Zionuts

That was very poetic and it almost made me forget that Israel has a couple of hundred settlements with a few hundred thousand residents in the West Bank, covering, what, two fifths of the land, and is preparing to keep building these settlements that are all considered illegal by the international community and whose legality is defended almost exclusively by Israel partly on the basis of not recognizing any Palestinian sovereignty and having a belief that it is appropriate to acquire and retain sovereignty over land through the use of force even in the face of overwhelming international condemnation. Whew. That's certainly an old-fashioned and Biblical approach to love, but it's not one that flies today. Except in Israel :o

Did you forget about them giving up the Sinai, which is three times the size of Israel itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Did you forget about them giving up the Sinai, which is three times the size of Israel itself?

---

Wow you're right I forgot that Israel at the time may have needed and wanted peace with Egypt more than it needed or wanted a giant area of land, three times the size of Israel itself and difficult to defend, that still belonged to Egypt. But Egypt is Egypt and Palestine doesn't even exist :noob:

And if Israel gave back the West Bank and Gaza, you'd no doubt make the exact same claim there. How utterly hypocritical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

That was very poetic and it almost made me forget that Israel has a couple of hundred settlements with a few hundred thousand residents in the West Bank, covering, what, two fifths of the land, and is preparing to keep building these settlements that are all considered illegal by the international community and whose legality is defended almost exclusively by Israel partly on the basis of not recognizing any Palestinian sovereignty and having a belief that it is appropriate to acquire and retain sovereignty over land through the use of force even in the face of overwhelming international condemnation. Whew. That's certainly an old-fashioned and Biblical approach to love, but it's not one that flies today. Except in Israel :o

---

1. Settlements cover only 1-2% of the West Bank land area, almost all of the major population centers being near the Green Line. Even if you include areas effectively under their control, it's still less than 10%, and could easily be ceded in a final status agreement. The rest of Areas B and C (which have some level of Israeli military and/or civil control) are in Israeli hands because of security issues, not settlers. These could be easily ceded provided security guarantees were made (such as in the cession of the Sinai); Israel has already shown itself willing to remove smaller groups of more far-flung settlers.

2. I don't give two shits about what is 'considered' illegal by the international community, since Israel will always be 'considered' in the wrong by said community.

3. Israel's claim to the legality of the settlements rests on the (correct) assertion that Palestine was not a sovereign state in the past. It does not prejudice a current or future Palestinian state; it just suggests that the borders of said state are not by default the Green Line. This doesn't have any effect on the willingness of Israel to cede land or recognize Palestinian sovereignty in a final status peace agreement.



(Also, your assertion that the Sinai was difficult to defend is laughable. Crossing the Suez was not at all easy for Egypt in 1973, and Israel's use of the Sinai as a massive buffer so they could bring up reinforcements; Israel was happy to fall back from advancing forces in the Sinai because the geography gave them plenty of room to work with. Giving up the Sinai was a huge strategic loss to Israel (also, economic), but they did it for peace.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And if Israel gave back the West Bank and Gaza, you'd no doubt make the exact same claim there. How utterly hypocritical.

---

Look I realise that the merest whiff of imagined hypocrisy gets you all gaga but you have to try to keep a level head. You pointed out that Israel gave back the Sinai, and I assumed you were trying to say something about Israel's peace-loving character. My response to that is to observe that there may have been several reasons for that concession that have little to do with peace&love and that are, afaics, also not applicable to the situation with the present illegal settlements in the WB, never mind the Golan Heights. If Israel gave back the West Bank and Gaza, which it never will, I think I'd be more shocked than happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

1. Settlements cover only 1-2% of the West Bank land area, almost all of the major population centers being near the Green Line. Even if you include areas effectively under their control, it's still less than 10%, and could easily be ceded in a final status agreement. The rest of Areas B and C (which have some level of Israeli military and/or civil control) are in Israeli hands because of security issues, not settlers. These could be easily ceded provided security guarantees were made (such as in the cession of the Sinai); Israel has already shown itself willing to remove smaller groups of more far-flung settlers.

---

*shrugs* I have seen different figures for the percentage of land that is effectively under the jurisdiction of the settlers. Of course, the 40%-figure is by a political organisation that exists only to persecute honest Jews etc etc and we should believe the estimates offered by those who have absolutely no reason to be biased.

That said, I like the notion that it's good for peace to steal 10% of someone's property and to continue using that property as if it's your own even though you know such thieving antics are among the things that are, ostensibly, cause for anger.

Quote:

---

2. I don't give two shits about what is 'considered' illegal by the international community, since Israel will always be 'considered' in the wrong by said community.

3. Israel's claim to the legality of the settlements rests on the (correct) assertion that Palestine was not a sovereign state in the past. It does not prejudice a current or future Palestinian state; it just suggests that the borders of said state are not by default the Green Line. This doesn't have any effect on the willingness of Israel to cede land or recognize Palestinian sovereignty in a final status peace agreement.

---

Thank you at least for being honest about your irrationality and dishonesty. Thank you also for reminding me that interpreting international law, such as it may be, is the sole prerogative of the infallible and always-honest Israeli government even though it apparently has difficulties listening even to its own supreme court about domestic laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...legal_outposts

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...y-idf-1.449909

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the international community's opinion may to some small extent be a well-considered one that takes into account interpretations of international law that are maybe just a teensy weensy bit rational. Almost every single rational observer seems to have a belief that is for some reason diametrically opposed to that of Israeli politicians about eg. whether or not the 4th geneva convention applies to the settlement business and renders them illegal.

But, you know, sure, in tricky difficult-to-settle matters of law where all but one party agree to one interpretation, it is perfectly clear that we should go with the biased opinion of the lone dissenter because clearly he is being persecuted. It makes sense somehow.

