Shouldn´t Israeli settlers just leave Westbank and Gaza?

It would solve the problem, but not on the settlers lives. Remember that land was given to them by God, it is their destiny and their unquestionable right. The Arabs are the ones who should leave.




This is what they believe.

 

There are a few "settlements" that have quite a bit of history in connection with either Israel or a Jewish population before the establishment of the state in 1948, so it isn't quite THAT simple.

From what I can tell, though, most of the settlements are simply provocative. I've read something to the effect that says "What does it say about the West Bank Palestinians that the mere presence of Jews inflames their passions," but there's a difference between Israelis moving to a disputed territory and, say, people from Iowa moving to California. I suppose Israel could say, "We're annexing the West Bank, it's part of Israel forever, and you're all now citizens," and then the settlements would be even more legal than they are now. But I doubt Israeli citizenship will pacify anyone, to say the least.

East Jerusalem is a deal-breaker at this point. There's absolutely no incentive for Israel to re-divide Jerusalem. And the complaints about checkpoints and curfews would simply be moved into a heavily populated urban area. In any case, there's no reason to believe that Jewish holy sites would be protected under Palestinian rule, given what happened to Joseph's tomb.

There's also the very real possibility - I'm almost willing to accept it as given - that West Bank independence is just a smokescreen, and that the goal is every Jew out of the Levant. Nonsensical and unrealistic Palestinian demands like East Jerusalem and the right of return are just the iceberg's tip here.

So what would I do, if Israel were to give me the same offer they gave Albert Einstein a while back? I'd grant independence. And I'd draw a border. And I'd build a wall. Now, notice I didn't say anything about negotiating. I'd simply decide what in the West Bank I wanted, which settlements were worth having, where the water was, the whole thing - and then flat out claim it. To the victors go the spoils.

Everything outside the wall? There's your West Bank state. Gaza's all yours. Jenin, Ramallah, you have it. Congratulations. Have Bethlehem, too, since I sure don't want to deal with the likes of Jerry Falwell swooping in on the place.

I suppose some Palestinians will want to worship at the Dome of the Rock. Go right ahead. You'll be watched, and probably searched, but not shot on sight - that's still awfully nice to treat a defeated and bitter enemy, I think. And that's better than what would happen if the roles were reversed, isn't it?

Some Palestinians may resent losing their jobs in Israel, for my plan calls for an absolute ban on undocumented foreign nationals working in Israel, except for a process that would make even Brad Friedel go "Yow, that's harsh." However, given the many new opportunities for freedom and liberty in a new democratic West Bank state now unshackled (snort), I'm sure far better opportunities will await them. Like, finding some way to connect the West Bank and Gaza, because ain't no way in hell you get passage through my country, buddy. Have fun building that road over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. They'll let you, of course. Why wouldn't they? Aren't they your allies? Didn't they spend all that money for your freedom?Wasn't "independence" what you wanted?

Oh, and we control the airspace over the West Bank. And if your army looks at us cross-eyed, be prepared to duck. In my imposed treaty, I have the same right to re-occupy that France had against Germany - except I will cheerfully use it.

That is, unless I decide to bypass the West Bank and go straight to Damascus and Riyadh.

Don't like my idea? There are worse ones on the table. Israel loses my support if "transfer" gets even close to implementation. But the way the Palestinians are behaving, it's as if they're trying to goad Israel into ethnic cleansing. They're certainly not shy about wanting to ethnically cleanse the West Bank - which extends "from the river to the sea," don't you know. The temptation to fight fire with fire is evil, and there have been countries who have given in with far, far less provocation. Palestinians are playing a dangerous and mind-bogglingly stupid game.

 

The settlers, or at least some of them, have to go.

Most of the settlements are for the most part right next to the Green line border, and a lot are essentially suburbs of Jerusalem. These can be annexed to Israel.

The ones that are dropped in the middle of the territories will have to go. By giving up all claims to the territories, Jews will be leaving not only land that some of them believe is granted to them by God, but will be leaving land that they have a longstanding historical connection to as well as a relatively recent connection to.

This includes, say, Hebron a city which has both an ancient connection to the Jewish State (it was the capital of King David's Israel) and a modern connection, where Jews always maintained a significant presence until were massacred and completely driven out in 1929.

Be that as it may, the settlements have to go, at least the ones that can't be easily annexed. And Hebron is one of them, as its a small community of a few hundred Jews literally crammed right in the middle of Palestinian villages.

Not all settlers are religious fanatics. They moved to the settlements because of cheap rent, the ability to quickly commute to cities like Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, or the desire for some green space. Most of these people will voluntarily leave if they are told to. The religious fanatics are a minority, though a problem. (The Jews of Hebron are particularly fanatical and hard-line).

