Why Israel Should Withdraw From the West Bank—Now

[bemildred]

These generally feel like good times in Israel. The existential dangers facing the country often seem to have subsided, with sanctions starting to bite Iran and most Israelis, secure behind their wall, able to ignore the Palestinians. Recent protests in Tel Aviv have focused on social security, not the physical kind.

Yet the dangers posed by Iran and by Israel's occupation of the West Bank have never been greater. Take Iran: while the chances of conflict may seem to have diminished recently, there's reason to believe that the chances of an Israeli strike are actually as high as ever. Jerusalem knows that Washington opposes an Israeli attack on Iran's suspected nuclear program -- so the best time to launch one would be now, before the U.S. election, when both parties are still desperately courting the pro-Israel vote. A number of experts think an Israeli strike wouldn't actually keep Tehran from building a bomb, at least not for very long. But Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak say they disagree.

Then there's the occupation, now in its 45th year. The peace process is dead, or at least in a coma, and the Obama administration has dropped it, at least for now. Yet the costs for Israel keep climbing. The Jewish state has never been more isolated; Turkey has grown distant and with the Arab Spring, Jerusalem may have lost its cold but important ally in Cairo. Inside the territories, Palestinians are growing less supportive of the peaceful president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, whose administration is struggling with corruption and whose cooperation with Israel has earned him little in return.

These two problems -- Iran and the occupation -- can often seem like crises with no solutions. But there is one move Israel could take that could immediately improve its security, rebuild its moral standing, defuse tensions with the Palestinians, and deeply rattle Iran: start to dismantle the occupation of the West Bank. Ideally, Israel would do so as part of a negotiated peace, but it could also move unilaterally, if necessary.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/why-israel-should-withdraw-from-the-west-bank-now/260604/

[oberliner]

1. Saudi Arabia wants to "cozy up" to Israel?

Lord help us all if that is one of the arguments being made in favor of ending the occupation.

[bemildred]

2. He's the "managing editor of Foreign Affairs", I wouldn't dismiss anything he says out of hand. nt

[Fozzledick]

3. Because that worked so well in Gaza.

[pelsar]

4. another one...geographically and historically challenged..

now i don't mind when ones ideology/religion is the driving motivation for a belief. I do mind however if and when they try to prove it based on history (recent) and they have to ignore events to do so:

to small examples:

But even a partial Israeli withdrawal would, at the very least, deprive Israel's enemies of their biggest rhetorical weapon. At best, it would lessen or even end Israel's isolation and open doors for trade, investment, and tourism in Europe and the Middle East.

seems to me i heard the same thing before israel withdrew from gaza....and that wasn't too long ago, and it was a joke then as it is now...... so we can remove this argument from his list.


Yet even if the Palestinians simply pocket Israel's overtures or worse respond with violence, Israel would still be better off than today, since it would have dramatically reduced its exposed and vulnerable outposts in the West Bank.

i guess he has a hard time understanding that missiles fly in the sky and can fly over the settlements like they do from gaza to hit major cities, the problem is not the outposts, but they provide a physical buffer zone and "take off point" for the IDF to prevent the missiles (unlike gaza-duh!)
____

religious muslim write PBUH when they sign off on something, religious jews have a ב"ה. bless god on the paper they write on, we know where they are coming from and understand that "proof" in the western secular definition is irrelevant

i think people who write such articles as per the above one, and believe such things, like any religious, perhaps should also have a 'signature" (MBIH) ....My Beliefs Ignore History.

and then people like me, who essentially look at history to guess at what the future might look like, wont bother replying as i don't with the others....

[Swede]

5. And if rockets rain down on the Israeli cities,no big deal.

The Gaza experiment is the answer to this lunacy.

[sabbat hunter]

6. ah but if rockets rain down from the WB

Israel would then be within her rights to declare war on Palestine, formally and officially.

Israel should withdraw from the west bank, with the exception of Jerusalem (as that city was never meant to be part of Palestine).

[pelsar]

7. what good what that do us?

we weren't within our rights to invade gaza after over 6,000 missiles landed?....apparently not according to the UN and other "respectable" human rights groups.

so we declare war on the WB....send in the tanks and the infantry and have a "redo" of the gaza invasion/lebanon invasion, the usual accusations of war crimes, massacres that never happened etc...and then we are in a worse position. The PA destroyed and we have reoccupy everything all over again.

not a good idea.....recent history tells us that.

[azurnoir]

8. 8/1/2012 : Israeli tanks cross Gaza border after detecting missile

Israeli military vehicles made a limited incursion across the borders east of al-Maghazi refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, witnesses said Wednesday.

Two tanks and a bulldozer crossed the borders reaching as far as 300 meters in the Palestinian territory, onlookers told Ma'an.

Gunshots and blasts were heard as the vehicles entered the area.

There were no reports of injury.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=509016

Israeli re-invades Gaza quite regularly

[shaayecanaan]

9. As long as you occupy them...

they have a legitimate grievance. An occupation in itself is an act of war. As long as it continues, the Palestinians have as much right to attack you as the French Resistance had to attack the Germans.

A withdrawal from 10% of the Palestinian territories does not put an end to that legitimate grievance. A withdrawal from 100% does.

If Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank, then frankly this forum could be mothballed, the refugees could be absorbed by various countries and the entire issue could be deemed resolved. Once that happens, if the Palestinians fire as much as a single missile at Israel, then Israel can go to town on them. But before that happens, there needs to be a withdrawal from the West Bank.

[Missycim]

10. I am sure

you'd be ok with them "going to town on them"

[shaayecanaan]

19. as a matter of fact, i would be

Unlike others, I expect, I actually look forward to a two state solution becoming reality and this whole issue being resolved.

[Missycim]

20. So do you think Israel

should bomb the gaza strip when they fire rockets into Israel?

[shaayecanaan]

21. If they withdraw from the West Bank, yes

additionally, I think Israel should be permitted to join NATO once it has settled the issues of the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

[Missycim]

22. So for Israel to be allowed to defend

itself it has to leave the WB? No I dont think so....

[azurnoir]

31. so what then if you believe Israel so has to stay in the WB?

status quo forever, 1 state, annex area c?

[Missycim]

32. I dont think either situation

can help that area. You and others are under the delusion that if Israel leaves the WB and gives the PLO everything it wants some how it will stop the violence. They wont be happy till Israel is wiped off the map. You can pontificate all day long but until the PLO comes forward with the rest of the nations of the ME and truly shows them that they want peace then it will be achieved

[shaayecanaan]

34. Ah, the unshakeable certainty of faith...

it will stop the violence.

What violence are you talking about? The Palestinian Authority has arrested and detained pretty much every militant in the West Bank. Most of the violence that gets posted here these days is of Israeli settlers shooting Palestinians while IDF soldiers look on passively.

Funnily enough, that sort of violence doesnt seem to register with people like you. I guess you don't think its "violence" either when the US kills 70 people at an Afghan wedding party with a Predator drone either, right?

[shira]

86. You don't see violence from Palestinians in the WB b/c you choose not to see it...

Jun 14, 2010 - Command Sgt.Maj. Yehoshua (Shuki) Sofer 39, of Beersheba was killed and three policemen wounded when Palestinian terrorists opened fire on their vehicle at Al Fawar Junction south of Hebron on Route 60.

Aug 31, 2010 - Four Israelis were murdered in their vehicle in a terrorist drive-by shooting attack on Route 60 near Kiryat Arba, east of Hebron: Yitzhak Ames, 47, and his wife Talya Ames, 45, Kochava Even Chaim, 37, and Avishai Shindler, 24, all from Beit Hagai. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Dec 18, 2010 - Kristine Luken, 46, a US citizen living in England, was stabbed to death while hiking in the hills west of Jerusalem with a friend on Saturday afternoon. Police arrested the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the murder.

Mar 11, 2011 - Udi Fogel (36) and Ruth Fogel (35) along with three of their children Yoav, 11, Elad, 4, and 3-month-old Hadas were stabbed to death by terrorists in their home in Itamar, in northern Samaria, on Friday night.

Those are just deaths related to terror attacks. There are many more victims of Palestinian terror who are injured and maimed for life. One of the reasons you don't see it in the papers is b/c it's so routine; like dog bites man. It's hardly news anymore.

Consider that these attacks are instigated, applauded, and rewarded by the PA. And very openly:
http://palwatch.org/

Palestinian violence towards Israelis is the rule, rather than the exception. Israeli violence vs. Palestinians is the exception rather than the rule. As the media would have it; it's dog bites man vs. man bites dog reporting.

[shaayecanaan]

88. Really, thats the best you can do?

Three incidents that are two years old, and the Fogel murders, which were in the opinion of police a home invasion and intended robbery rather than a terrorist attack.

One of the reasons you don't see it in the papers is b/c it's so routine; like dog bites man.

Yeah, so routine that you can't point to a single recent example. Meanwhile, 20 000 Americans are killed by Americans each year. If three deaths in two years are your definition of discord then the US is in a state of civil war.

[oberliner]

91. Do many home invasions and intended robberies involve decapitating a three-month old baby?

Also, in the cases where an "intended robbery" results in the murder of three children do the persons who committed the intended robbery generally express pride in having killed said children?

You really either just haven't a clue or are willfully blind to realities that you find unpleasant.

[shaayecanaan]

95. Probably not...

nevertheless, more than a few home invasions end in rape, murder or other heinous acts.

The HRW report for 2012 in the Territories reports that in 2011, West Bank Palestinians killed 7 Israelis (5 of which were the Fogel murders). Israeli forces shot and killed five Palestinian civilians (including several incidents which were plainly indefensible, such as the killing of a 66-year old man as he slept in his bed). Settlers also killed two Palestinian children, which made it in total a 7-7 draw for that year.

It goes without saying, of course, that no arrests were made in relation to any of the murders of Palestinians.

Moreover, no arrests were made in relation to the killing of two Palestinian boys who were shot while collecting garbage near Itamar (the Fogels' settlement) the year before the Fogel killings.

It seems as though the main difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians is that the PA is generally expected to apprehend their militants whereas Israel seem unwilling to make any arrests at all.

