed in 1948 -- a mere 19 years earlier. Either you are against "transfer" or you're not. To advocate only the transfer of Jews living in areas that will become an Arab state but being horrified by Jews who talk of transferring Arabs out of the Jewish state is curiously hypocritical.
> To advocate only the transfer of Jews living in areas that will become > an Arab state but being horrified by Jews who talk of transferring > Arabs out of the Jewish state is curiously hypocritical. By design, the settlement areas will never become part of an Arab state. The whole point of settling Jews there is to make sure those areas stay part of Israel.
Interesting article in the Detroit news today advocating the Isreali use of force to throw out the Hamas supporters asnd take nay land they feel they need to to feel safe.
BRU IS A JEW.
So's your mother!
David, once again you're trying to change facts to suit your model rather than basing your model on facts: > By design, the settlement areas will never become part of an Arab state. > The whole point of settling Jews there is to make sure those areas > stay part of Israel. Um, no. Under the Clinton compromise, some 80% of the "settlements" would have been evacuated (mostly smaller villages which only comprise about 20% of the "settlers"). Your misunderstanding does not obviate your hypocrisy. Just because you erroneously believe that Jewish settlements will not be evacuated doesn't diminish your hypocrisy: on one hand you state that "transfer" is evil while on the other hand you are calling for the "transfer" only of Jews. As I said: What *some* people may say hardly justifies forcibly removing people off the land where they may have lived for 35 years. And possibly the same land that their parents and grand-parents lived on prior to being ethnically cleansed in 1948 -- a mere 19 years earlier. Either you are against "transfer" or you're not. To advocate only the transfer of Jews living in areas that will become an Arab state but being horrified by Jews who talk of transferring Arabs out of the Jewish state is curiously hypocritical.
Your analogy is flawed. The situations would only be analogous if Israeli Arabs were establishing little Arab-only towns inside Israel.
Where? By thinking that Jews ought to have the same rights as Arabs?
David, I didn't make any analogy. I talked about historical facts. The bottom line is that while pretending that the "transfer" of Arabs would be the penultimate evil, you hypocritically advocate the "transfer" of Jews. My point above was that attempting to justify this based on false historical pretenses does not alleviate your hypocrisy. Worse yet, you are attempting to make permanent the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Jews (for which I'm sure you can also find a rationalization). The fact of the matter is that the disputed territories were Judenrein for a mere 19 years (1948-1967) but that Jews have now been living there (again) for 35 years. Yet you would justify their removal because of what some (few) of them *say*? (Another fact you've ignored is that the Clinton compromise called for the dismantling and evacuation of most of the "settlements".) Tell me, why are you so hung up about a few dozen "Jewish only" "settlements" while ignoring the fact that the reason these exist in the first place is that all other communities are *Arab only*, no Jews allowed under penalty of death?
lk's an example of how encyclopaedic knowledge of something doesn't mean a guy'll obtain any sort of logic.
Duh, then you should easily be able to point out the flaws of my logic. 1. It's just as wrong to remove Jews from their homes as it would be to remove Arabs from their homes. 2. That Arabs can safely live in Israel (the Palestinian Jewish state, and as full and equal citizens) but Jews can NOT safely reside in a Palestinian Arab state provides one with a lot of insight about the underlying causes of this conflict.
Yes. We're waiting.
..for lk to show some logic.
Re #27: > (Another fact you've ignored is that the Clinton compromise called for > the dismantling and evacuation of most of the "settlements".) So did the road map, but while some were dismantled an equal number were built during the same time period. This appears to be a non-negotiable issue for Israel, but it's hard to see how a viable Palastinian state can be constructed when it's broken up by Israeli settlements.