Quote:

---

(Also, your assertion that the Sinai was difficult to defend is laughable. Crossing the Suez was not at all easy for Egypt in 1973, and Israel's use of the Sinai as a massive buffer so they could bring up reinforcements; Israel was happy to fall back from advancing forces in the Sinai because the geography gave them plenty of room to work with. Giving up the Sinai was a huge strategic loss to Israel (also, economic), but they did it for peace.)

---

So what you're telling me is that it would have made more sense, economically and wrt military strategy, to try to hold on to the sinai by force and attempt to exploit its resources rather than giving it back to its actual owners in exchange for not having to hold it by force, in exchange for getting free passage through the Suez Canal, etc? You're saying that it would have made more sense for Israel to keep the sinai if only Israel hadn't been so woefully sentimental?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Look I realise that the merest whiff of imagined hypocrisy gets you all gaga but you have to try to keep a level head. You pointed out that Israel gave back the Sinai, and I assumed you were trying to say something about Israel's peace-loving character. My response to that is to observe that there may have been several reasons for that concession that have little to do with peace&love and that are, afaics, also not applicable to the situation with the present illegal settlements in the WB, never mind the Golan Heights. If Israel gave back the West Bank and Gaza, which it never will, I think I'd be more shocked than happy.

---

In your opinion, what's the main reason Israelis refuse to give up the West Bank? Land grab?

Honestly?

I believe the primary reasons for controlling much of that land have to do with mostly legitimate security concerns. I suppose it could also be a bargaining chip, but I dunno how that'd work if the chip is viewed as being stolen to begin with.

I also believe that the reasons for continually building settlements on that land (an activity that is either wholly illegal according to international law, or just very often illegal according to Israeli law, and that may be an obstacle to peace for anyone who hopes for peace in the region) may be very different and rooted in eg. culture, religion, history, politics, feelings, and, yes, greed. As to the reasons Israelis may have had for depopulating villages etc, well, I won't venture any opinions on that and anyway it's water under the bridge etc. Maybe they were working towards getting separate buses for Palestinians and Israelis :downcast:

So if the primary reason is security, surely if the security threat went away, so would the primary motivation for wanting to hang on to that land? Sure, there's a certain part of the population that wants the land for religious reasons, but they're a minority.

Do you believe Israel will ever come to the conclusion that the security risk will be low enough to justify giving up the west bank and acknowledging either the '49-boundaries or those from '67? And what do the security concerns have to do with whether or not it is legitimate or desirable to continue building civilian settlements on that land?

You realize that Israel offered over 90% of the West Bank and Gaza in previous deals, right?

I've only seen that figure come up in unofficial reports-of-reports that were not confirmed. If it has been made as an official offer then it'd be interesting to know the details of those negotiations and see some information on just how they broke down.

The US and Israeli officials involved confirmed them...

Why is it relevant why the negotiations broke down? Your claim was that Israel has little intention of giving up the territory, something that the offer clearly refutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

And what do the security concerns have to do with whether or not it is legitimate or desirable to continue building civilian settlements on that land?

---

I agree. I would prefer Israel do a Gaza-style withdrawal on many of the West Bank settlements except for the mega-blocs, while obviously still retaining security and border control in the Jordan Valley.

Though I also truly believe many the settlements are, in some fashion, intended to create a security buffer in an area of strategic weakness for Israel. The dense center of Israel also happens to a very narrow strip of land. And it's so narrow because it's the lowlands -- the West Bank occupies a strategic high ground. In a militarized West Bank, this would put an enormous amount of the population within range of the kinds of rockets being used in Gaza.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The US and Israeli officials involved confirmed them...

Why is it relevant why the negotiations broke down? Your claim was that Israel has little intention of giving up the territory, something that the offer clearly refutes.

---

It is relevant because without some context it's difficult to assess whether or not this is a genuine "offer". For example, if the "offer" went something like this: "Sure, we'll give you back 90% of what's actually yours, but you can forget East Jerusalem, you can forget the Right of Return, you have to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state and oh yeah we're just going to keep building illegal settlements and destroying Palestinian property while we sit here and negotiate."

If you make an "offer" that essentially amounts to giving back things that are not legally yours to begin with, and condition that on terms that you know to be unacceptable to the other side, while simultaneously doing things that demonstrate a complete disregard for the wishes of the other side as well as for the spirit of the negotiations, then maybe you're not really making an offer and maybe you'll never have to go through with that "offer".

"Sure, we can give you back a whole 90% of your house that we took from you, but we're keeping the bedroom and bathroom, you can forget letting your kids move back, and oh yeah we're just going to keep molesting your wife as we speak. Deal?"

In sum, I believe this view is still accurate:

Quote:

---

If Israel gave back the West Bank and Gaza, which it never will...

---

And, given your earlier statement that the chances of peace between the two parties is presently (and for the foreseeable future) at 0%, you should agree.

I wonder if all the peace-talks have followed a similar pattern to this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2...an_peace_talks

http://youtu.be/_ZY8m0cm1oY

Is this inaccurate?

Probably about as accurate and informative as anything with the caption 'Great explanation of the constant rejection of peace by the Arabs and so called "Palestinians"' can be expected to be in the span of 11 minutes :noob:

Did you view it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Did you view it?

---

I did, and I believe it does injustice to all parties involved as well as to history.

It must be said however that it does a reasonably good job of describing how Palestinians have been shafted by other Arabs :o

Aside from that concession, which statements were incorrect in the video?

I will readily admit that it is a one sided view without any negatives put forth about the other side, but would like a more firm response than "injustice".