[azurnoir]

35. I am under no delusions-IMO Israel has no intention of giving up one sq cm. of the West Bank

and will take more as time goes by, leaving the question then what, a Palestinian state in area's A&B only with the claims that should be "good enough" for them or what, that would seem to be a self fulfilling prophecy of another Gaza, only more desperate and hopeless or one state or status quo forever not quite this but not quite that either, in this matter Israel could be liken to the dog that caught the car it was chasing

[Fantastic Anarchist]

83. Arab Peace Initiative.

We Jews are our worst own enemy.

[shira]

85. Not much of a peace initiative when it calls for 100% withdrawal from the WB and full...

Last edited Fri Aug 17, 2012, 01:44 AM - Edit history (1)

...RoR before the Arab world "considers" coming to the peace table.

Try again.

Peace = Israel's destruction according to the API.

[oberliner]

94. Some of the dictators who proposed that have been deposed

Hard to know if it was ever a legitimate expression of the desire of the people of those countries as most of them didn't have representative democracies at the time.

[shaayecanaan]

33. I suppose some of us think that the Palestinians

have a right to defend themselves as well.

[pelsar]

23. what withdrawal?....up to where?

is it a negotiated withdrawal with the PA? and if Hamas takes over (as they did in gaza) and starts shooting at israel, israel reinvades.....are you going to be chearleading the IDF?...and when they don't withdrawal but reoccupy again.....

what exactly is your position on such very very possible series of events? Infact i would say that is far more likely than a negotiated withdrawl and everybody singing kumbaya all of a sudden

[Bradlad]

11. You have a strangely myopic view.

You fail to recognize the very fundamental difference between a defensive and offensive occupation. Recognizing it would show that you're all for aggression as long as Israel is the target. You also seem to dislike self-defense whenever it's Israel doing the defending. So you make up these narratives where aggression and defense carry the same moral weight. That doesn't mean you have a point. Just that you are willfully morally blind.

An offensive occupation is to control someone else's territory and take away sovereignty from the current holder. It is done voluntarily as a choice by an aggressor. It is attempted theft. A defender has a legitimate grievance against this.

A defensive occupation is to prevent ongoing attacks against your citizens from across your borders. It is done involuntarily as a means of defense from aggression. The UN Charter guarantees the right of self defense. It specifically condemns aggression as a crime against humanity. An aggressor has no legitimate grievance against self defense from their aggression. (But like any bully they do get very pissed off when it's successful).

A defender can "go to town" on any aggressor within the bounds of the laws of war. Israel has chosen defensive occupation as the most humane form of defense, when possible, against the Palestinians who attack it. Leave it to the PACS (Palestinian Aggression Cheerleader Squad) to find fault with Israel for sparing Palestinian lives rather than "go to town" on them.

[shaayecanaan]

14. So you're saying that the settlements are military defence installations?

I guess thats the only conclusion that one can draw from your assertion that Israel's occupation is defensive in nature. Its an interesting take. I had no idea that the children running around in settlements in Ariel and Maale Adumim were Israel's front line, although it does make a mockery of Israel's argument that the Arabs are the one using people as human shields.

I'm not sure how it fits with the facts though. Israel occupied South Lebanon, but it left because it kept getting attacked. It occupied Gaza, but left because it kept getting attacked there as well. If Israel's various occupations are defensive measures, why does it leave the places where it gets attacked, but stays in places (such as the Golan Heights) where nary a shot in anger has been fired in the last forty years?

Just that you are willfully morally blind.

I think one of us is. You seem to think that Israel is blameless and that it is the Israelis who chafe under the oppression inflicted upon them by the Palestinians. It is a narrative, I suppose, but not one that is particularly consistent with the facts.

[Bradlad]

72. You seem to favor some facts over others.

I'm not sure how it fits with the facts though. Israel occupied South Lebanon, but it left because it kept getting attacked. It occupied Gaza, but left because it kept getting attacked there as well. If Israel's various occupations are defensive measures, why does it leave the places where it gets attacked, but stays in places (such as the Golan Heights) where nary a shot in anger has been fired in the last forty years?

According to this logic Israel would vacate Southern Israel where it is being fired upon continuously - Sderot, Ashkelon, etc. And I guess Israel would then send troops and settlers to occupy Jordan or Egypt that haven't attacked Israel since 1967 anyway. See, that's the kind of silly conclusions you can reach by selecting facts to fit the conclusions you'd like to hold.

You seem to think that Israel is blameless and that it is the Israelis who chafe under the oppression inflicted upon them by the Palestinians. It is a narrative, I suppose, but not one that is particularly consistent with the facts.

Both Israelis and Palestinians chafe under the oppression of armed aggression. The fact is the Palestinians are the aggressors and have always had the power to stop the oppression simply by stopping the aggression. They could have done so and proposed a peaceful settlement to the conflict any time since 1947 - including today and every day that passes. If they had done this 65 years ago they would probably have the most prosperous Arab state in the world today.

You must believe the Palestinians are liars? Why not take them at their very consistent words and actions? That they'd much rather die a violent death in war than ever accept a Jewish state in the ME.

PS - I just responded directly to your points. If you're not going to respond directly to the points I just made then don't bother.

[shaayecanaan]

81. You don't seem to favour any facts at all...

PS - I just responded directly to your points. If you're not going to respond directly to the points I just made then don't bother.

Actually, you didn't. You just mouthed the same old clichés that you always do. For instance, you said that the occupation (including the settlements, presumably) was purely a defensive endeavour. I responded that the only conclusion to draw from that is that the settlements are de facto military outposts of the Israeli state and that the little kiddies running around Hebron throwing rocks at Arabs are Israel's front line defence.

The alternative, of course, is that the settlements are not defence installations but are simply an exercise in the theft of Palestinian land. Take your pick. Or not, as I expect you will simply go on mouthing clichés.

And I guess Israel would then send troops and settlers to occupy Jordan or Egypt that haven't attacked Israel since 1967 anyway.

If they did that they would get attacked. The Israelis only left the Sinai after Egypt gave them a scare in 1973. They only left South Lebanon after they got sick of the Hezb killing them. And they only left Gaza once Hamas started shelling the settlements with their rockets.

The fact is the Palestinians are the aggressors and have always had the power to stop the oppression simply by stopping the aggression.

Absolute nonsense. Just about every video posted on this board over the past year or so has consisted of Israeli settlers or soldiers beating up or shooting Arabs.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

82. Absolutely Agreed. nt

[aranthus]

12. Of course it's a big deal, but the WB isn't Gaza.

Assuming that israel withdrew from all of the West Bank, except Jerusalem, would the Palestinians throw that away just to attack Israel? They might, but then Israel would at least have the certainty that it made every effort for peace possible. The status quo doesn't work in Israel's favor, unless its top priority is taking over teh WB permanently.

[Bradlad]

13. Please explain . .

Please explain the difference between the WB and Gaza that you believe sufficient to convince the Israelis that the WB would not be taken over by Hamas or that PLO affiliated "militants" would not start shooting rockets and mortars and launching suicide attacks from there soon after Israel pulled out. You realize both charters call for Israel's destruction and they have both been teaching their children non-stop for decades the religious and societal admiration due to them from killing Jews. Also that the only reason attacks have diminished at all is the separation fence as before that they were quite common. Yet still jihadim manage to kill a few - like the Fogel family for example.

I ask this seriously as I can not imagine a sane leader of any democracy taking a chance like that.

[shaayecanaan]

15. Hamas was already in charge of Gaza...

and was already firing Qassams into Israel prior to Israel's withdrawal from that territory. In fact, Israel's withdrawal came about because there was no way for them to defend the Gaza settlements from rocket fire. Israel's withdrawal was due to the advent of the Qassam rocket, and not the other way around.

The line that security in the West Bank is only maintained because of Israel's occupation is complete and utter bullshit. If it was that easy, Israel could have maintained its occupations of both Gaza and South Lebanon.

The true difference between Gaza and the West Bank can be summed up in one word: Jordan. Whereas Egypt was ambivalent about Hamas' activities in Gaza, and Syria was highly supportive of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Jordan's authorities have always worked actively to combat Palestinian militants in the West Bank, and Hamas in particular, at least since Black September.

It would certainly be in Israel's interests to try and resolve the issue of the West Bank while Jordan remains a monarchy and the militants in the West Bank remain firmly in check because of it, lest they have another South Lebanon on their hands.

[pelsar]

16. another version of raping history...

when israel withdrew from Gaza, the PA was in control, hamas was not.....Qassams were fired as a group effort sometimes and sometimes not.

hamas in the last election in the WB (students) took almost 40%.
_______

as far as why is hamas kept down in the wb is because its a combined effort of the IDF and the PA, this did not exist in gaza. Its a very real option that once the IDF leaves, as per the Hamas belief and their history, that they wil take over and remove the PA.

the IDF believes it can happen
the PA believes it can happen
Hamas believes it can happen.

who doesn't?.....nice westerners who clearly look down upon the "locals" and understand little, but insist that because of some kind of 'superior knowledge or understanding" they know more than the "natives."

and some call israel the "colonialists"....

[shaayecanaan]

18. I prefer to think of it as furthering your education...

Hamas fired approximately 281 and 179 rockets per year into Israel in 2004 and 2005 respectively (before the withdrawal in September 2005), although I am uncertain as to whether this included rockets fired at the Gaza settlements. While not as much as they fired in 2008, it is certainly more than they are firing today.

Certainly, the most successful phase of the rocket attacks for Hamas was before Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, when the settlements provided a wealth of easy targets. The location of the main bloc of settlements in the far southwestern corner of the strip meant that they were far easier for Hamas to attack than they were for the IDF to defend.

6 Israelis were killed by Qassams in 2004, accounting for over one-quarter of the total Israelis killed by Palestinian rockets (22), making it by far the most successful year for rocket attacks. Three Israelis were killed in 2005, making it the second most successful year. Part of this was of course that Israeli early warning systems resulted in fewer casualties, but this hardly helped the settlements who were too far from Israel to benefit from any such system.