You wanna talk about maps?? O.K. Go to this map and see what Israel was offered by the U.N. (and agreed to!) back in 1948 (before they were attacked by the Arab armies), then come back and tell us how reasonable the Arabs are being about their boundary tantrums. http://www.mideastweb.org/unpartition.htm
Oval's about face: ----------------- > #31 cs [oval] (3) (Mon, Sep 8, 2003 (10:48)): > > [We're waiting] for lk to show some logic. Oval claimed to ignore (filter) me, yet rather than respond to questions I pose all she can do is harrass? Is that her "logic"? To attack me because she can't address a thing I say? I am pleased that someone as illogical as oval, who attempted to silence me (because she couldn't counter what I said) by threatening me with the racist "logic" that my comments would make her prejudiced against all Jews/Israelis, considers me illogical. It's a compliment, really. Gull's logic-go-round: --------------------- First gull seemed to say (#18) that it was OK to transfer Jews because of what some (a few) of them *say*. By that "logic", it should be OK for Israel to transfer all Arabs for what some of them *do*. Then gull asserted (#20) that it's ok to advocate the transfer of Jews because it wouldn't happen. Now gull admits (#32) that Jewish "settlements" have already been dismantled. So while gull decries "transfer" as evil, he nonetheless hypocritically advocates the transfer of Jews. Orwell could write a book about this. Oh, he did. Something like: It's bad to transfer people unless they are Jews. Or maybe: Transfer of Arabs bad. Transfer of Jews good. > while some were dismantled an equal number were built.... Really? Please document that. It's simply not true. What gull is trying to spin here is that "settlements" in areas that Israel will retain have been expanded. But what does this have to do with the dismantling of "settlements" in areas from which Israel would withdraw as part of a peace deal? Nothing. It's just another false pretense to justify violence against innocent Israeli civilians. And like any good anti-Israel propaganda, gull has willingly swallowed it. > Tell me, why are you so hung up about a few dozen "Jewish only" > "settlements" while ignoring the fact that the reason these exist > in the first place is that all other communities are *Arab only*, > no Jews allowed under penalty of death? Well? And why are you trying to make permanent the 1948 ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the disputed territories (in contravention of UN Resolution 181)? Funny, isn't it, that in 1948 Arabs who had lived in Mandate Palestine for as little as *2* years were considered "refugees" (to later become the "Palestinian people") while Jews who have lived in Judea, Samaria and Gaza for 36 years (since 1967, and for thousands of years prior to 1948) can be evicted.
YEAH THAT IS FUNNY! YOU"RE A FUNNY MAN< haha, lk!
Re #34: > Really? Please document that. It's simply not true. Every recent newspaper article I've seen about the road map, as well as many radio reports, has said it is. I guess you're smarter than all of them? (Yes, I know. You only read Israeli papers because the others are full of lies.) Essentially the problem with all these agreements is that neither side has any reason to believe the other side will honor its part of the agreement. It's hard to see any way around this except outside supervision, which Israel is not prepared to accept.
Since "every recent newspaper article" will substantiate your statement, it wouldn't seem very difficult for you to provide a reference, then. Would it? Ahh. Outside supervision. Such as that implemented when Israel withdrew from the Sinai? It would appear that Israel does, in fact, accept outside supervision when the conditions are right - that being the acceptance of, and expected adherence to, the terms of the negotiated agreement by both parties. In the absence of such, the supervision - which is hardly the same as enforcement - is essentially worthless. No?
> Every recent newspaper article I've seen... has said it is. > I guess you're smarter... As klg said, if what you say is true then you should have a very easy time supporting it rather than playing such games and entering personal attacks as a distraction. Recall that the last time you made this "argument" you later admitted that your claim was false, a result of you misunderstnading or misremembering what you read/heard from "every" news source. > You only read Israeli papers because the others are full of lies. David, if you could address what I say you wouldn't have to waste time with such pitiful straw men. I don't "only" read Israeli papers nor have I ever claimed that US papers "are full of lies". What I have said is that terrorist attacks against Israelis have become so common that they are "dog bites man" stories and minor attacks (the bulk of them) don't even get reported. It is for this reason that I enter the headlines from Israel item, quoting from the award-winning (and left-of-center) Israeli paper Ha'aretz. (It was honored by the Missouri Journalism School, the nation's oldest, with the 2002 annual award for its reporting under difficult circumstnaces.) Why do you beat around the bush like this? To divert from questions I posed which you cannot answer. 1. Are you opposed to "transfer" or do you support it, but only the "transfer" of Jews but not Arabs? Recall that first you argued that it doesn't matter if you support it or not because it won't happen (a defense I doubt you'd extend to Rabbi Kahane's Kach movement). Then you admitted that it has already happened. So can you clarify what your position is regarding "transfer"? 2. Let's assume that you are right and that as many new "settlements" have been built in areas that Israel would retain as there have been "settlements" dismantled in areas from which Israel would withdraw. So what? 3. Why are you so hung up about a few dozen "Jewish only" "settlements" while ignoring the fact that the reason these exist in the first place is that all other communities are *Arab only*, no Jews allowed under penalty of death? 4. Why are you trying to make permanent the 1948 ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the disputed territories (in contravention of UN Resolution 181)? In 1948 Arabs who had lived in Mandate Palestine for as little as *2* years (immigrants from surrounding Arab countries) were considered "refugees" (to later become the "Palestinian people") while Jews who have lived in Judea, Samaria and Gaza for 36 years (since 1967, and for thousands of years prior to 1948) can be evicted?