I don't think any of the facts that were presented were too incorrect. My issue is with how these facts are presented largely devoid of any context other than the underlying message that "Arabs are bloodthirsty assholes". Even if the video's creator had not been trying to push a biased view of history, it would have failed to be sufficiently informative given the time constraint, which prevents it from giving any helpful details about the many years of negotiations and the obstacles they faced, the many proposals and their respective advantages and disadvantages, the changing political climates etc. An example of this can be seen in the video's cursory and uninformative description of the negotiations between Abbas and Olmert.

It's disturbing that the video has such a crude approach to describing the history of the conflict ("Israel offers X% of land area", "Arabs demand Jew-blood"). By taking this approach, it paints an inaccurate picture of a supposedly homogenous and unchanging "Arab world" in which there are no--and have never been any--moderates, no regular people, no Palestinians. Ironically, it also fails to take into proper consideration the ambitions, the intransigence and the anti-Semitism of Arab leaders (and, sure, large parts of their constituencies) past and present. At the same time the video paints an inaccurate picture of a monolithic and unchanging "Israel" whose participation in the conflict is apparently limited to making increasingly awesome offers of MOAR LAND. It's as if the conflict's past has no influence on its future or on the political climates in Israel resp. Palestine.

When I say the video does injustice to all parties as well as to history I don't mean that I want it to apportion blame equally. I mean that it doesn't give a sufficiently nuanced picture of what's happened, and that, to me, is unsatisfying. If I were in middle-school and saw that video without any background knowledge, I would not be any more informed, after those 11 minutes had passed, about the major points of contention in the negotiations, the problems with the proposals (or even their benefits), the reasons negotiations kept breaking down etc. All I'd be informed of is that apparently all Arabs have a nutritional deficiency that can only be treated with copious amounts of Jew-Blood™.

I can swallow that.

My next question then what can Israel do? If there is nothing they can do to appease the Palestineans or their neighbors, why bother?

If we are to believe the official narratives and put them into context, the negotiations between Olmert and Abbas would be one somewhat-promising point of departure, if you can eliminate the violent activities of Hamas and other terrorist organisations. However, even if that narrative were accurate, the deal Israel proposed then would seem to be a non-starter for the present government and perhaps also for the public.

If Loki's right in his assertion that there's 0% chance of peace as things stand today, then the only suggestions I can make are to at least remove unnecessary obstacles to peace in the future, even if it'd only amount to a 0.5% increase in the chance of peace in the near term. Stop expanding settlements and outposts; be fair with the water; at least try to treat Palestinians on the WB well; work to strengthen the positions of Abbas and those like him wrt Hamas (good luck, after this latest war); keep a close eye on the changing tide of public opinion in Israel that, despite what some blue-eyed observers believe, is turning increasingly towards a normalization of hatred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Blockades always hurt a civilian population. It's obviously necessary to ensure that the civilian population isn't starved into submission (and plenty food, water, medical supplies, etc. are allowed into the Strip), but a legal blockade has no requirements to make life comfortable for civilians if there's a reasonable justification for the blockade (which, in the case of Hamas, there most certainly is).

---

Palestinians are being starved into submission, though. Can you see how they fault Israel (and the US by proxy)? Egypt used to be seen as a sympathetic neighbor until the whole Muslim Brotherhood dynamic changed.

Quote:

---

As for creating another generation of violent Palestinians, that was already going to happen. Those UNRWA schools everyone is so worried about are sites of vicious, racist indoctrination where terrorism and 'martyrdom' are praised and all Jews (not just Israelis) are vilified. The ongoing conflict obviously doesn't make things better, but I think the security concerns outweigh the reality that these kids are going to hate Jews irrespective of Israel's actions.

---

I disagree. It wasn't a foregone conclusion that all Palestinian children would grow up to be racist, anti-semitic, violent martyrs. But bombing or blockading civilians into submission is certainly no way to win hearts and minds.

Quote:

---

Uhm, there IS an official government; the PA is the civil service of said government, and the PLC and PA president are its government. There is a de facto state running in Gaza and Areas A/B of the West Bank, even if both Hamas and Fatah have ignored democratic norms in their administration thereof, that doesn't mean they don't run things.

De jure, recognized sovereignty won't really change anything absent a real peace agreement: the Palestinians are recipients of record amounts of international aid and are effectively recognized as a state for all intents and purposes.

---

Doesn't Israel have a duty to deal with the official PA government, even if that means Hamas or Fatah is in the mix? Seems like a convenient excuse to say they won't negotiate with "terrorists", knowing full well that terrorist groups have influence over so many things....even from places like Syria or Qatar that's been connected to weapons financing. :confused:

And it's disingenuous to compare the "record amounts of international aid" for Palestinians with what's been allotted to Israel. Millions don't compare to Billions.

A single state solution wouldn't be any easier, but I can understand why some people want that: it would mean all sides treating every civilian equally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

If Loki's right in his assertion that there's 0% chance of peace as things stand today, then the only suggestions I can make are to at least remove unnecessary obstacles to peace in the future, even if it'd only amount to a 0.5% increase in the chance of peace in the near term. Stop expanding settlements and outposts; be fair with the water; at least try to treat Palestinians on the WB well; work to strengthen the positions of Abbas and those like him wrt Hamas (good luck, after this latest war); keep a close eye on the changing tide of public opinion in Israel that, despite what some blue-eyed observers believe, is turning increasingly towards a normalization of hatred.

---

Why make any major sacrifices for such a tiny increase?

There doesn't have to be 100% Peace to peacefully co-exist, but 0% Peace is a threat to more than just Israel or Jews.