I would add that ideally as part of any agreement, any settlers should be allowed to stay so long as they understand that they are now residents of Palestine and will not have the IDF there to enforce the laws for them. But as a practical matter, we all know what would happen to them. So I guess Israel will have to accept a Judenrein West Bank and Gaza as part of any settlement.

 

One note is that many of the newer settlements are populated by Russian Jews. These folks tend at most to be unobservant Jews and many are better defined as atheists of Jewish descent.

So the "the settlors think God gave them the land" argument does not work. Most of the "not one inch" types live in Brooklyn anyway.

But Israel HAS dismantled settlements in the past, as part of the treaty with Egypt.

I think everyone realizes that most of the settlements will be dismantled if the Palestinians ever decide to get serious. But you really need to ask yourself why the settlements are there in the first place. They are there because Israel found itself continuously attacked from the disputed land and eventually took the land by force to stop the attacks.

The settlements deep in the West Bank will have to be moved to the Negev. Those along the border will be annexed.

There will need to be guarantees of access to religious sites.

For the Arabs who have claims against Israel stemming from 1947-48, there will need to be a monetary settlement. Net it against the claims of the equal number of Jews thrown out of the Arab states in 1948-51. And take into account that the settlements in the West Bank which are being given up are prehaps the nicest housing in the new Palestinian state.

 

This is like when people say the US doesn't "deserve" to host a World Cup in 2010 or 2014.

First, it begs the question of what "deserve" means. I mean, you can make an argument that the US deserves to host every damn world cup until some other nation can make more money for FIFA than we can. IOW, as soon as some other nation can sell 4 million tickets to 64 games.

Second, it ignores that at this point, "rights" are pretty unimportant (just like "deserving" a World Cup is pretty unimportant) compared to power.

BTW, when Israel goes into the West Bank in search of terrorists, how is that different, under international law, than the US' (whoops, I mean the Allies') actions in Afghanistan?

 

With all due respect, I think your comments are more appropriately addressed to the Palestinians, who have chosen the "intifada" as their method of negotiation. I'm not one to say that Israel has done no wrong. They've screwed up plenty, with the settlements being among the worst screwups.

Ideally, a negotiated agreement is the best solution. If not, there are two options.

1) Israel maintains the status quo.
2) Israel chooses its own borders.

 

It's a common, even constant, topic of discussion here...can the US get the World Cup in 2014? Many people will come in here and say, the US doesn't deserve one 20 years after the last one. England hasn't had one since '66, etc. Then others will respond, FIFA can make the most money in the US, so we deserve it.

So the whole discussion devolves into defining "deserve."

Any discussion of Israel and the Palestinians which tries to define "rights" devolves into a discussion of every atrocity for the last 5 millenia. (OK, usually we only go back to the bombing at the King David Hotel. ).

What I'm saying is that right and wrong are pretty close to irrelevant. Israel wants security, so a recitation of UN resolutions is pointless if enforcing those resolutions means Israel doesn't feel secure. Palestinians want a state (even THAT is open for debate, which goes to show just how difficult this issue is, but roll with me here), and any limits Israel wants to put on that state in order to protect itself, don't matter alot to the Pals.

In the Middle East, the problem with the future is the past, and the fact that nobody can get past the past.

 

Moral: Don't start a war.

Moral 2: And if you do, don't lose.

Keep in mind my idea is how I would deal with an ongoing civil war. Technically, I'm surrendering to them. Technically, I'm also writing, ratifying and enforcing the treaty unilaterally, but ask Germany and Japan how that works.

Now, if the infanticide - sorry, intifada - were to stop this afternoon, and the Palestinians were to surrender, then your points about moralist might come into play. There have been some writers who have said that surrendering would be the smartest thing the Palestinians could do, and would put much more pressure on Israel. A civil war gives Sharon a free hand. Giving Sharon a free hand is a platform of The Stupid Party, not The Smart Party.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Israel withdrew out of Lebanon unilaterally. It's better now than before. At the same time, withdrawal without agreement has led to continued attacks by Hezbollah, who all of a sudden ressurected Lebanon's claim to Sheba farms, as a pretext for continued war.

If Israel just leaves the territories, or most of them, lots of the brutality of occupation will be gone. It will be up to the Palestinians to decide if they want to fight for what constitutes a few hundred square kilometers.

Of course, there will still be those who want the whole enchilada all the way to the sea, and they'll continue to create justifications for attacks.

And most importantly, Israel's border with the West Bank is not the same as it's northern border with Lebanon. The current intifada has demonstrated one thing. Israel's pre-67 Green Line borders are indefensible to terrorism or guerilla warfare. Even with Israel's military presence in the territories, some manage to get in. If we simply "end the occupation" we'll have a situation where on the one hand, lots of Palestinians will probably get on with there lives. On the other hand, those that want to keep fighting can do so without any preventative defense. Perhaps Saddam wants to ship some help in now. And of course Arafat will now have control over airports, which means Mohammad Atta wannabe's can try their luck at crashing planes in to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

So if Israel leaves, they have to do so in a way that maintains security. Hence Loney's suggestion. You get your state, but only what I think I need to discard, both in terms of land or air/water rights.