FUCK< LK. COULD YOU PLEASE STOP SAYING DAVID WHEN REFERING TO PEOPLE OTHER THAN ME? IT ALWAYWS MAKES ME BREAK MY SCROLL THROUGH AGORA.
What settlements have in fact been dismantled. First, we're talking about two different creatues - Israel's settlements, illegal under international law, in which hundreds of thousands of Israelis live at considerable state subsidy as part of an express plan to make it difficult for Israel to ever end its occupation of Palestinian lands. (In Ariel Sharon's own words, describing his pioneering efforts in this illegal settlement moveement in the early 1970's, "Standing with the cabinet ministers on a high hill, I pointed out exactly what I thought was needed. If in the future we wanted in any way to control this area, I told them, we would need to establish a Jewish presence now. Otherwise we would have no motivation to be there during difficult times later on.") This illegal settlement movement has resulted in Israel's assumption of more than 40% of the occupied territories for the exclusive use of its settlers. Second, there are the "illegal outpost settlements" - illegal even under Israeli law - which Sharon has permitted to be constructed by the score during his tenure. Many are unoccupied, consisting of little more than a trailer or structure meant to symbolically reflect the seizure of even more Palestinian land - and settlers post armed guards to shoot at Palestinians who try to reclaim their lands. When occupied, even if by one or two people, rather than sending the lawbreakers home, Israel dispatches soliders to guard them. There has been a symbolic dismanting of a few of these "outpost" settlements in the "road map" period, all of which were uninhambited, and some of which were reconstructed as soon as the soldiers left. There has been absolutely no movement to dismantle any bona fide settlement, or even an occupied "outpost", nor can one be expected under Sharon's "leadership". In fact, Sharon continues to advance the expansion of illegal settlements throughout the occupied territories, and continues to swear that he will never allow more than about 42% of the occupied territories to be returned to their Palestinian owners. I am surprised that Leeron doesn't know the distinction between these two types of "settlement". I have to assume, though, that he doesn't because otherwise his lies by omission completely undermine his credibility.
(There he goes again.) Under what "international law" are the settlements "illegal?" Please educate us.
Re #38: > As klg said, if what you say is true then you should have a very easy time > supporting it "Israel, which remains in military control of most West Bank towns, has ignored a requirement that it freeze construction in Jewish settlements and dismantle settlement outposts established since 2001. Israeli leaders in turn point to the Palestinian Authority's failure to dismantle militant groups as required by the peace plan." (http://www.freep.com/news/nw/mid9_20030909.htm) "Some [settlements] have been removed, only to be rebuilt and to multiply within days, while building work has intensified at other sites to turn the odd water tower or cluster of flimsy caravans into permanent structures in a race to scuttle the roadmap before it is too late." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3144791.stm) "Israel has announced plans to build new homes at a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip in defiance of a US-backed peace plan, just a day after President George Bush said the initiative was on track." (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/01/1059480550471.html) "Israel, too, ignored key road map clauses, failing to freeze construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and dismantle scores of settlement outposts established in the past two years." (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-07-abbas-analysis_x.htm) "Israel said Thursday it will build 102 new apartments in a West Bank settlement, even though a now stalled U.S.-backed peace plan requires an eventual construction freeze." (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-israel-settlemen ts,0 > 3. Why are you so hung up about a few dozen "Jewish only" "settlements" Because of the purpose of those settlements -- to set aside pieces of land that are off limits in negotiations over any future Palastinian state. Incidentally, you constantly bring up both Oslo and the 1948 agreement, but looking back at the past doesn't say anything about how to move forward from the state things are in now. I'd be more interested in hearing your suggestions for how things should proceed now than in hearing rants about past opportunities that were lost.