Loki, do you agree or disagree that the rest of the world (the US in particular) could get dragged into a full-blown, multi-national, military conflict....what we've previously called World Wars....if Israel doesn't cool its jets a bit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Why make any major sacrifices for such a tiny increase?

---

Apart from sentimental arguments such as "it's the right thing to do", and provided you've noted that I said "stop expanding settlements and outposts" rather than saying "give it all back at once", I can think of several reasons:

- 0.5% is infinitely greater than 0%
- It is a prerequisite for there being any chance of having successful negotiations ever, and negotiations are a prerequisite for peace (unless you just annihilate the other side :o).
- The change may make other advances more likely. Each tiny step forward may have a favorable impact on the chances of future steps forward.
- The probability of a payoff is low, but the promised payoff is extraordinary.
- According to some people only about 10% of the West Bank is occupied by Israeli settlements and outposts or under their jurisdiction, and only a tiny portion of the Israeli public is particularly attached to the civilian settlements, so it would be a minor sacrifice :o
- Strengthening the influence of comparatively moderate and sane leaders may pay off even before there's real peace.
- Trying to curb the spread of hardline or outright extremist views may reduce pressure on government to take unconstructive action and increase its freedom.





Do you believe any of the negotiations have ever come close to taking even a few faltering steps towards peace? If so, which aspects of those negotiations and the state of the conflict at the time do you believe advanced the peace-process and which aspects undermined them?

So you'd have a country make political, security, and economic sacrifices today in order to slightly increase the chance of getting something back in the future? That sounds rational to you?

Which security sacrifice are you talking about?

See Gaza. Decent chance of that happening in the West Bank if Israel eases restrictions on movement there and stops policing the area. Furthermore, expanding the settlements in certain directions gives Israel a stronger claim to strategically-important territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

So you'd have a country make political, security, and economic sacrifices today in order to slightly increase the chance of getting something back in the future? That sounds rational to you?

---

You didn't answer my question (maybe you have me on ignore status?) but countries weigh these decisions all the time and consider it part of International Relations, Statesmanship, Diplomacy.

As far as I can tell, Israel is the only small nation whose very existence is recognized, and protected, by the larger world. Smaller and weaker nations have border disputes all the time -- the political, global map changed dramatically after WWII, but also during the 21st century after USSR's demise, and then after the Arab Spring -- with countries trying to gain international legitimacy.

I can't think of any other nation with the same "automatic" protections that Israel has. It's always been a political dilemma how the west can help "new" nations like Georgia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine et al build and sustain themselves....while Israel has undeniable, indisputable, protective status.

Israel has a type of special religious and ethnic status that the US hasn't afforded to our own indigent, native American populations (Indians, Eskimos, Inuit). Western, "Judeo-Christian" double standards existed long before WWII and the Jewish holocaust, but we don't expect to see a massive uprising of native American Indian tribes when more than 6 million lives, or generations of linguistic/cultural/ethnic roots were obliterated.

Assigning certain groups to "Reservations", or relegating them to border prisons isn't the answer, either....since it means segregation over integration. The New World is a global world, and it's a very complicated, complex space to live in. Key word is global.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Look I realise that the merest whiff of imagined hypocrisy gets you all gaga but you have to try to keep a level head. You pointed out that Israel gave back the Sinai, and I assumed you were trying to say something about Israel's peace-loving character. My response to that is to observe that there may have been several reasons for that concession that have little to do with peace&love and that are, afaics, also not applicable to the situation with the present illegal settlements in the WB, never mind the Golan Heights. If Israel gave back the West Bank and Gaza, which it never will, I think I'd be more shocked than happy.

---

You first suggest that Israel is never willing to give back land under 'appropriate circumstances'. Then we point to the Sinai and Gaza, and you wave them away as saying it was in their interests to do so (and, apparently that Israel 'still occupies' Gaza). Of course it was in Israel's interest to give back that land! That's why they did it. It doesn't mean it wasn't painful - the Sinai involved uprooting a small number of settlers, but the much bigger concession was the massive security risk in handing over a huge strategic advantage to Egypt when it had already been abused to threaten Israel existentially. Ditto with Gaza, except without the existential threat (just a security threat to civilians).

Israel withdraws when it is in their interests to do so, full stop. They have shown the political will and technical ability to do so on several occasions, and have offered precisely what you sound so skeptical about (the WB and Golan) as well. I don't disagree that a withdrawal from most of the WB with territorial swaps to handle major settlement blocs will be challenging for Israel - due to political, security, and historical/cultural reasons - but I have zero doubt they would do it if they genuinely believed it would result in actual peace. Ever since Oslo, Israel has gone back and forth about just how close they are to such a circumstance, but the basic formula of land for peace has a majority of support in Israel, though the timing is hotly contested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

*shrugs* I have seen different figures for the percentage of land that is effectively under the jurisdiction of the settlers. Of course, the 40%-figure is by a political organisation that exists only to persecute honest Jews etc etc and we should believe the estimates offered by those who have absolutely no reason to be biased.

That said, I like the notion that it's good for peace to steal 10% of someone's property and to continue using that property as if it's your own even though you know such thieving antics are among the things that are, ostensibly, cause for anger.

---

B'tselem's numbers aren't taken out of thin air, but they do have a very expansive notion of what constitutes 'settlement land', which they themselves recognize. Obviously the 1% number of just the built up areas is also unrealistic. My litmus test is what percentage of the West Bank would Israel try to hold onto in a final status agreement (with mutual land swaps to compensate for the lost land)? The answer to that, based on repeated offers by Israel and lots of analysis by others, suggests it's just under 10%.