Israel really only needs one thing here, peace. That the PNA can't guarantee that makes me quite pessimistic.

 

Lest we forget <<tighten suspenders, push glasses up nose, adjust pocket protector>>:
Israel's settlements are in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (stating that an occupying power may not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territories) and this was made clear in the 1979 enunciation of UN resolution 446. In spite of these rules, the Israeli gov't continues to offer incentives and grants to to the settlers willing to occupy these territories, while demolishing Palestinian homes and inciting further anger among the Palestinian populous.
So how does putting settlers at the frontier of hostile territory, where suicide bombers allegedly come through to Israel proper, add to Israel's security?
Should these settlements get larger, would the chance of repeating the East Jerusalem demolition of Palestinian homes to make room for a "Jewish only" highway pop up again?

As for what JPhurst said, yes, it is a unsettling (pardon the pun) that the PNA can't guarantee security, but maybe it's because they have no real control over Hamas or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad. They have ties to them, yes. But ties doesn't = control. At this point, they couldn't care less for what Arafat has to say, unless it has the words "Israel" "death" and "Bruce Springsteen concert" included somewhere. Selective hearing.
They're disillusioned with the idea of a peace process.

While we're on the subject, let's also clear up one other thing: the whole "Arafat walked away from the best goddamn deal ever in 2000" thing. The lesser known stipulations of the deal were as follows:
1. Israel offered up a gerrymandered 97% (sounds like a lot, right?) West Bank and Gaza that was cut in such a way as to force Palestinians who were travelling from one part of the WB or G to another to have to cross into Israel proper or annexed Israeli settlements. This meant military checks, ID's, papers, and possible road closures that were beyond Palestinian control. In addition, harkening back to something that Dan Loney mentioned doing with Israel selecting it's own borders, Israel actually offered the Palestinians a toxic waste dump outside one of its settlements as land in the negotiations.
2. Israel would be allowed to put security forces at multiple locations along the border of G and WB that could serve as trade routes with other countries, like Lebanon and Jordan. This allows the Israeli military to have a virtual stranglehold on the Palestinian economy.
3. Arafat (who I don't know how he got the Nobel Peace Prize) would have to sign a fine print statement saying that he would hereby drop any and all claims against Israel, effectively saying that he's stuck with what he's got (had he "gotten" it).

 

Great. So instead of negotiating from that point (and making PR points about Israel's plan) Arafat refuses to talk and walks out. Instead of saying "your plan is nice, but this is what we want" and trying to work it out (like Michael Collins in 1919), Arafat walks.

Arafat has no incentive for peace. Once peace is declared, Arafat is gone. Arafat is not good at most things. He is a very ineffectual dictator. If Palestine is a democracy, he is voted out immediately. He he tries to run a dictatorship, Hamas and his own Fatah, without the Jews to kill, kill him. So he needs Israel so he can channel the bombers and radicals elsewhere.

 

The legal position Israel takes - not saying how good their position is - boils down to Jordan having taken over the West Bank illegally in 1948, and Israel capturing the territories in self-defense in 1967. This would be more clear-cut if Jordan had the slightest interest in taking back the West Bank, or if the Palestinians had any interest in repatriating.

For a lot of reasons, the UN don't cut much ice with Israel no more.

It was a means to pacify and control territory that hasn't quite panned out. There are plenty of strategic reasons to occupy this place or that, as well.

And again, this is where the civil war/uprising talk backfires. After the Battle of Vicksburg, the Mississippi was a Yankee-only waterway. Given that before the 1967 war, East Jerusalem was Jordanian territory, well, if Jordan was so concerned about the residents of East Jerusalem, they should have pursued a very different foreign policy.

The Taliban had ties to, but did not control, al-Qaeda. Sucked for them, didn't it?

What course of action would you recommend for Israel, given that Arafat is unable or unwilling to rein in the terrorists? Just sit back and take it? How realistic is that?

As it says in the blessed Qu'ran, bitch, bitch, bitch. Canada has similar rights for anyone wishing to go to and from Alaska, and I'll bet if we spent a couple of decades suicide bombing them, they'd be pretty touchy about just letting anyone stroll on through.

[

I think this is absolutely hilarious.

Okay, in all seriousness, the alternative is to (a) give the dump to Israel, or (b) give the settlement to Palestine. This is the sort of thing you negotiate.

Sorry, it's still funny. The Islamic Republic of Toxic Waste. That's new facts on the ground for ya!