Aaron: > Israel's settlements, illegal under international law. As klg asked, what law? The Fourth Geneva Conventions, under Article 2, do not define these territories as "occupied" and thus the prohibitions layed out do not apply (not to mention that this is not at all what the authors of this convention intended). If the Arabs disagree, they've had 36 years to pursue the matter in LEGAL venues (the International Court of Law). They haven't brought a case before it precisely because they don't have a LEGAL case. To the contrary, they pursue their case in POLITICAL forums (the UN and elsewhere). > occupation of Palestinian lands. These territories are not and have never been "Palestinian Land". Yes, individual Arabs do own portions of it, but the vast majority of the land was desolate and state owned (first by the Turks, then by the British). After the violent contravention of the 1947 UN compromise, Arab invaders illegally took control of these territories by illegal force of arms. Egypt took over Gaza and Trans-Jordan renamed Judea & Samaria as its "West Bank". ALL Jews living in these territories were ethnically cleansed. In eastern Jerusalem alone, 58 synagogues were destroyed, thus turning it into so-called "Arab east Jerusalem". For 19 years Jews were denied access even to Judaism's holiest sites. Would Aaron have us believe that this is also Arab land? In its successful defense against the 1967 Arab aggression against it, Israel retook these territories. UN Security Council Resolution 242 recognizes that Israel is the legal administrator of these territories, calling only for less than a full withdrawal as part of an overall peace agreement. > This illegal settlement movement has resulted in Israel's assumption of more > than 40% of the occupied territories for the exclusive use of its settlers. Shameless propaganda. Israel had already withdrawn from 42% of the administered or disputed territories as part of the Oslo peace process. Turns out that 98% of the Arabs live (exclusively!) in that portion. Israel was prepared to withdraw from a total of 95% of the West Bank (and all of Gaza) under the Clinton compromise. The reality is that most Jews live on less than 5% of the territories. > I am surprised that Leeron doesn't know the distinction between these two > types of "settlement". Yawn. I'm fully aware of this. It appears that gull wasn't -- none of which explains the inherent contradictions of what he wrote. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So let's look at the questions posed to gull and if he managed to conjure any logical answers: | 1. Are you opposed to "transfer" or do you support it, but only the | "transfer" of Jews but not Arabs? NO ANSWER. | 2. Let's assume that you are right and that as many new "settlements" have | been built in areas that Israel would retain as there have been | "settlements" dismantled in areas from which Israel would withdraw. So what? NO ANSWER. | 3. Why are you so hung up about a few dozen "Jewish only" "settlements" | while ignoring the fact that the reason these exist in the first place is | that all other communities are *Arab only*, no Jews allowed under penalty | of death? > Because of the purpose of those settlements -- to set aside pieces of land > that are off limits in negotiations over any future Palastinian state. I see. So you only want 100% of the land to be off limits to Israel? You agree with Aaron that Judaism's holiest sites, taken over by force by invading Arab armies in 1948, are "Palestinian land" and should not be part of Israel? You agree with Arafat that territorial compromise in exchange for peace is out of the question? The truth, of course, is that the "settlement" movement began with survivors of the 1948 Arab ethnic cleansing of Jews wishing to return to their former homes after a brief absences 19 years. | 4. Why are you trying to make permanent the 1948 ethnic cleansing of all | Jews from the disputed territories (in contravention of UN Resolution 181)? NO ANSWER. > Incidentally, you constantly bring up both Oslo and the 1948 agreement, but > looking back at the past doesn't say anything about how to move forward > from the state things are in now. I'd be more interested in hearing your > suggestions for how things should proceed now than in hearing rants about > past opportunities that were lost. The past was once the present, too. I bring it up so that you can gain perspective. Will you also now dismiss the 2000 Clinton compromise as history? You can't pretend things that happened in the interim didn't happen. Should we forget the words of a high ranking PA official (Feisal Husseini) who said that Oslo was a "Wooden [Trojan] Horse" to get Arab fighters into the territories? Should Israel give up so much in exchange for promises that haven't and aren't kept? Three years ago I supported the Clinton compromise. Today it's not practicable, for we've seen that any territory gained will be used as a launching pad for further attacks against Israel. So what can be done today? Here it is: 1. Dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and remove those who have supported it from power (just as former nazis were barred from Germany's post-war government). 