Further, the fact that the settlers were much closer to Hamas meant that the earlier Qassams could carry more payload and less propellant, making them much deadlier. Roughly 240 rockets in 2004 were fired for six dead and about a dozen wounded, an attrition rate of about 7.5%, whereas in 2008 less than 0.5% of rockets caused any injuries. Since the withdrawal the Qassams have become largely a psychological weapon. For the Gaza settlers, they were a genuine threat.

The fact that Hamas could fire rockets largely at will, and that hitting the settlements at such close range was like hitting a barn from about ten paces, did more to break the back of the settlers than anything else. Even the resistance to the evacuation turned out to be desultory - most of the settlers were quite happy to go, the only concern that they had was their resettlement prospects.

Another 24 Israelis were killed in the Gaza Strip in 2004 by various shooting, anti-tank and explosive attacks, bringing the total Israeli dead in Gaza to thirty, a figure equivalent to the casualties that Hezbollah inflicted on the IDF prior to 2000 and which eventually forced Israel to withdraw from Southern Lebanon.

As I said in the above post, the cause of the Gaza withdrawal was the advent of the Qassam rocket, and not the other way around.

[pelsar]

24. then try not to rape history.....

i am not arguing the numbers fired, nor their accuracy....which is what you post was all about....

the PA was in fact the owner of the gaza strip after the withdrawal and had partial ownership of the tunnels as well, hamas was a player, but at that point did not own gaza. Thats the point.

they waited for the right time as they increased their strength to move in and take over ....just as they are attempting to do in the west bank today. (Why change a winning formula)

[bemildred]

25. Don't forget Dahlan:

Second Intifada

In 2001 he upset Arafat by beginning to call for reform in the Palestinian National Authority and expressing dissatisfaction with a lack of coherent policy.[12][13]

In 2002, he resigned his post as head of the Preventive Security in Gaza in the hope of becoming the Interior Minister; this did not occur, he was offered a post as security adviser but rejected it. In April 2003, he was appointed the Palestinian Minister of State for Security by Mahmoud Abbas, despite the objection of Arafat.[14] By September he had been ousted when Abbas resigned as Prime Minister, and was replaced by Hakam Balawi.[15]

He repeatedly tried to campaign on a reform and anti-corruption ticket and tried to profile himself as an outspoken critic of Yasser Arafat, although many observers dispute his personal integrity. Nevertheless Dahlan and his followers in internal Fatah elections won over most of the Fatah sections in Gaza.[16][17]

In 2004, Dahlan was assumed to have been behind week-long unrests in Gaza following the appointment of Yasser Arafat's nephew Mousa Arafat as head of Gaza police forces.[18] This appointment was considered by some a deliberate step to weaken Dahlan's position before the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza strip and sparked massive protests.[19]

[Gaza Infighting

On January 26, 2006, Dahlan was narrowly elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council in the Palestinian legislative election of 2006 as a representative for Khan Younis. Dahlan took a tough stance against Hamas,[20] calling their election victory a disaster and threatening to 'haunt them from now till the end of their term' and to 'rough up and humiliate' Fatah supporters tempted to join the Hamas-led Palestinian government.[21]

On December 14, 2006 gunmen attempted to assassinate Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya as he crossed Gaza's border with Egypt, killing a bodyguard and wounding five others, and sparking further clashes between Hamas and Fatah supporters in Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas accused Dahlan of orchestrating the attack.[22] Hamas accuses rival of PM attack</ref> Dahlan rejected the accusations, saying "the Hamas government is fully responsible for yesterday's events."[23]

On January 7, 2007, Dahlan held the biggest-ever rally of Fatah supporters in the Gaza strip,[24] where he denounced Hamas as 'a bunch of murderers and thieves' and vowed that 'we will do everything, I repeat, everything, to protect Fatah activists'. In response Hamas labeled Dahlan a 'putschist' and accused him of bringing Palestinians to the brink of civil war.[25]

Dahlan was a Fatah representative in negotiations which resulted in the Hamas & Fatah Mecca Agreement of February 8, 2007, in which both sides agreed to stop the military clashes in Gaza and form a government of national unity. In March 2007, despite objections from Hamas, Dahlan was appointed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to lead the newly re-established Palestinian National Security Council, overseeing all security forces in the Palestinian territories.[26] Dahlan organised paramilitary units of several thousand fighters trained with American assistance in Arab countries, and lobbied Israel to allow Fatah forces in Gaza to receive large shipments of arms and ammunition to fight Hamas.[27]

In the April 2008 edition of Vanity Fair it was revealed that after the 2006 elections Dahlan had been central in a US plot to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. The Americans provided money and arms to Dahlan, trained his men and ordered him to carry out a military coup against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. However, the elected Hamas government forestalled the move and itself carried out an armed counter-coup.[28][29]

Battle of Gaza

In July 2007, Dahlan resigned from his post as national security adviser.[30] The resignation was little more than a formality, since Mahmoud Abbas had issued a decree dissolving his national security council immediately after the Hamas takeover of Gaza. Dahlan has been blamed by many in Fatah for the rapid collapse of their forces in Gaza in the face of a Hamas offensive that lasted less than a week. During the fighting Dahlan's house on the coast of Gaza was seized by Hamas militants and subsequently demolished. He and most of the other senior security commanders of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority security forces were not in Gaza during the fighting, leading to charges that their men had been abandoned in the field.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Dahlan#Battle_of_Gaza

That's how Hamas came to control Gaza.

[shaayecanaan]

36. I said that they were in control...

I didnt say that they owned Gaza.

By 2004, Hamas were in control of most of the camps, and had the ability to fire rockets largely at will. The fact that a Western-backed Fatah coup was unable to defeat Hamas and in fact resulted in Fatah being booted out of the Strip is testament to that control.

You probably need to reflect on why Fatah and Israel could not defeat Hamas in the Gaza Strip but are able to do so in the West Bank.

[shira]

37. "...a western backed Fatah coup"

The PA/Fatah was responsible for law and order in Gaza at that time. You make it appear that Hamas had a legal right to control Gaza back then as they saw fit.

Funny 'coup' there....

[shaayecanaan]

38. We seem to have wandered some distance from my original point...

which was that the relative quiet in the West Bank has more to do with Jordan than the Israeli occupation.

Israel occupied Gaza and South Lebanon and got nothing out of it other than a steady stream of dead and wounded. Both Israeli withdrawals were hugely successful in reducing the number of Israeli dead due to Palestinian attacks.

If Israel does not move to normalise relations with the Palestinians, then they face the prospect that Abdullah may not live forever, or alternatively, that the populist revolts that are sweeping the middle east will eventually come to Jordan. If the monarchy is replaced with a populist regime, you can guarantee that a new Jordanian government would be nowhere near as prepared to carry water for the Israelis by keeping Palestinian militants firmly in check.

[pelsar]

39. you don't like timelines....nor the "locals"

August 2005 withdrawl PLO owned gaza

June 2007 Hamas took gaza
_____

sometime in-between years, the power switched hands
By 2004, Hamas were in control of many of the camps, most of of the population of gaza was in the cities.

many operations were in fact "joint" operations between hamas and fatah....an obvious strategy by hamas to build up connections and experience in the interim.

but this is the main point that you really don't want to know about:

You probably need to reflect on why Fatah and Israel could not defeat Hamas in the Gaza Strip but are able to do so in the West Bank.

now i shall educate you, Hamas is not defeated in the west bank.....they are alive an well getting 40% of the student vote.

a few obvious points to anybody who has basic knowledge of the differences between the wb and gaza and prefer to base their opinions on the actual events as opposed to ideology:

in the west bank, the PA forces and IDF work together to keep hamas down, each in their own area, each with their own methods, but the goal of both is not to have a repeat of gaza. This has nothing to do with Jordan as its all in internal matter. When the IDF raids a house based on intel, or the PA threatens a family because one of their members is in hamas, Jordan has nothing to do with it, and intel is passed back and forth when relevant.

gaza on the other hand, had a very weak PA force, that could not/would not work with the IDF (fatah by day/hamas by night was the saying at the time)...and so hamas having infiltrated fatah had no problem at all taking over gaza.

remove the IDF from the wb and a very real scenario is the hamas simply doing a "redo" of gaza. For those who don't believe such events can happen, as i wrote, have the classic colonialistic /racist attitude toward the locals, since its the locals who believe such a scenario can happen.

you would think the nice progressives would want to respect the "locals" knowledge of the environment.....what a surprise that they don't.

[Bradlad]

46. I don't know what that has to do with my question.

The question is - what could possibly cause Israel to take such a chance as removing its presence (certainly the IDF) from the WB after the experience of seeing Hamas take over Gaza? Especially with the Jordanian monarchy in some peril as you mentioned. That's a more powerful reason for Israel to maintain a strong presence both militarily and settlements, not less.

[aranthus]

26. I will give it a shot.

First, I'm not saying that Hamas won't take over the WB just as it did Gaza. In fact, I think it is likely that they will. The question is what happens after that. The difference is that the WB could be the core of a viable Palestinian state, whereas Gaza could never suffice. So now what do the Palestinians do once they have a viable state? Do they actually try to build one or do they throw it away on attacking Israel? If they act peacefully, then that shuts up the Israeli Right, and Israel allows the development of a Palestinian state. If Hamas acts as they did in Gaza, then that shuts up the the hopers for peace, and a Palestinian state is finished forever. Either way there is resolution. That is what Israel needs, and won't get from the status quo. Occupation by its nature is oppressive, and oppressed people aren't going to be inclined to make nice with their oppressors. Israel has occupied the West Bank in the hope that the Palestinians will come around to accepting Israel and making peace, but the occupation itself prevents that. That leaves two choices. First is to continue the status quo and eventually annex the entire WB, in which case, what do you do with the Palestinians. The other is to withdraw.

The bottom line is that I'm not relying on the Palestinians' peaceful intentions. I'm not counting on a sudden shift in world opinion favoring israel if it withdraws. I'm standing on Israel being able to destroy any future Palestinian state that attacks it. I'm expecting that an Israel that withdraws from the West Bank is going to give the Palestinians one chance only to have peace and a state of their own, and that the Palestinians will know that. There can't be peace, if at all, without resolution, and there can't be resolution unless Israel withdraws.

You may argue that withdrawing fromthe WB will only lead to war. If that is true, then it is true that there is going to be a war whether Israel withdraws or not. And a war without a prior withdrawal will just be one more in the line of indecisive wars that Israel has been forced to fight. Withdrawing could prevent war, but if it doesnt', it will at least make for the last war.

[bemildred]

27. Not bad.

The settlements are an expensive source off trouble, just like in Gaza. The notion that they would be of some help in a real war is fatuous, especially with modern weapons. And nobody in their right mind would invade Israel anyway, a short trip to the grave is all that would be. Israel has and can keep exclusive control of the air, has nukes, guided missiles, subs, and has most of the best that the USA has to offer too.

There were/are recent occupations in Iraq & Afghanistan, how do they look? Worse then the OPT? Maybe this now is a good as it gets.

[pelsar]

41. wow...where have you been?

ever hear of the maginot line?
ever hear of the bar lev line (canal crossing was deemed "impossible" by the idf)
ever hear of the invincible napoleon army?

France backing israel..up until they stopped


since when is there any guarantee on anything?

[bemildred]

44. If you think what you are doing now is risk-free, by all means continue. nt

[pelsar]

48. i was just bringing your post back to reality...

only the religious belive in absolutes.......and they are the most dangerous of all.....and that includes the secular religious.

[bemildred]

49. Yap yap yap yap ...

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth -- Shakespere

[holdencaufield]

42. I'm glad you're willing to risk...

... Jewish lives based on your rose-tinted evaluation of Israel's invulnerability to attack.

[bemildred]

43. It's not me that's risking Jewish lives. nt

[bemildred]

45. Do you think moving half-a-milllion Jews into the midst of a couple million hostile Arabs,

while harassing them and stealing their land, might "risk Jewish lives"?

But that's OK, isn't it? Jeebus, what a stupid argument.

[Bradlad]

47. I appreciate your attempt.

You are suggesting that Israel withdrawing from the WB will either create peace or give Israel the justification to possibly attack and kill many of the Palestinians who live there if they continue attacking Israel after the withdrawal.

I find this incomprehensible. Israel evacuated Gaza. The attacks from Gaza increased in severity and frequency. Israel finally went in only to suppress the attacks and inflicted relatively few civilians casualties with a commendable ratio of civilians to terrorists. No-one said that maybe the IDF was justified in OCL to prevent continuous rocket barrages being fired at their civilians. Instead much of the world united against Israel and Israel was accused of war crimes by the UN.

Can't you see that the world by its response to OCL - castigating and condemning (instead of supporting) Israel (including many on this site) has made it impossible for Israel to evacuate the WB. The world has sent a very clear message. Israel has no other choice if it wants to survive now since Israel knows it will get absolutely no support from the free world - and will very likely get thrown under the bus by a US president who will no longer be worried about re-election.

In fact I think Israel will be forced to annex at least Area C if Abbas goes ahead with the GA bid for recognition.

[aranthus]

67. Thanks for your response.

I'm sorry this has taken so long, but I have had a busy time at work.

First of all, I'm not suggesting withdrawal to give Israel justification to do anything. I'm more interested in Israel's motivation. An Israel that believes that it has done everything that it can for peace is going to believe that a future Arab attack confirms that the Arabs will never let Israel live in peace. That Israel will respond to an attack differently than an Israel that is still looking for a peaceful solution. The Arabs know that, and will conduct themselves accordingly. The point is to create clarity and certainty of intent, which we don't have now. That in turn will lead to resolution.

Resolution is important, because because the status quo is not sustainable. Also, the status quo won't lead to peace. The Palestinians are not going to make peace with Israel without a withdrawal. Your objections to withdrawal seem to be two. First that the Palestinians are not likely to make peace with Israel if it does withdraw. Second, that Israel will not receive any support from the free world if it does withdraw. I do not believe that either is necessarily true, and even if they are, they are ultimately irrelevant since they would be even more likely if Israel does not withdraw.

The Palestinians may be satisfied with a real country if they get it. It would give them a stake, and a future to protect. I don't suggest that the chances of that are very high. What I claim is that the chance of reaching an agreement on a sustainable future for either side under the status quo is absolutely zero. Israel won't withdraw until the Palestinians "prove" that they are serious about peace, and that proof will never come as long as the Palestinians are living under occupation. Withdrawal changes that. giving the Palestinians their state changes the rules.

As for the rest of the world, I more than most have a tendency to believe that it will throw the Jews under the bus, if only for tradition's sake. However, The world also knows on which side the bread is buttered. As Arab oil becomes less available, as Muslim extremists gain more control, as Israel becomes more of an energy exporter due to the Mediterranean gas finds, and continues to be a high technology source; as all of that happens, Israel becomes a more attractive ally.

In any event, if the Palestinians won't make peace, and the world will throw Israel under the bus if Israel withdraws, then how much more likely is that to happen if they don't? Pursuing the status quo gets Israel nowhere. Annexing Area "C" is a commitment to perpetual war. I don't think Israel can sustain either. The choice is between a strategy that admittedly has thin odds of success, and a strategy that has no chance at all.

[Bradlad]

71. I first thought of . .

I first thought of writing a reply to each of your paragraphs. Then I realized that the problem here is that we each have very different views of human nature and of the reality of this conflict. These differences are probably insurmountable logically. So let me just try to express how disconnected from reality your views seem to me.

Here are some facts that I factor in to the equation because I believe they are the essential facts that any state (or person) trying to avoid conflict while protecting their loved ones (or citizens) would have to consider:

Since 1947 the Palestinians (and the Arabs generally) have reacted with violence to every single overture for peace offered by Israel (or anyone else like the UN) to settle the conflict without violence,

Since 1947, Palestinians holding leadership positions have consistently claimed in their speeches and their political charters that they would never ever accept a Jewish state in the ME under any conditions,

To drive the nail in further, since 1947 no Palestinians holding leadership positions have ever come forward on their own with a sincere and plausible plan of conditions they would accept for peaceful coexistence with Israel,

Since 1947 Palestinians civilians have generally confirmed in polls and interviews, notably with religious officials, their desire to die, and for their children to die - in violent conflict to destroy the state of Israel rather than accept any peaceful coexistence with Israel.

But still, your response is (paraphrasing) certainly this time if Israel would just withdraw from the WB (baring its throat to thousands of Hamas Jihadist rockets that would need only 60 seconds or so to land after being fired), certainly then the Palestinians will realize that they have something to lose that will cause them to throw away what has driven their messianic quest to destroy Israel for three generations now.

I don't mean this as an insult at all because I am sure I am capable of harboring delusions too if I believe strongly enough about something - but I can only wonder at the power of the beliefs that must exist in your mind on this topic to allow you to reach this conclusion.

I would be encouraged if you could show me just once in the last 65 years when any respected Palestinian leader - or any Arab leader for that matter - had actually made a believable and sincere move toward peace. Don't you think that if any significant number of Palestinians actually preferred peace with Israel over war to end Israel - that some leader would have had the guts to present his reasonable conditions for achieving it?

That's a real question (not rhetorical) that seems necessary to me as a minimal precondition for Israel being willing to ever give up anything again to the Palestinians. Every singly time Israel has tried to return land for peace - the land was pocketed and the peace overture laughed at. Even Sadat bragged that Israel gave up a land mass three times the size of Israel for a piece of paper.

But you say just one more time will do the trick. I think Israel now realizes it has made a big mistake in following the leftist ideology that was stronger in Israel in the past. Fortunately it seems Israelis are starting to get the picture. It pretty much took the rising strength of the anti-Israel Muslim revanchists fueled by oil income and the West's cowardly appeasement of them for this to happen. But I think the majority of Israelis now see that there's really nothing they can do to achieve peace except deal a decisive defeat to those who attack Israel or to those who seriously threaten Israel's existence. I only hope they haven't waited too long to figure this out.

I don't know if you are Jewish or not - buy I have met Jews online who have admitted that if Israel is destroyed because of its attempts to make peace against all sensible evidence that peace is even possible - that they'd rather see that happen than see Israel survive by waging war. Perhaps this is your view and that would explain your conclusion. But other than that I can't imagine any sensible person who would expect Israel to put itself in that position of vulnerability in the hopes that the Palestinians who have never changed one inch toward accommodating Israel as a peaceful neighbor - are now going to reverse the last six decades of their consistent and violent racist rejectionism - out of some sense that they'd have something material to gain from it.

Sorry to be so negative about your proposal but maybe you can explain for me just where your conclusion comes from. As a non-Jew I'd really like to understand. Maybe I'm the one who's failing to see the reality here.

[aranthus]

73. Again, I think you have misunderstood me.

Let me try to be clear. First of all some background. I'm Jewish. My father was a member of the Haganah from the time he was about fifteen in 1940 (maybe he was a little older). I know many Israelis, and also Palestinians. I'm also a student of military history, especially that of the Middle East.

What I know of Israelis and their conduct of prior wars is this. Israel has never pursued a strategy of decisively defeating the Arab states and imposing a resolution on the Middle East. They accepted a cease fire with Egypt in the 1947-49 war for independence even though they were on the verge of surrounding and destroying the Egyptian Army in the Sinai. Essentially the same thing happened in 1973 after the Israelis crossed the canal. After the victory in 1967, Israel did not immediately annex the West Bank and the Golan, which Israel had the legal right to do. In most cases, Israel has underplayed its hand. There are two reason for this. First is outside pressure, mostly from the United States. The second much more important reason is that more than anything, Jews hope for acceptance. That is why, even after thousands of years of inquisitions and pogroms (many in the Muslim world), the Jews of 1920's Europe thought that as long as they acted European that they would be accepted and protected. That hope was dashed, but it was reborn in Israel. Did you know that Herzl's original reason for creating a Jewish state was that he thought it would end antisemitism? He, like most Jews, wanted to finally earn tha acceptance that had eluded the Jewish people. That hope is a very powerful brake to what Israel could do in its own defense.

You argue that the Arabs and the Palestinians have shown time and again that they will not make peace with Israel. That is a logical argument, and many Israeli minds agree with you. But the Jewish heart; the Israeli heart does not want to believe it, does not believe it, and will not act as if it is true. That is why the political climate in Israel is not ready for the kind of resolution which you propose. Becasue if Israel were to annex part of the West Bank, it would eventually have to annex all of it, and drive the Palestinians into Jordan. Israelis aren't prepared to do that. It would mean admitting that acceptance can never happen. There would be a sizeable portion of the public that would second guess the move. Doubt would prevent it.

You suggest that I am saying that if Israel withdraws from the West Bank, that the Palestinians will finally accept Israel. But I'm only saying that they might do so. What I'm saying is that Israel could survive even if the Palestinians did start something. It's the Palestinian state that wouldn't survive. What withdrawal does is remove doubt on both sides. If the Arabs attack, Israel will be freed from the constraints of its own hope, and will do what needs to be done to survive. The Palestinians are going to know that Israel is going to give them only one chance. Withdrawal puts the ball in the Arab court. I think that Israel is strong enough to take the risk.

[Bradlad]

80. Excellent reply. Thanks

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)

A: Let me try to be clear. First of all some background. I'm Jewish. My father was a member of the Haganah from the time he was about fifteen in 1940 (maybe he was a little older). I know many Israelis, and also Palestinians. I'm also a student of military history, especially that of the Middle East.

Thanks for the background. I am interested in the morality and psychology of conflict and am a student of history and psychology. The ME conflict and interactive forums like this provides a real time view of all these topics and a place to correct my beliefs on these topics which have been evolving for at least a couple of decades.

A: In most cases, Israel has underplayed its hand. There are two reason for this. First is outside pressure, mostly from the United States. The second much more important reason is that more than anything, Jews hope for acceptance. That is why, even after thousands of years of inquisitions and pogroms (many in the Muslim world), the Jews of 1920's Europe thought that as long as they acted European that they would be accepted and protected. That hope was dashed, but it was reborn in Israel. Did you know that Herzl's original reason for creating a Jewish state was that he thought it would end antisemitism? He, like most Jews, wanted to finally earn tha acceptance that had eluded the Jewish people. That hope is a very powerful brake to what Israel could do in its own defense.

Yes I did know that. I just read a new piece by Efraim Karsh yesterday where he says,

. . one of the most fundamental tenets of Zionism (is) that the creation of a Jewish state, where the Jewish diasporas would congregate and become normalized, would solve the “Jewish problem” and ameliorate if not eliminate altogether the phenomenon of anti-Semitism.

A: You argue that the Arabs and the Palestinians have shown time and again that they will not make peace with Israel. That is a logical argument, and many Israeli minds agree with you. But the Jewish heart; the Israeli heart does not want to believe it, does not believe it, and will not act as if it is true. That is why the political climate in Israel is not ready for the kind of resolution which you propose. Becasue if Israel were to annex part of the West Bank, it would eventually have to annex all of it, and drive the Palestinians into Jordan. Israelis aren't prepared to do that. It would mean admitting that acceptance can never happen. There would be a sizeable portion of the public that would second guess the move. Doubt would prevent it.

This is a very informative paragraph for me. To the extent that it is true - and based on my online and other reading I'm inclined to believe it is for a significant number of Jews in the world - then I would classify this belief as a religious belief of the kind that pelsar references in his comments. When you speak of the Jewish heart you convince me. Interestingly, I doubt that pelsar who is Israeli and lives there shares this religious belief. (pelsar I'd like to hear your thoughts on this if you'd care to respond. Specifically, I'd like know if you believe that annexing the WB would hinder some eventual Palestinian acceptance of the Jewish state of Israel - more than the possibility of their acceptance of Israel if the WB were not annexed. Or perhaps more interesting is if you care whether it does or doesn't.)

My view of that belief, as a non-Jew observer, (the belief that being kind and non-confrontational to those who despise you will eventually cause them to accept you) is that it goes against a very fundamental characteristic of human nature and therefore will likely end in a disastrously negative outcome for those who hold it. That is, that true acceptance comes from respect, not from someone's desire to be accepted. Like love, it can not be found if you are specifically seeking it. And in fact, when someone is the target of someone's desire for acceptance they are most likely to disrespect the person who is seeking it.

I suspect that Jewish culture for both Ashkenazim and Sephardim prior to WWII, was steeped in childhood stories of characters who are to be most admired - as characters who go along to get along, who never take offense at insults and who keep their heads down and eyes averted in the presence of non-Jews. A sort of culturally self enforced stoicism in the face of deep humiliation. I can certainly understand why diaspora Jews needed such beliefs and heroes who exemplified them. But cultural beliefs are not based on reason and logic but on what survives after all the beliefs that didn't work died with those who held them. These beliefs took hold over centuries and probably reside to some extent in the dna of Jews today; it can take as many centuries for the disposition to hold these beliefs to die out. And so I have no doubt it is still prevalent among many Jews - especially in Israel where violent lethal attacks against Jews by non-Jews are part of the neighborhood ethos.

I know there's nothing I can say or do that would convince one Jew who is held in thrall to that belief - that it could very well be the primary cause of the end of the short modern Jewish experience with self-determination. But there is also some truth in that belief - and to the extent it determines Israel's policies toward its enemies, the virulent hatred of Jews we see today in not only the Muslim ME but also among progressive elites in the West will probably be abated somewhat after Israel is destroyed. The Jews who survive then can resume their more comfortable existence as a people to be pitied rather than respected. And sadly, I suspect most of the rest of the world will find comfort in that as well.

[Bradlad]

84. Aside from . .

Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Aside from the stated reasons above for Israel staying on the WB there are also practical and tactical reasons that alone should prevent any person interested in Israel's survival and/or the welfare of Palestinian Arab civilians on the WB - from suggesting an Israeli withdrawal.

Khaled Abu Toameh provides a a very current and clear view of these reasons:

Will the West Bank Become the Next Islamic Emirate?

[pelsar]

17. but thats not true "every effort"....

They might, but then Israel would at least have the certainty that it made every effort for peace possible

the concept that "everyone will agree" simply doesn't work; just ask the "pro Palestinians here what defines "every effort" and you will get different opinions, and thats just here where the culture in general is western left.

now go ask a hamasnkim, PA member what defines "every effort" and you'll get different replies there as well.
___

there is no agreed upon withdrawal lines, that will produce a consensus: Biggest example is gaza. Before the gaza withdrawal the left mantra concensus was:

israel has to do something big to break the cycle of violence
israel has to withdraw, destroy settlements to show good faith (not all but some).

you will find every "pro Palestinian here repeating those statements over and over again, up until the gaza withdrawal. When Israel in fact did what they had been asking, and it failed, the mantra changed, their opinions didn't, but the mantra did. (and lots of defense for the attempts to murder israeli citizens)
______

hence looking at history, we find that the PA's response to western demands and israels agreement, cannot be counted on to produce anything but more violence....

[aranthus]

28. I'm only interested in what the great majority of Israelis think.

I think that the consensus in Israel is that the absolute most that Israel could give is Gaza and the WB. Jerusalem is out. RoR is out. Those are existential issues for Israel. Let's be clear. Real peace is only possible if the Palestinians and the Arab/Muslim world want Israel destroyed less than they want to stop the bloodshed. The thing is that no one knows if Israel's enemies are, or ever will be, ready to accept a Jewish state in their midst. The closest that we can come to finding out is to give the Palestinians the state that they claim to want, and then see what happens.

[azurnoir]

30. Poll: 64% of Israelis back continued settlement activity

A new poll suggests Israelis have shifted politically rightward, and have a more favorable view of the settlement enterprise and settlers in general compared with previous years.


The full findings of the survey, conducted by the Maagar Mohot Institutefor Dr. Miriam Billig and Dr. Udi Label of the Ariel University Center of Samaria, will be published on Thursday during a conference organized by the Samaria and the Jordan Rift Regional R&D Center. The poll sampled 568 respondents who live within the Green Line.
According to the poll, 64 percent of respondents said they support continued settlement activity in Judea and Samaria. Only 15% said they would support a full moratorium on settlement construction, down 20% from the previous year.

A sizeable proportion still supports some kind of an Israeli pullout from Judea and Samaria and more than a third (36%) would support a partial or full annexation of the disputed areas, captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. Fourteen percent would like to see the continuation of the current status quo in Judea and Samaria. Forty-two percent say the hilltop youth (who allegedly carry out vandalism against Arabs and IDF troops to protest terrorism and government policy on outposts) are a serious obstacle, with 22% saying settler leaders must have zero tolerance toward that phenomenon and combat other forms of unlawful behaviour.

http://www.israelifrontline.com/2012/06/poll-64-of-israelis-back-continued.html

[azurnoir]

29. lol no Pelsar the time has passed to "destroy the settlements"

you know that quite well, the settlements and settlers have accomplished their stated purpose to make a viable Palestinian state impossible, but now what? as I 've stated before you do indeed have your work cut out for you, making excuses for that, IMO Israel intends to keep the status quo forever and recent polls show the Israeli public supports that notion too, what is Israel to do, annex area c making the predictions of another Gaza a self fulfilling prophecy? The settlement enterprise has been a resounding success, but at what cost and more importantly as long as the US protects Israel do you even care?

[pelsar]

40. you misunderstood.... i was making fun of the "lefts" mantras

you do recall pre gaza withdrawal don't you? (which i was for, am still am)

land for peace.....

remove some settlements as a show of good faith"
break the cycle of violence to show good faith

remember those?..
please don't start with the actual lie (remember i have the numbers) of sudden increased growth in the wb (the growth there was consistent with no upsurge during or after the withdrawal

they didn't really bring in the events and consequences that were "expected" by the western left now did they?

and you expect us to do the same in the west bank, expecting different results?......
________________________

i don't need an excuse for the settlements and neither do most israelis, basically its no longer a front page issue.

the Palestinians have to fix gaza, get a strong PA govt that wont be taken over by hamas and then we might be interested, (in fact we now see "hamas" expanding in to the sinai as well)... we're not that interested in their games, we have no intention of risking kassams on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.

the risk of the "immoral" events that would follow a hamas takeover the west bank far outweigh the morality of the settlements. Clearly not for you, but you wouldn't have to face that reality on a daily basis with its consequences, hence you get to ignore consequences and just play in your world of international politics where all events by the "locals" lead to some kind of moral justice (irrelevant what they actually do).

(isn't that the "progressive" belief, no matter what happens, all events by the locals, no matter what, are justified and considered steps toward a more just world?)

[azurnoir]

50. no either you misunderstand or are trying to avoid

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2012, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)

I said that it was already too late a Palestinian state made of area's a and b isn't worth anything it's surrounded on all sides by a hostile state has no means of movement no water supply of its own and is still dependent on Israel's 'good will' in short another Gaza only worse at least Gaza has a coast line and more potential than the West Bank and then there the tiny little problem of dislodging settlers whom Israel has seen fit to arm with military issue assault rifles ect and who will fight anyone for settlements including IMO IDF

but pat yourselves on the back it is a case success but now what, as I told another poster when it comes to this Israel is a bit like the dog that caught the car it was chasing

[pelsar]

52. since when do i avoid anything here?....

has no means of movement no water supply

so if the Palestinians get a state, they cant use the aquifer beneath them? Seems to me if they have their own state, they also will be responsible for their own resources.

let me guess, your going to claim that the IDF will then re-invade if this new state uses too much local water?

much like your claim that israel would invade egypt if egypt opened its gaza border to the the gazans correct (did i miss the call up for the invasion btw?)
____

news flash: israel will no longer require the aquifers for fresh water....

[azurnoir]

56. you seem to miss the part about about movement

but that said the aquifer beneath them you mean the one the settlements have been flushing their sewage into?

you make many claims about my claims here and perhaps from years ago? and as of yet not completely unproven time will tell

[pelsar]

58. the'll put up their own roadblocks like hamas

they're freedom of movment has always been based on security: more bombs and attacks, more roadblocks...its a direct ratio since 1967.

all they have to is stop trying to kill us.....history, its the friend of those who are interested in basing their opinion on events and not beliefs.

and the acquirer? they get their own state, the do what they want with it....and like the shared water resources with jordan work out a plan to protect it with israel.
___

of course i repeat you claims of years ago, i believe if one makes a claim and its shown to be wrong one should have the guts to admit it....it goes to credibility

you were claiming for years after israel left gaza that israel still controlled the hamas/egypt border, if it wasnt via the money through congress, then it was a threat to attack egypt....

since egypt and hamas have opened and closed it countless times on their own, if you still believe israel controls it, i would say you get the official "believer award" meant of settlers, hamasnikm and other "religious based believers.

shall i make you a certificate?

[azurnoir]

59. and what will state look like as far as area goes?

so far you seem to support the area's a&b only which consists of disjointed villages separated by area c which weaves itself in between them? if you are speaking of a continuous area how will the settlers be removed?

other than that your comment is almost laughable, but it is interesting to see that apparently you equate Palestinians with Hamas, does that include those Palestinians with Israeli citizenship?

[pelsar]

60. Hamasnikim are Palestenians....

they are a "subgroup" of the "greater Palestinian culture....i though that was rather obvious. I have no idea what or why you play these word games about "what i mean" of if I'm avoiding some question...do you gets points for asking such ridiculous questions. If you attempting to show that i'm a racist or bigot, Ken already decided that, if you believe so, just say so, i have no problem even if you equate me with the "nazis" if that makes you feel better.
______

if and where there is peace i dont really see a problem with settlers and Palestinians living next to each other, driving on the same roads, passing through different jurisdictions as the go from work to play to home.

kind of like europe, once home to some of the largest killing fields known to man
---


just curious...still believe that israel controls the gaza/egyptian border?...

[azurnoir]

64. well

Hamasnikim are Palestenians....
they are a "subgroup" of the "greater Palestinian culture....i though that was rather obvious. I have no idea what or why you play these word games about "what i mean" of if I'm avoiding some question...do you gets points for asking such ridiculous questions. If you attempting to show that i'm a racist or bigot, Ken already decided that, if you believe so, just say so, i have no problem even if you equate me with the "nazis" if that makes you feel better.

No word game however Hamas seems your chosen point of reference whenever Palestinians are discussed as if Hamas is some all powerful entity that is supported by the Palestinian population at large when in fact they are indeed not, as to you being a bigot I don't know are you or are you simply an Israeli who wants to see your country 'grow' by any means necessary?
______

if and where there is peace i dont really see a problem with settlers and Palestinians living next to each other, driving on the same roads, passing through different jurisdictions as the go from work to play to home.



now that is almost funny, first you seem to believe that the Israeli government would allow IDF to simply abandon Israeli Jews in the West Bank or are you speaking of keeping Israel's military there?
Then of course we the settlers themselves now as I've pointed out before some are merely folks seeking a cheaper mortgage on a larger house, they're not really a problem at all

However some believe they are on a mission from G-d to restore the biblical kingdom of Judea and they're armed, well armed by IDF and I see them as a problem either way

kind of like europe, once home to some of the largest killing fields known to man

Hmmm just what vision or equation were you trying to invoke with that?


just curious...still believe that israel controls the gaza/egyptian border?...

NO and I never did what you seem to fail to understand is the word diplomacy and agreement under Mubarak kept the border closed for a number of reasons including Mubarak's friendship with Israel do you see the difference?

[oberliner]

69. Why do you write "G-d" ?

Just curious.

[azurnoir]

70. habit why it doesn't seem right the other way(s)

[pelsar]

74. hamas are a point not to be ignored...

i use hamas as an important point of where part of the Palestinian culture/history/governing style has gone. Personally i believe they are a very dangerous movement as i believe all religious movements are. The difference between hamas/MB/revoultionary guards vs the settlers is that they have actually taken the power and control governments.

The PA gets a mention as a non democratic movement as well, also not really supported by the Palestinians as far as I know.

my impression of the Progressive view here of "first nationalism, then civil rights" is one very dangerous viewpoint. The hamas take over seems to get an:

"aw shucks" attitude, thats not we had hoped for, but its ok, since its just means one step closer to a progressive liberal democracy since it was the Palestesnians that chose hamas"

well, i would like to say words fail me, but they don't. Hamas taking over is not "one step closer to democracy, its a step backward and toward continued violence both internal and out. God and friends, unlike democracy do not "evolve in to liberal democracies, they are against them and all of their values. But that point i have learned is not part of the "Progressive belief." The ironic part is just how similar the progressives/ hamas, etc are, in their beliefs where every change in the govt is just another step towards their own version of the govt of "nirvana."
____________

now back to your beliefs:....

However some believe they are on a mission from G-d to restore the biblical kingdom of Judea and they're armed, well armed by IDF and I see them as a problem either way

same beliefs were held in gaza and they too were showed to be wrong, not that, that even phases a true believer but for others who, when reminded of the same might recall that the violence by the armed settlers" was minimalized to one settlement, and even that was limited to one building, despite the very same beliefs that it would not go easy....(and a single soldier publicly refused to participate)

oops.....
_________


kind of like europe, once home to some of the largest killing fields known to man
Hmmm just what vision or equation were you trying to invoke with that?

i really have to spell it out?

WWI, WWII and the wars previous to that vs what it is now. No reason why one day the that cannot be here as well, and that mean no IDF soldiers......
__________

as far as the egyptian/gaza border, the question was if you still considered that israel might attack egypt if they dont keep the border closed.....you were pretty clear about that in your opinion, not to mention that israel might tell the US congress to cut off the funds-still believe those two?

and you still, today believe that when egypt opens and closes its border to hamas, no longer issuing visas, they are first "consulting" israel?
_________

you simply an Israeli who wants to see your country 'grow' by any means necessary?
the answer is no.

[shira]

54. Azurnoir, are you saying Israel can't offer the Clinton Initiatives or Olmert's offer anymore? n/t

[azurnoir]

55. has Israel shown any inclination to do this?

and how peacefully would you think the settlers would be in their removal?

[shira]

61. Please stop moving the goalposts. You keep claiming that with settlement expansion....

Last edited Sun Aug 12, 2012, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)

...it's now pretty much impossible for a real 2 state solution (similar to the Clinton Initiatives). Here are your words:

the settlements and settlers have accomplished their stated purpose to make a viable Palestinian state impossible

Now that claim is just a load of shit, isn't it?

What's changed since CD/Taba from 2000-01?

[azurnoir]

63. I take it the real anwer is NO Israel has shown no inclination to do this

what's changed from 2001? about 150,000 to 175,000 additional settlers or a near doubling of that population in the West Bank

[Scootaloo]

77. "The Gaza Experiment"?

Alright, then here's what Israel should do.

Shit, or get off the pot. At this point in history, two things are clear.

1) Israel's allies really don't give a shit what Israel does to the Palestinians
and
2) Israel's enemies don't really give a shit what Israel does to the Palestinians.

Since all you pro-Israeli authoritarian sorts are constantly conjuring up excuses for why everything Israel does is somehow justified... Fuck it, why not just advocate going full-out? You'll support it, the US and EU will either support or ignore it, and the rest of the Middle East will jabber uselessly about it.

Declare the West Bank and Gaza to be part of Israel. Send in all those fresh-faced Israeli kids just out of high school that Israel forces into the military, to either kill or be killed by the resistors. Sure, Ramallah might just have to become the Fallujah of the 2010's, but hey that's the price Arabs are going to have to pay so Israel can have the Israel that Israel wants, right?

Stop with this wishy-washy bullshit. Move in, or move out, stop with the "just hanging around."

[no_hypocrisy]

51. I don't think that Israel's going to give up an acre of the West Bank.

Not for religious reasons, not for security reasons as much as for the reason it needs water within that territory.

[pelsar]

53. israel wont be needing the water....

thats an old and no longer relevant claim

[azurnoir]

57. really now is it? which is cheaper desalination or simply pumping water?

more over Israel's colonies need the water don't they?

[pelsar]

62. cheaper than war.....

Last edited Sun Aug 12, 2012, 10:21 AM - Edit history (2)

yes water from desalination plants are more expensive than locally pumped water....and water from desalination plants are cheaper than war.

you've been pushing this "israel will go to war over water theory/keep the west bank for years now

...all you've got left is that the water from the desalination plants are more expensive than pumped water...
___

one thing nice about time and events is that is does get to show more about who we are:

you seem to have a problem with "letting go" of your beliefs, even when your supporting evidence proves to be false: our two obvious examples are the water an the gaza/hamas border, which is why i keep asking you and you dont reply:
__________

do you believe that israel controls the hamas/egyptian border still?
do you still believe israel must hold on to the west bank/jordan valley for the cheaper water?
____

[azurnoir]

65. again

cheaper than war.....

yes water from desalination plants are more expensive than locally pumped water....and water from desalination plants are cheaper than war.

you've been pushing this "israel will go to war over water theory/keep the west bank for years now

...all you've got left is that the water from the desalination plants are more expensive than pumped water...
___

What war, in the West Bank? no I have said that Israel wants to keep the water supply in the West Bank other than that I really do not know what your going on about

one thing nice about time and events is that is does get to show more about who we are:

you seem to have a problem with "letting go" of your beliefs, even when your supporting evidence proves to be false: our two obvious examples are the water an the gaza/hamas border, which is why i keep asking you and you dont reply:
__________

I think in this conversation I have indeed let go I have "let go" of the belief that that Israel has the ability and will to remove settlers and settlements in sufficient quantity to allow for a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank

do you believe that israel controls the hamas/egyptian border still?
do you still believe israel must hold on to the west bank/jordan valley for the cheaper water?
____

as I have told you numerous times in the past Israel controls Gaza's coastal waters and airspace as of right now Egypt control the border area between Egypt and Gaza under Mubarak they kept closed in part because of Mubarak's 'friendship' with Israel, there is a difference between diplomacy and force something you seem to fail to understand

and once again Israel wants to keep control of water in the West Bank

[pelsar]

66. and israel wants peace with its neighbors....

Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

and free energy, and no poor people and security....

and once again Israel wants to keep control of water in the West Bank

....because the water is cheaper to pump rather then desalinate? perhaps you would like to explain further at what cost israel will retain this water control, or is your statement just some bland, general statement of the israeli govt as some kind of attempt to hint at how evil the israeli govt is?, willing to preserve the occupation for cheaper water

so israel in your mind needs the westbank water because its cheaper and will spend many resources (army) to keep using it.

thats your argument?
what happens when the desalination plants go on line and the water is pumped in to the settlements to preserve the aquifer beneath the WB? your going to have to think of something else then wont you?
___

yes i noticed the change:
I think in this conversation I have indeed let go I have "let go" of the belief that that Israel has the ability and will to remove settlers and settlements in sufficient quantity to allow for a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank
this is actually an argument that has a point of view that I can understand, not necessary agree with, but at least it has some, in my eyes some merit.


________________________
Mubarak is gone and the Egypt has closed the hamas/gaza border...well? does Israel still control that border? Does egypt fear israel will attack if they open the border as per your past declarations?

or is it like every other border in the world....where the two border societies decide for for themselves what their own self interests are and have their policy accordingly

psst...we all know why you wont mention the "unmentionable"....that the gaza/egyptian border is controlled by hamas and egypt and nobody else...and they open and close the border as per their own interests.....and complain to each other and negotiate with each other for the opening and closing.....its ok, though, its pretty obvious at this point, so you can say it out loud.....

[azurnoir]

68. Israel wants quite a few things

and israel wants peace with its neighbors....


and free energy, and no poor people and security....

Israel has peace with 2 of its neighbors Jordan which borders the WB and Egypt, guess Lebanon needs some work though,there is already peace in the WB it is an enforced peace but it is peace none the less, if there was not Israel would not be encouraging it's citizens to move there

and once again Israel wants to keep control of water in the West Bank

....because the water is cheaper to pump rather then desalinate? perhaps you would like to explain further at what cost israel will retain this water control, or is your statement just some bland, general statement of the israeli govt as some kind of attempt to hint at how evil the israeli govt is?, willing to preserve the occupation for cheaper water

so israel in your mind needs the westbank water because its cheaper and will spend many resources (army) to keep using it.

thats your argument?
what happens when the desalination plants go on line and the water is pumped in to the settlements to preserve the aquifer beneath the WB? your going to have to think of something else then wont you?
___

now your claiming Israel will pump water from inside the green line to the settlements? I find that almost funny and to preserve the Jordan River aquifer yet? Preserve it for what exactly? If indeed Israel does this it would only be because the
settlements have grown to such size that the JRA can no longer supply them in the style the settlers have become accustomed to, and the costs will most likely be made up by a sharp price increase in water to Palestinians

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=13565

The discrimination in utilization of the resources shared by Israel and the Palestinian Authority is clearly reflected in the figures on water consumption by each population. Daily per capita water consumption in the West Bank for domestic, urban, and industrial use is some 73 liters. In areas in the northern West Bank, consumption is much lower. In 2008, per capita daily consumption was 44 liters in the Jenin area and 37 liters in the Tubas area.

There is a huge disparity between Israeli and Palestinian consumption. Per capita water consumption in Israeli towns is 242 liters and in local councils, 211 liters. In other words, per capita use in Israel is three and a half times higher than in the West Bank.

http://www.btselem.org/water/consumption_gap

yes i noticed the change:
I think in this conversation I have indeed let go I have "let go" of the belief that that Israel has the ability and will to remove settlers and settlements in sufficient quantity to allow for a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank
this is actually an argument that has a point of view that I can understand, not necessary agree with, but at least it has some, in my eyes some merit.

it is strange that you do not agree as it was the thread cited above that started to convince me this, Israel literally can not remove the 'settlers' without causing itself a near civil war not to mention the growing housing and associated economic crisis inside the green line also plays into this

Now understand this I am not a rabid one stater I would much rather see 2 states, but at this point it does not seem possible at least not without bloodshed and yes I do think the religious Zionist settlers would turn their weapons on IDF more over there could be somewhat of a mutiny within IDF itself, if there was a serious attempt to remove settlers in any significant number


________________________
Mubarak is gone and the Egypt has closed the hamas/gaza border...well? does Israel still control that border? Does egypt fear israel will attack if they open the border as per your past declarations?

or is it like every other border in the world....where the two border societies decide for for themselves what their own self interests are and have their policy accordingly

see comment # 64 I already answered that

[pelsar]

75. a simple technical explanation....

the water system of israel including the settlements use the national water carrier....that, like the electrical grid is a web like system that supplies israel with its needs.

hence like the electricity grid, the origins of the resources used are flexible.
now your claiming Israel will pump water from inside the green line to the settlements? I find that almost funny and to preserve the Jordan River aquifer yet?
which is why when there are other sources available as per the desalination plants, the suppling the settlements is just a matter of "turning a valve." They presently already get some of their water from within the green line

and jordan and israel share water resourcse already.

what your left with is a money argument....so you believe that Israel will use the army (a very expensive resource) to keep the cheap water supply?
____

as far as protecting the jordan aquifer...israel gets "high points" for its water management, already mentioned in previous threads.....so again we see your beliefs having no basis in reality.....

[azurnoir]

78. lol except that these fabled desalination plants do not yet quite exist do they?

oh there is the long standing at Ashkelon I think in the South but the others........as far the the grid goes that is how Israel charges Palestinians for what should their own resources

Besides it seems Israel has other plans for any excess water

Israel's national water company signed a financing agreement to build a desalination plant, which officials said could allow drought-ridden Israel to export water to its neighbors upon completion in 2013.

Israel's ADL, a subsidiary of state-owned Mekorot, will build and operate the plant in the coastal city of Ashdod for 25 years, supplying 100 million cubic metres of desalinated water annually, the Finance Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

Israel is two-thirds arid and to avoid further depleting its fresh water sources it has become a world leader in desalination and wastewater recycling.

The new Ashdod plant will join four other desalination facilities that to provide, by the end of 2013, 85 percent of the country's household water consumption.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-israel-desalination-idUSTRE7B50V520111206

however all these niceties apply to Israel not the territories the settlements get their water from the Jordan River, not to mention it said household water supply not agricultural and industrial water use which tends to run a bit higher, it was a valiant try but no wash Pelsar

now as to the settlers and their removal you bring up Gaza as an example but you seem to 'forget' there were around 8,000 settlers in Gaza in 2005 there are 350,000 in the West Bank and that number is growing there is really no comparing the two.

as to Hamas and Palestinians actually you did it again it seems almost reflex

[pelsar]

79. two are working and more are in the plans....

at least you've done some research and now understand that israel is not planning on being dependent upon the jordan acquirer....that would be the conclusion if it has enough plants to export water btw.

furthermore......
the jordan river, i.e. water from the kinneret has been way below the red line for a few years now, hence it can't be trusted as a source, which is one of the reasons for the desalination plants, not to mention the acquifers are not in such great shape either....

again we see why israel is building the desalination plants.

before you were saying that israel needs the water for the settlements because its cheaper, hence israel will stay in the westbank....what happened to that argument? still sticking with it?
_______

as far as the settlers go....i assume the blocks remain and the outposts/smaller ones would go, if and when there is an agreement. Are you saying as was said of gaza, that those settlers would use their weapons against the IDF?

and hamas and the PA.....they are both part of the Palestenian culture, in the westbank (40% voted for hamas in the university elections) and in gaza they won. Seems to me that makes them very will intigrated in to the society.

but more important to me, like lsrael leaving gaza (destroy settlements, make the big move,....) hamas taking over was a clarification of the progressive movement for me.

Up until then with all the talk of human/civil rights etc i believed that, the issue was in fact civil rights. With hamas taking over and the lack of subsequent "buyers remorse" and indirect support for hamas, i discovered that infact its nationalism that is the driving force behind the progressive support for the Palestinians. That aspect which hamas is most symbolic of, is a very important part of the this conflict and the motivation of those involved. Every one of your arguments has its foundation not in civil rights, not in human rights but in nationalism.....its good to keep that up front.