I dispute your assertion that the 10% is anyone's 'property', or that it's specifically Palestinian. In the absence of past sovereignty (there hasn't been a sovereign power there since the Ottomans since the British were caretakers), the only claims to the land are from personal property. I agree wholeheartedly that personal property rights need to be respected, and that at times settlements (especially outposts) do not pay enough attention to this. There are legal complexities to many of the claims, but this is a serious issue that should be respected (though it is not a matter of international law). For so-called state or community property under the Ottomans, however, I would hesitate to suggest it's 'Palestinian' in anything more than the context of negotiations. And certainly for settlements built on land that used to house Jewish villages before 1948 (such as much of Gush Etzion), I feel no qualms whatsoever in declaring the land to be definitively Jewish, if not necessarily Israeli.

Point being that you're coming at this from a specific perspective, that all of the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem 'belongs' to Palestinians. My approach is that much of it belongs to individual Palestinians, and that for the sake of peace it's necessary to form a state on much of that land as well. But that's a far cry from saying that every inch of the WB and Gaza belongs by law to 'them', whoever that is. (I think that building in the Golan is a much more challenging issue, though it is actually far less controversial inside Israel.)

I freely recognize that the reality of land rights in Israel are complicated. Not only are claims stretching back to the Ottomans incredibly unclear, there was also all sorts of population movements (forceful and otherwise) that depopulated Jewish and Arab villages in 1948. In addition, the status of the territories is complex and largely unprecedented (why Israel prefers the term 'disputed' because the legal reality is murky). In such a circumstance, I agree fully that Israel should exercise caution in building settlements on such disputed land - not because it's theft (unless taken from private property), or because it's wrong - but because in such a complex environment, it adds unnecessary complications to an already messy situation. I understand why the major settlement blocs were created - mostly for a mix of security and political aims - and given the current reality I have no particular issue with Israel trying to hold on to said blocs (and build inside them) in a final status solution. Outside those blocs, I think that most outposts are now not being established or expanded on the basis of carefully considered security concerns, and are more driven by internal politics and inertia. In that context, they should be curtailed - not because they are by definition wrong (though they might be, depending on the circumstances), but because they do not serve a strategic purpose and needlessly complicate the situation.

I would like to think that this is a largely pragmatic and reasonable position to take, that doesn't stake out uncompromising positions like 'this is my land' or 'you stole my land'. I would encourage you to consider it in that light.

Quote:

---

Thank you at least for being honest about your irrationality and dishonesty. Thank you also for reminding me that interpreting international law, such as it may be, is the sole prerogative of the infallible and always-honest Israeli government even though it apparently has difficulties listening even to its own supreme court about domestic laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...legal_outposts

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...y-idf-1.449909

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the international community's opinion may to some small extent be a well-considered one that takes into account interpretations of international law that are maybe just a teensy weensy bit rational. Almost every single rational observer seems to have a belief that is for some reason diametrically opposed to that of Israeli politicians about eg. whether or not the 4th geneva convention applies to the settlement business and renders them illegal.

But, you know, sure, in tricky difficult-to-settle matters of law where all but one party agree to one interpretation, it is perfectly clear that we should go with the biased opinion of the lone dissenter because clearly he is being persecuted. It makes sense somehow.

---

I will again ask you to please refrain from ad hominem attacks. I am becoming ever-less interested in pursuing this conversation based on your tone.

I recognize that there are many ways to view the unique situation that is the Palestinian territories. I think you misread Israeli law on this issue, of course; most of the cases you refer to discuss illegal outposts, not government-approved settlements, and are largely concerned with issues of procedure and property rights of Palestinians in the territories. That doesn't mean all Israeli settlements are legal in Israel's courts, but it does suggest that they often consider settlements in general to be legal from an int'l law perspective, but that in specific circumstances argue they are not legal for a variety of reasons. There are Israeli jurists who disagree with this consensus, of course, as do many in the Israeli public. But I don't think there is anything like a popular consensus in Israeli courts that settlements as an enterprise are illegal.

As for the rest of the world, I think popularity contests do not always determine who is right. My dismissive reaction earlier was based on the fact that whatever Israel is likely to do, they will face widespread international condemnation and claims of violations of international law. Palestinians in particular and the Arab world in general have been very adept at harnessing international institutions towards this end, and have successfully recast Israel as a throwback colonialist, rather than a country put in a difficult situation by an absolutely intolerable security threat.

Regardless, let us say I were to agree with you - establishing any settlement, on any part of the West Bank, is manifestly illegal. So what? You could cavil along about how they're illegitimate, but the fact of the matter is that most of them are densely populated, near the border, and not ideological in nature. Today, it makes far more sense to figure out how to make an accommodation that works for everyone (such as land swaps) rather than waste our time on finger pointing. There are untold violations of international law that have gone on in the Israeli-Arab conflicts, including any number by Israel. We could keep on arguing about it, or work our a reasonable solution.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I do believe that pragmatically Israel should not expand settlements outside the major blocs, and should remove illegal, 'unauthorized' ones immediately. Other small, authorized settlements should not be allowed to expand, but I think they should not be removed entirely until a final status agreement is reached, for simple reasons of negotiating positions. That may practically reduce tensions with the PA, and could help move negotiations forward. That, however, does not mean I necessarily think the enterprise itself is illegal. Questions of legality obscure a useful path forward towards peace.

Quote:

---

So what you're telling me is that it would have made more sense, economically and wrt military strategy, to try to hold on to the sinai by force and attempt to exploit its resources rather than giving it back to its actual owners in exchange for not having to hold it by force, in exchange for getting free passage through the Suez Canal, etc? You're saying that it would have made more sense for Israel to keep the sinai if only Israel hadn't been so woefully sentimental?