2. End the incitement to hate and terrorism. 3. Convene an international summit. Even the Saudis can show up (rather than years later propose a letter-in-the-drawer "solution"). 4. The specifics may change, but the Camp David 2000 framework remains: A. The creation of a demilitarized Palestinian Arab state, contiguous in Gaza and in the "West Bank". B. Israel will retain lands in the disputed territories where mostly Jews live. C. Jews residing elsewhere in the territories would be allowed to remain -- but as Palestinian citizens. Perhaps there can be a time period before this would happen (lest they be massacred). D. Arab "refugees" will have the so-called "right-of-return" to the nascent state. Clinton even offered $30 Billion for compensation and resettlement. (Perhaps Jews forced out of Arab lands could at the very least have their bank accounts thawed and reimbursed with interest.)
tldr.
Re #43: > B. Israel will retain lands in the disputed territories where > mostly Jews live. And this, of course, is why settlements continue to be built and expanded. Eventually so much of the land will have "mostly Jews" that there will be no possible way to create a contiguous Palastinian state. I think that the only way a two-state solution will stick is if, after the borders are defined, an international peacekeeping force moves in to force the two sides to "play nice" for a while. Otherwise it will collapse again in attacks and finger-pointing. This will be about as much fun as keeping two squabbling children apart but it's the only way I can see to avoid the failures of the past.
Mr. gull Having reviewed the sources you cited (with the exception of the final one, for which the link did not work), it appears that nowhere do any of them state (or even come close to stating) that today there are x settlements whereas previously there were y. In the absence of such, how is one able to make a definitive determination as to the alleged increase? Perhaps you can try again to locate some actual evidence to substantiate your claim. Regards, klg
And if gull does come up with those numbers, what next? A demand that he substantiate his arguments with notarized copies of square-footage changes? I think the klg(s) need to stop delaying and start discussing.
Discussion? You notice that once again gull avoided the questions I posed? Instead we get new falsehoods: > And this, of course, is why settlements continue to be built and > expanded. Eventually so much of the land will have "mostly Jews" that > there will be no possible way to create a contiguous Palastinian state. Many of the settlements exist where Jews lived prior to their ethnic cleansing by invading Arab armies in 1948. Most all of them (at least population wise) are where there are no Arabs living and adjacent to the 1949 Armistice line. Can you deal with this reality rather than trying to change the facts to fit your model?! > I think that the only way a two-state solution will stick is if, after > the borders are defined, an international peacekeeping force moves in to > force the two sides to "play nice" for a while. How will an international peacekeeping force stop suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks? All they can do is prevent Israel from responding to such attacks. Allowing the terrorists to operate with complete impunity and go on murdering innocent Israelis. Is that really what you want? A two state solution will not end terrorism. The terrorists oppose a two-state solution. Just as the Arab rejectionists have violently opposed the UN partition (1947), Carter's Camp David process (late 1970s) and the 2000 Clinton compromise. The cessation of terrorism will lead to a two-state solution. What will lead to the cessation of terrorism? See my previous response.
Thank you, Mr. scott. Your helpful suggestions are duly noted and filed for future use.
Meaning you'll continue to pretend invincibilty while everyone quietly laughs at your ineptitude? :)
You have several choices: