Convergence to Palestinian dispossession

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The guiding principles of Israel's new coalition government agreed last week to free Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to pursue his big idea: "hitkansut," a Hebrew word embracing ideas related to "convergence," "consolidation" and "ingathering." In practice, it means Israel will begin shaping the final borders of the Jewish state over the next few years.

For Israelis, the plan has one main, traumatic outcome: some 60,000 Jewish settlers located in the remoter, smaller settlements will be forced to leave their homes, much as Gaza's settlers were made to depart last year. Israelis are braced for more tears, threats and pictures of flailing youths manhandled by soldiers.

In practice, however, the concessions required by consolidation will be slight. Israel's other 360,000 settlers (85 percent) will stay where they are now, in defiance of international law and protected by the West Bank barrier. The rest will either be moved to the main settlements or new homes inside Israel, probably in the Galilee and Negev, two traditional Arab heartlands Israel is publicly concerned to make more Jewish. The Labor Party, Olmert's main coalition partner, has signed up for the plan; in fact, its leader, Amir Peretz, the new defense minister, will be responsible for overseeing its implementation.

But what will this kind of "convergence" mean for the Palestinians, both the 3.8 million living in the Occupied Territories, including Jerusalem, and the more than 1 million who live as citizens of Israel?"

<snip>

"The long-delayed fixing of the Jewish state's borders - expanded ones, annexing a significant proportion of Palestinian West Bank land - will create a single state into which all Israelis will be gathered. The Palestinian state will be an entirely different affair. Rather than consolidating Palestinians into one state, the plan will create a series of communal enclaves - though to satisfy international expectations, Israel may collude in the pretence that these ghettos are a single state. The Palestinian experience might better be described as "outgathering," the converse of Israel's "ingathering." Each ghetto will have its own set of problems and issues, and the connections between each will be severely circumscribed, making meaningful Palestinian politics all but impossible."


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=24390

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

2. 'Convergence' = creation of 'bantustans' & annexation of land.

That point doesn't appear to have been understood, so I thought I'd helpfully explain what the
effects of this 'convergence' are.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. So now even Brit Tzedek v'Shalom is an apartheid movement?

Is that your position - that is really an apartheid movement comitted to creating Bantustans?

[Englander]

4. Nice non-sequitur/ad hominem/red herring.

Brit Tzedek v'Shalom campaign for an end to the occupation, & the creation of a viable Palestinian
state; I support Brit Tzedek v'Shalom.


'Brit Tzedek v'Shalom
Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

Founding Principles

1. The evacuation of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. These settlements are a major obstacle to peace, a tremendous financial burden to Israel and do little, if anything, to enhance Israel's security. The settlements constantly expose to danger the settlers themselves and the Israeli soldiers sent to defend them, and they bring grave harm to the Palestinians living under Occupation.

We call for bringing safely home to Israel the settlers from all settlements except those included as part of a negotiated and mutually agreed upon exchange of territories between Israel and Palestine in determining the final borders of both states.

2. The termination of terrorism and state-initiated violence against all individuals with special care being taken to avoid harming civilians. We seek to build a future in which both peoples use non-violent means to resolve social and political inequities.

3. A complete end to the Israeli military occupation of the territories occupied since 1967 in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem with border adjustments agreeable to both parties.

4. The establishment of a viable Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders alongside Israel with both states guaranteed the ability to maintain secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

5. The establishment and recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of both states. Such recognition must also insure unfettered access to all religious sites in Israel and in the future Palestinian state to all Jews, Muslims and Christians, regardless of the nationality or sovereignty of the sites.

6. A just resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem that takes into account the needs and aspirations of both peoples. Such a resolution is crucial to achieving a just peace, and therefore must acknowledge Israel's share of responsibility for the plight of Palestinian refugees while also respecting the special relationship between the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

7. The recognition that as Jews and U.S. citizens, we have a special responsibility to urge our government to pursue policies consistent with the requirements of a just peace for Israel and the Palestinian people.

http://btvshalom.org/aboutus/foundingprinciples.shtml

_______________________


The Pitfalls of Unitlateralism
By Marcia Freedman, President

There seems to be a growing acceptance that a unilateral end to the occupation through continued Israeli evacuations of the West Bank, though maybe not the preferred way, is nonetheless an acceptable way for Israel to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians.

It may be true that any end to as much of the occupation as possible is better than what we have now: no end in sight. But if so, the price is very high. There are predictable pitfalls to continued unilateral moves on Israel's part, accompanied by the tacit or explicit consent of the international community and with or without the concurrence of the Palestinian Authority.

If Israel alone determines the border between itself and the Palestinian entity, one has to assume that the long-term intention is to turn the "security barrier" into Israel's de facto final border. To assume that Israel is investing $2 million per kilometer to build anything but a permanent dividing line defies common sense.

If the planned route of the security barrier becomes the border, Israel will annex 8-10% of the West Bank, effectively cutting the Palestinian entity into four enclaves with freedom of movement between them largely dependent on Israeli politics and the military command. The hazards to Israel of such a course of action may not be immediately apparent, but in the long term it spells a very bleak future.

http://ga3.org/btvshalom/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=3481969#marcia

[Tom Joad]

8. Nice? Seems really bizarre to me. Whatever. Par for the course here

at the I/P forum.

[ShalachEtAmi]

5. Hamas has been given a choice to negotiate nt

[Englander]

6. Well, that's a breakthrough of sorts.

That the effect of this 'convergence' has been understood, that the result will be annexation
of land, & the creation of 'bantustans'. The question is why would anyone think such a policy
is a good idea, or should be supported?

[Scurrilous]

7. EU Opposes Israel's Unilateral Actions: Official

<snip>

"A senior European Union (EU) official on external relations on Wednesday expressed opposition to Israel's unilateral actions in resolving the Israel-Palestine issue.

"We strongly believe that Israel's legitimate security concerns cannot be met through unilateral action or decisions imposed by force: only a negotiated settlement will be sustainable," said Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy.

Ms Waldner voiced the EU's position in a speech to the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg of Fance. This is the first comprehensive expression of the EU's position on the Middle East after the Israeli elections.

"The EU would only support changes to the pre-1967 borders agreed by consensus between the Parties: we support a two-State solution leading to a final and comprehensive settlement of the conflict, with Israel and a Palestinian State living side-by-side within secure and mutually recognized borders," she said.

"We should underline to our Israeli partners the importance of refraining from actions that may prejudice final status negotiations," she added."

http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/706/2006/04/06/[e-mail]

[anoraksia53]

10. I can see why some people would

"think such a policy is a good idea or should be supported" but I can't see why anyone would think it would work.

[bemildred]

11. Yes, The motives are understandable enough.

Not necessarily laudable, but understandable; but why anyone would think that "unilateral settlement" makes sense, I don't get. It is simply the continuation of the present situation with an obfuscating name, and an assumption that it will all work out somehow. A combination of "stay the course" and wishful thinking.

[Tom Joad]

9. "Maximum number of Arabs in a minimum amount of Land. "

Very important article. What people need to keep in mind is that this has really been the strategy all along, way before Hamas came to power. Israel is doing all it can to minimize the number of Palestinians by making life miserable, and to concentrate the remaining Palestinians into small enclaves. Hence the Israeli Jewish-only settlements, and settlement roads resrved for Jewish-use only in the West Bank, will serve to break up the West Bank.

Gaza will remain cut-off from the West Bank, and from the economic center of Palestinian life, Jerusalem (the West Bank will also be cut off from Jerusalem, for the most part)

Tragically, much of the international community (or i should say, heads of state) will go along with this. Maybe not forever though. things change. We can make them change.