---

See above: obviously Israel thought it was in their interest to cede the Sinai, despite the significant economic losses and strategic risk. It had nothing to do with sentimentality, but rather cold calculation (if anything, evacuating Yamit was so challenging that an emotional decision would have precluded a deal). What I don't understand is why you don't think Israel can make the same calculation in other circumstances, when they've clearly shown they can do it in the case of Sinai and Gaza, and have agreed in principle to it in the case of the WB (and, sometimes, the Golan).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Do you believe Israel will ever come to the conclusion that the security risk will be low enough to justify giving up the west bank and acknowledging either the '49-boundaries or those from '67? And what do the security concerns have to do with whether or not it is legitimate or desirable to continue building civilian settlements on that land?

---

Israel feels - probably correctly - that the presence of settlements in strategic areas (e.g. the heights overlooking Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, parts of the Jordan Valley, etc.) adds to security in a way that military forces do not. I think that they would feel comfortable evacuating all of the non-bloc settlements, however, if certain conditions were met - a demilitarized and unified PA, full recognition of Israel, deals on a few sticky issues, etc. Moving the really big blocs may be politically and logistically difficult, but those are largely not a big obstacle, being close to the Green Line, and allowing for appropriate swaps. Since negotiations have never gotten this far (due to a lot of reasons), Israel has not done so yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

It is relevant because without some context it's difficult to assess whether or not this is a genuine "offer". For example, if the "offer" went something like this: "Sure, we'll give you back 90% of what's actually yours, but you can forget East Jerusalem, you can forget the Right of Return, you have to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state and oh yeah we're just going to keep building illegal settlements and destroying Palestinian property while we sit here and negotiate."

If you make an "offer" that essentially amounts to giving back things that are not legally yours to begin with, and condition that on terms that you know to be unacceptable to the other side, while simultaneously doing things that demonstrate a complete disregard for the wishes of the other side as well as for the spirit of the negotiations, then maybe you're not really making an offer and maybe you'll never have to go through with that "offer".

"Sure, we can give you back a whole 90% of your house that we took from you, but we're keeping the bedroom and bathroom, you can forget letting your kids move back, and oh yeah we're just going to keep molesting your wife as we speak. Deal?"

---

See my comments above about 'Palestinian land', but I think you'll find that Israel is remarkably flexible on some of those issues. A narrowly construed right of return - to apply only to Palestinian refugees who actually meet the UNHCR definition, rather than the absurd UNRWA definition - would mean Israel would have to accept back only a few thousand Palestinians, if that. I think mutual recognition is kinda the point here, and I think it's reasonable for Israel to expect an unequivocal recognition as part of a final status deal - honestly, Israel's only getting 'peace' which is nice but can be taken away in a minute. Formal recognition and ties are necessary. Jerusalem is the last real sticking point - and even here I think there's some flexibility on the part of Israeli negotiators (though they won't discuss it until later, by and large). Barak in 2000 offered a messy and complex deal that would have shared the capital - I suspect it would have needed a lot of further negotiation to make it work, but as a starting offer it was remarkably flexible... and was largely shouted down by the Palestinians demanding complete control of E. Jerusalem, including Jewish holy places and neighborhoods. With appropriate negotiating partners, I suspect a deal could be made.

I have no doubt that the Palestinians won't get all of what they want, but they'll get most of it - and that's why it's called a negotiation. Palestinians demanding they have 'rights' to every single demand is just as bad as the nutso settlers in Hebron who think all of Biblical Israel must be a part of the State of Israel. It's not a way to run a negotiation, nor is it a viable path forward towards peace. I suspect Abbas - were he more powerful and able to credibly deliver peace - may indeed be able to make something work - but in the absence of such credibility, negotiations are pretty much a waste of time.

(to be continued)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Palestinians are being starved into submission, though. Can you see how they fault Israel (and the US by proxy)? Egypt used to be seen as a sympathetic neighbor until the whole Muslim Brotherhood dynamic changed.

---

They have plenty of food.

Quote:

---

I disagree. It wasn't a foregone conclusion that all Palestinian children would grow up to be racist, anti-semitic, violent martyrs. But bombing or blockading civilians into submission is certainly no way to win hearts and minds.

---

They're not destined to, no, but the indoctrination they received - wholly independent of Israel's actions - is more than enough to turn them into that. I don't think every Palestinian child become a suicide bomber, but I also don't think that those who do did so mostly because of Israel's actions.

Quote:

---

Doesn't Israel have a duty to deal with the official PA government, even if that means Hamas or Fatah is in the mix? Seems like a convenient excuse to say they won't negotiate with "terrorists", knowing full well that terrorist groups have influence over so many things....even from places like Syria or Qatar that's been connected to weapons financing. :confused:

---

Israel does negotiate with terrorists - such as the PLO and Fatah - but generally only ones that aren't irretrievably ideological in their opposition to a two state solution. Hamas isn't even close to being a reasonable partner to work with. Don't just ask me - ask Israeli peacnik Amos Oz: http://www.dw.de/oz-lose-lose-situat...ael/a-17822511

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Apart from sentimental arguments such as "it's the right thing to do", and provided you've noted that I said "stop expanding settlements and outposts" rather than saying "give it all back at once", I can think of several reasons:

- 0.5% is infinitely greater than 0%
- It is a prerequisite for there being any chance of having successful negotiations ever, and negotiations are a prerequisite for peace (unless you just annihilate the other side :o).
- The change may make other advances more likely. Each tiny step forward may have a favorable impact on the chances of future steps forward.
- The probability of a payoff is low, but the promised payoff is extraordinary.
- According to some people only about 10% of the West Bank is occupied by Israeli settlements and outposts or under their jurisdiction, and only a tiny portion of the Israeli public is particularly attached to the civilian settlements, so it would be a minor sacrifice :o
- Strengthening the influence of comparatively moderate and sane leaders may pay off even before there's real peace.
- Trying to curb the spread of hardline or outright extremist views may reduce pressure on government to take unconstructive action and increase its freedom.