[azurnoir]

87. Desalination and the Israel-Palestine issue

But even with Israel meeting these ambitious targets, the notion that this will allow for any change vis-a-vis the Palestinians and the ongoing exploitation of their water resources is highly unlikely. There are several reasons this is the case:

For one, desalination is simply too expensive and even in the long term the most it can do is cover Israel's growing demand, rather than eat away at the share of natural resources that Israelis consume. Israel uses about 40 MCM/yr more than the natural replenishment rate of the ground and surface water they exploit, and it is assumed this will continue into 2020 despite the construction of more desalination plants, as population and economic growth will offset the increase in capacity.

In the short and medium term, desalination can only supplement existing sources and allow for Israel to meet demand in times of drought, which are becoming more frequent with climate change. Anything in excess will likely be used to rehabilitate existing aquifers and lakes, rather than replace them as a source. Many experts have already pointed out that far more effective, immediate and economically feasible results can be attained by tackling consumer demand, improving wastewater use and improving infrastructure such as leaking.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Furthermore, greater reliance on desalination presents security risks that Israel is unlikely to overlook. Relying heavily on such massive structures that are vulnerable to attack decreases the likelihood they will be allowed to become the main or only source of freshwater.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201281373146974754.html

the entire article should be read it covers the subject quite well, but in short it answers what does desalination do for Israels use of existing water not a whole lot and it does nothing for the Palestinians in the West Bank

now as for the settlers what part of 350,000 vs 8,000 are you attempting to divert from?

Reality? reality is that the settler population is far more represented in IDF these days. You have in the past stated that Israel will not remove any settlements and I believe you the proof is in Israel's actions such as expelling Palestinians from area C awarding buildings in Hebron to settlers (closed military zone is usually code for future settlement) and the so called natural growth of the settlements which has led from a settler population of about 112,000 in 1994 to a population of 350,000 today and that does not count East Jerusalem

[pelsar]

89. why do you do that?...some kind of point system?

You have in the past stated that Israel will not remove any settlements

this is not the american political campaign which apppears to be based on nonsense and attempting to "score points' by claiming the "other side" said such and such and has coded messages and really means something other then what they said....

so fukin pathetic

this is for you to "cut and paste" it will save energy by making my posts shorter since I will write less:

i suspect the major blocks will remain for economic/social/and security reasons, the smaller ones will go.

clear enough? Just use that in the future when you want to quote me.....
______________________________________

and the article?..jesus, you have to really want to believe what he writes to believe it....

here a few choice pieces:

As environmental awareness grows and the ramifications of marine and air pollution are better understood, we can expect some sort of backlash from the population that may limit the extent to which the Israelis will turn to desalination.

first he makes it up that desalination has definitive negative environmental ramifications, then he decides some "we" will have a backlash...who this "we" is i can only guess that hamas and friends will suddenly become "environmentally concerned.....

but the best....is the gaza acquirer which is in bad shape, so israel obviously has some nefarious plans for promoting that gaza have their own water purification plant...god were good: first we let the gazans ruin their acqufier then by proposing the same solution that israel has, we can "own" gaza, by threatening to destroy their water plant one day (and of course the writer forgot to mention that the acquifer will still be there and can be used the thwart the evil israeli plans. ooops
_________________
but this article was written just for you, it has what you love: its shows that israel can improve the environment, solve problems, even problems for the Palestenians and yet Israel can still have its "evil plans" which are the real motivations.

bottom line? the article ignores the basics: using sea water, reduces the use on the underground acquifers, letting them improve their quality which is good for everyone who uses that water and that is what you dont want to admit.

his numbers game...."water too expensive"....by how much? he neglected to mention

[azurnoir]

90. oops is correct lol

first you go on this little rant

You have in the past stated that Israel will not remove any settlements

this is not the american political campaign which apppears to be based on nonsense and attempting to "score points' by claiming the "other side" said such and such and has coded messages and really means something other then what they said....

so fukin pathetic

this is for you to "cut and paste" it will save energy by making my posts shorter since I will write less:

i suspect the major blocks will remain for economic/social/and security reasons, the smaller ones will go.

clear enough? Just use that in the future when you want to quote me.....

why? because in order to argue you had to change up? Besides how many comments on this thread alone have you either 'confused' or fabricated my stance on Gaza/Egypt, from years ago? Seems some can dish it out but...........

as to desalination what is the by product of this operation and what is being done with it?

and yes water from desalination is more expensive than simply pumping water. and the Al Jazeera article hardly "ignored" anything in fact it stated that Israel might use some of the water produced to replenish the aquifer, which would allow for its further exploitation by settlers , you dismiss out of hand the costs without of course presenting any evidence of your own perhaps MFA has an article showing us how desalination is really cheaper than pumping water in fact it costs nothing at all, or will even show a profit of course that is after it sold to a 3rd party for profit

but all in all you haven't proven much here rumor has it Migron is going to be evacuated, but that hasn't happened yet and I'm sure legal moves are being made at this moment to make that either impossible or perhaps it will declared a closed military zone by IDF just like a certain house in Hebron, in any event Israel has shown little compunction to make any moves towards removing settlements

it seems what you do not want to deal with is the reality Israel has created for itself and that is the settlement project has been a success a resounding one at that and it has accomplished its stated goals to make a Palestinian state impossible, but once again whatcha gunna do now?

[pelsar]

92. well?

why? because in order to argue you had to change up? Besides how many comments on this thread alone have you either 'confused' or fabricated my stance on Gaza/Egypt, from years ago? Seems some can dish it out but.......

so what is your stance on gaza?

how has it changed since before the withdrawal to now? if at all

[azurnoir]

93. omg already explained several posts back

remember telling the differences between diplomacy and force?

[pelsar]

96. try again....

you might notice the difference....when i am asked to explain and explain again, i understand that perhaps my explanation or wasn't clear enough or needs further detail. What i dont do is, since i've been asked again is make the assumption that my explanation was clear:

now clearly you dont have to try again, you dont have to explain with a bit more detail, but then why complain if I dont understand?
__

i asked about your evolution if any from previous to the withdrawal until now....you had quite a few statements back then, very vague about egypt not doing anything without israeli permission, threats of israeli attacks, cutting off the funds to egypt etc (again you were pretty vague).

so perhaps your opinion hasn't changed..or has it? A lot has happened since the withdrawal, it would be pretty sad if ones opinion hasn't changed since then......

[azurnoir]

97. what 'withdrawal' and from where?

I really can not answer your question when I do not know what your talking about

[pelsar]

98. the whole gaza experience....

from pre gaza withdrawal claims (these are general not necessary yours)
---israel must show good faith, remove settlements, stop the cycle

to post withdrawal
--- there was no negotiation (public) so the withdrawal "doesn't count."
--- israel still controls all of the borders and will attack egypt is necessary
----Israel will cause congress to cut off the funds to egypt if israel is "displeased with the border.'

to post withdrawl excuses
---- gaza is still occupied, israel controls ALL of the borders
---- kassams are only bottle rockets
---- gazans are starving, its a concentration camp, its the warsaw ghetto...
---- Egypt only opens the border when israel agrees
---- Egypt can't deliver goods, there is no infrastructure
---- it was a "ruse" to cover up increased population to the west bank
____________________________________________

the clarification is what did you believe before the withdrawl and what to do you believe now, if anything changed. A lot changed on the ground physically a lot changed in the politics and in the general balance of political/military groups.

Seems to me with all of those changes it would be a bit odd, if ones opinion didnt change to adjust to the those changes

the israeli population had a major political shift post gaza withdrawal

[azurnoir]

99. seriously back 7 years really?

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 05:36 AM - Edit history (1)

from pre gaza withdrawal claims (these are general not necessary yours)
---israel must show good faith, remove settlements, stop the cycle

none of the above on my part, didn't understand why Gaza alone was very important was somewhat shocked at the actions of the settlers though, however then I was still naive'

to post withdrawal
--- there was no negotiation (public) so the withdrawal "doesn't count."
--- israel still controls all of the borders and will attack egypt is necessary
----Israel will cause congress to cut off the funds to egypt if israel is "displeased with the border.

to post withdrawl excuses
---- gaza is still occupied, israel controls ALL of the borders
---- kassams are only bottle rockets
---- gazans are starving, its a concentration camp, its the warsaw ghetto...
---- Egypt only opens the border when israel agrees
---- Egypt can't deliver goods, there is no infrastructure
---- it was a "ruse" to cover up increased population to the west bank'
the clarification is what did you believe before the withdrawl and what to do you believe now, if anything changed. A lot changed on the ground physically a lot changed in the politics and in the general balance of political/military groups.

Seems to me with all of those changes it would be a bit odd, if ones opinion didnt change to adjust to the those changes

the israeli population had a major political shift post gaza withdrawal


again none of the above albeit some organizations still hold that Gaza is occupied and once I stated it for sake of argument, since Israel does control all of Gaza air space and coastal waters and all but one of Gaza's land crossings but attack Egypt if it opened the border no, I did see it as a distant possibility but not likely as Mubarak was not going to risk losing US funds and it would if it provoked Israel to attack, however that was not really even an issue till 2007 after Hamas took over as the EU was acting as border guards

now as to the times Mubarak did open the border when were those time during Muslim holiday especially allowing Gazans making the Haj cross, during Israeli incursions for humanitarian reasons such as people getting medical treatment? These were very limited openings and for things that really could not be complained about

as to Gazans starving there was widespread malnutrition in Gaza until after May 2010 and the Mavi Mamara incident after Israel loosened up some of what it allowed into Gaza, now we are not hearing as much about malnutrition but I really do not know if that is because of positive change or because attention is being paid to other things albeit I suspect the latter.

as of now we have a new government in Egypt and with that there has been a loosening up of the Rafah border, however this government is not ingrained in the what was ME's Western 'old boy's' network or as someone once said of Mubarak "he's bastard but he's our bastard" not so with Morsi but apparently the US considers Egypt important enough to not yet cut them off and he is an unknown quantity

[still_one]

76. They should stop the illegal settlements and they need to get back to the negotiating table now /n