Ask the Germans about Checkpoint Charlie. Sorry, to me this is another "duh." Unless you think that an unguarded border wouldn't be begging for trouble. As the winning nation, Israel has every right to ask for this.

That's why they call them "treaties" and "negotiations." To settle this kind of thing.

The real reason the Palestinians walked away is because the deal didn't include East Jerusalem or the right of return. Nor should it have, in my opinion, those being things that Israel has absolutely no reason to accept. That's the sort of thing you have to win a war to impose on a defeated nation. The fact that Arafat made these unreasonable demands, walked away when they were rejected, and started another intifada in response, tells me all I need to know about Arafat's sincerity.

 

anybody ever wonder what the situation would be if a non-violence advocate like a MLK, Dali llama, or Ghandi was around?

Although Europe has their tongue up the PA's bunghole, I have a feeling there would be a lot more sympathy and more change if some palestinians actually could read a book about effective civil disobediance....

 

I think that some settlements can be dismantled...I think someone pointed out here that there are russians living there, but thats not always true. Many other people live there. Its a good affordable place to be. Its considered a city outside of a city....Many Israelis live in a city...Israel is a small country....

2 million people live around Tel Aviv......
365,000 are in Haifa Metropolitan
679,000 are in Jerusalem alone...

Many Israelis live in populated area..like Australia, America, Canada, or England.....

You can take some, but some must stay up.. Ithink there could be a comprimise to all of this...
After all, there is good business to the palestinians because there is alot of jobs for them to do...

For once, in a northern settlements they made a benneton factory. the American-Arab Leauge made a boycott..shut it down and forced 1,000 people into Unemployment...and 670 of them were palestinians!!!

 

The Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from "deport[ing]" or "transfer[ing]" people to the occupied territories. Israel has not deported or transferred these people. All settlers have moved their of their own accord.

Arguably, the offering of financial incentives puts enough governmental muscle into the effort, but I'm not convinced that this is deporting or transferring. Having said that, I think the settlements are a major obstacle to peace and just plain wrong.

As for the offer at Camp David. It took a few months for the Palestinians to come up with the "Bantustan" theory of what was offered. No one knows precisely what was offered, because no proposals were publicly presented. Any description you see is based on after the fact descriptions of the participants.

Based on what has been described, pretty much by both sides, the problem of territorial contiguity was for the most part resolved by Clinton's bridging proposals at Camp David. IF Israel wanted to, they could make Palestinian life hell with the checkpoints, border patrols, etc under their own proposal, and to a lesser extent under the Clinton bridging proposals. This could very well happen if violence continued; Israel would have to protect itself.

At the negotiations at Taba in January, those problems were completely eliminated. I wont blame the PNA for not agreeing to anything there, since the intifada had turned Barak into a poltical corpse. He was going to lose the election, and everyone knew Sharon wouldn't keep the offer on the table.

As for asking for Arafat to waive any remaining claims and declare the conflict over. Well gee, I THOUGHT that's what they were negotiating over. You mean...Arafat couldn't continue incitements to violence, funding terror?! What nerve of the Israelis to ask for THAT!!!!

The main points of contention were East Jerusalem and the refugees. But in terms of negotiating for a future Palestinian state, Arafat blew it.

 

I know the settlements are wrong. And it is going to be an inner problem sooner or later for Israel.

I think we have to say what is settlements actually????? the truth of the matter is that right this minute, Israel alone occupys 48% of the west bank....and only 1.8% of the west bank and gaza has settlements on them, which means that its not really much and it is possible to have settlement areas, in exchange..Israel will give un used land that it had for these settlements, plus the settlements can now be new and outskirts towns for Israel......


Bhatunus or whatever was something that arafat called and created in South Africa when he was in a mosque there at '93. Arafat said that he wants to make a deal with Israel like Muhammed made with Gazbultan tribe in souther Jedda (Saudi Arabia), where you first make peace and truce and they you eat them up...

I'll be damnded.......

 

Sadly, based on your examples, there's a 67% chance the guy would be assassinated.

 

Or, based on the Dalai Lama, there's also the 33% change that 50 years later the situation would remain utterly unchanged...

 

The point here is that had Arafat signed to the aforementioned unagreeable terms of the peace deal, he would have locked them into place, legally and contractually, for good. No duh, the end of conflict thing is fine, obviously.
But to waive all FURTHER claims against Israel would leave him with Dan Loney's Islamic Republic of Toxic Waste and nothing to say if the IDF, for instance, blocked off Palestinian trade routes. In other words, after this, you can't complain about anything we do anymore because you signed something saying so.

 

And my point is that if Arafat had said, "O.K., thats a start lets talk," there would be a Palestinian state right now.

Even Michael Collins, who was a horrible terrorist, knew that terror was only a means to an end, and was willing to negotiate, even though he did not get everything he wanted.