Do you believe any of the negotiations have ever come close to taking even a few faltering steps towards peace? If so, which aspects of those negotiations and the state of the conflict at the time do you believe advanced the peace-process and which aspects undermined them?

---

Israel does 'confidence building' measures all of the time, under US pressure - easing restrictions on movement, settlement construction freezes, dismantling settlements, releasing convicted terrorists, etc. It's a common theme in negotiations (Israel does something to build confidence, Palestinians who have either no power or no interest in peace come to the table for some fruitless discussions) and hasn't worked in the last 2+ decades. I think that some of the things you mentioned Israel should be doing anyhow, but anything with serious security ramifications should be off the table by now, IMO. That includes prisoner releases and easing restriction more than Shabak suggests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

You first suggest that Israel is never willing to give back land under 'appropriate circumstances'. Then we point to the Sinai and Gaza, and you wave them away as saying it was in their interests to do so (and, apparently that Israel 'still occupies' Gaza). Of course it was in Israel's interest to give back that land! That's why they did it. It doesn't mean it wasn't painful - the Sinai involved uprooting a small number of settlers, but the much bigger concession was the massive security risk in handing over a huge strategic advantage to Egypt when it had already been abused to threaten Israel existentially. Ditto with Gaza, except without the existential threat (just a security threat to civilians).

Israel withdraws when it is in their interests to do so, full stop. They have shown the political will and technical ability to do so on several occasions, and have offered precisely what you sound so skeptical about (the WB and Golan) as well. I don't disagree that a withdrawal from most of the WB with territorial swaps to handle major settlement blocs will be challenging for Israel - due to political, security, and historical/cultural reasons - but I have zero doubt they would do it if they genuinely believed it would result in actual peace. Ever since Oslo, Israel has gone back and forth about just how close they are to such a circumstance, but the basic formula of land for peace has a majority of support in Israel, though the timing is hotly contested.

---

I'm sorry, I thought it would be clear from the exchange that I was addressing Loki's implicit claim that Israel's willingness to give back the Sinai said anything meaningful about Israel's peace-loving character in the context of the conflict with the Palestinians. Israel today is different from Israel back then, the Sinai is different from the WB, the Palestinians are different from the Egyptians, etc etc. If you read my previous posts as implying that Israel covets all land everywhere at all times even when it'd be detrimental to its interests then that was in error. My contention is not that Israel will never give up any land ever in general, it is that it is currently and for the foreseeable future unwilling to give back land to the Palestinians. I included Gaza in that sentence by mistake, because I was quoting Loki. I don't know if it was truly in Israel's best interest to "leave" Gaza.

Quote:

---

B'tselem's numbers aren't taken out of thin air, but they do have a very expansive notion of what constitutes 'settlement land', which they themselves recognize. Obviously the 1% number of just the built up areas is also unrealistic. My litmus test is what percentage of the West Bank would Israel try to hold onto in a final status agreement (with mutual land swaps to compensate for the lost land)? The answer to that, based on repeated offers by Israel and lots of analysis by others, suggests it's just under 10%.

---

If settlement-land truly covers 10% then giving up 90% is no major concession based on how things stand today. However, I do not believe it is reasonable to say that settlement-land covers only ca 10% on the basis of descriptions of peace-talks where that 10% is also said to cover 60-80% of the settler population and also based on reports that, in the midst of peace-talks, approval was given for building on land that would not even be covered by the deals the Israelis were offering.

The figures you dispute don't only consider what is actively-used settlement land but also which areas are supposedly under the jurisdiction of eg. the various municipalities, and I would assume they get that information from whatever the municipalities themselves assert rather than by hiding in the grass with binoculars making notes of the comings and goings of stray settlers :noob:

Quote:

---

I dispute your assertion that the 10% is anyone's 'property', or that it's specifically Palestinian. In the absence of past sovereignty (there hasn't been a sovereign power there since the Ottomans since the British were caretakers), the only claims to the land are from personal property. I agree wholeheartedly that personal property rights need to be respected, and that at times settlements (especially outposts) do not pay enough attention to this. There are legal complexities to many of the claims, but this is a serious issue that should be respected (though it is not a matter of international law). [...] Point being that you're coming at this from a specific perspective, that all of the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem 'belongs' to Palestinians. My approach is that much of it belongs to individual Palestinians, and that for the sake of peace it's necessary to form a state on much of that land as well. But that's a far cry from saying that every inch of the WB and Gaza belongs by law to 'them', whoever that is.

---

My phrasing was based on what I assumed is the Palestinian perspective, from which it would amount to offering to give back something that they already believe is theirs by law.

Quote:

---

I will again ask you to please refrain from ad hominem attacks. I am becoming ever-less interested in pursuing this conversation based on your tone.

---

You'll have to try to give at least two polite shits about international opinion in the future in that case.

Quote:

---

I recognize that there are many ways to view the unique situation that is the Palestinian territories. I think you misread Israeli law on this issue, of course; most of the cases you refer to discuss illegal outposts, not government-approved settlements, and are largely concerned with issues of procedure and property rights of Palestinians in the territories. That doesn't mean all Israeli settlements are legal in Israel's courts, but it does suggest that they often consider settlements in general to be legal from an int'l law perspective, but that in specific circumstances argue they are not legal for a variety of reasons. There are Israeli jurists who disagree with this consensus, of course, as do many in the Israeli public. But I don't think there is anything like a popular consensus in Israeli courts that settlements as an enterprise are illegal.

---

I don't think there is any consensus in the Israeli courts that settlements are illegal in general, nor do I think they are consistent in how they view applicable international law. My point was that the Israeli govt. apparently has difficulties even acknowledging the rulings and the criticisms of its own courts and commissions--eg. when they find that illegal settlements and outposts have been built with the tacit or explicit approval of the relevant agencies, or when they rule that a settlement or outpost must be dismantled only to find that the ruling is not enforced in time or at all--and that I therefore distrust their ability or inclination to parse or implement international law that may pertain to the issue of the settlements. Just as you and others may be dismissive of international opinion on the basis of eg. its supposedly unfounded and irrational anti-Israel bias, I reserve the right to view Israel's opinions on its activities--and how well they mesh with international law--with some skepticism.

Quote:

---

Regardless, let us say I were to agree with you - establishing any settlement, on any part of the West Bank, is manifestly illegal. So what? You could cavil along about how they're illegitimate, but the fact of the matter is that most of them are densely populated, near the border, and not ideological in nature. Today, it makes far more sense to figure out how to make an accommodation that works for everyone (such as land swaps) rather than waste our time on finger pointing. There are untold violations of international law that have gone on in the Israeli-Arab conflicts, including any number by Israel. We could keep on arguing about it, or work our a reasonable solution.

---

I think it is difficult to arrive at a reasonable solution if, while you ostensibly attempt to find a solution, you simultaneously go against the spirit of that very endeavour by continuing and worsening a situation that is manifestly a major point of contention and that has been identified as one of the more important obstacles to peace. I think that the recent constellations of Palestinian negotiators were on the whole pragmatic about the solution wrt the land in the WB, but I think that it is difficult for them to continue being pragmatic when Israel expands its settlements to disputed areas in the midst of holding negotiations.

Quote:

---

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I do believe that pragmatically Israel should not expand settlements outside the major blocs, and should remove illegal, 'unauthorized' ones immediately. Other small, authorized settlements should not be allowed to expand, but I think they should not be removed entirely until a final status agreement is reached, for simple reasons of negotiating positions.

---

Like I said, you don't have to remove them immediately before a deal has been reached, but the least you can do is to not expand them or create new ones while you're allegedly trying to reach an agreement.

Quote:

---

See above: obviously Israel thought it was in their interest to cede the Sinai, despite the significant economic losses and strategic risk. It had nothing to do with sentimentality, but rather cold calculation (if anything, evacuating Yamit was so challenging that an emotional decision would have precluded a deal). What I don't understand is why you don't think Israel can make the same calculation in other circumstances, when they've clearly shown they can do it in the case of Sinai and Gaza, and have agreed in principle to it in the case of the WB (and, sometimes, the Golan).

---

As I said earlier, it's not that I don't think Israel can't, it's that I don't believe the situation wrt the Palestinian territories is such that Israel needs to or even wants to, now and for the foreseeable future, and certainly not with its present political makeup.

Quote:

---

Israel feels - probably correctly - that the presence of settlements in strategic areas (e.g. the heights overlooking Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, parts of the Jordan Valley, etc.) adds to security in a way that military forces do not. I think that they would feel comfortable evacuating all of the non-bloc settlements, however, if certain conditions were met - a demilitarized and unified PA, full recognition of Israel, deals on a few sticky issues, etc. Moving the really big blocs may be politically and logistically difficult, but those are largely not a big obstacle, being close to the Green Line, and allowing for appropriate swaps. Since negotiations have never gotten this far (due to a lot of reasons), Israel has not done so yet.

---

It's a shame it has to be all or nothing, but, at the same time, that approach did allegedly get Olmert and Abbas right on the verge of signing an agreement so maybe it'll eventually get you there sometime in the future.

Quote:

---

See my comments above about 'Palestinian land', but I think you'll find that Israel is remarkably flexible on some of those issues. A narrowly construed right of return - to apply only to Palestinian refugees who actually meet the UNHCR definition, rather than the absurd UNRWA definition - would mean Israel would have to accept back only a few thousand Palestinians, if that. I think mutual recognition is kinda the point here, and I think it's reasonable for Israel to expect an unequivocal recognition as part of a final status deal - honestly, Israel's only getting 'peace' which is nice but can be taken away in a minute. Formal recognition and ties are necessary. Jerusalem is the last real sticking point - and even here I think there's some flexibility on the part of Israeli negotiators (though they won't discuss it until later, by and large). Barak in 2000 offered a messy and complex deal that would have shared the capital - I suspect it would have needed a lot of further negotiation to make it work, but as a starting offer it was remarkably flexible... and was largely shouted down by the Palestinians demanding complete control of E. Jerusalem, including Jewish holy places and neighborhoods. With appropriate negotiating partners, I suspect a deal could be made.

---

I have been wondering about that issue of recognition, because at times the Palestinian refusal has been cast as nothing more than anti-Semitism and obstinacy, and at times I've been given the impression that the issue is with recognising Israel as a Jewish state which for some reason is against the Palestinian agenda. I have assumed that that conflict would have something to do with either the non-Jewish Arabs in Israel or with the issue of returning refugees.

Quote:

---

I have no doubt that the Palestinians won't get all of what they want, but they'll get most of it - and that's why it's called a negotiation. Palestinians demanding they have 'rights' to every single demand is just as bad as the nutso settlers in Hebron who think all of Biblical Israel must be a part of the State of Israel. It's not a way to run a negotiation, nor is it a viable path forward towards peace. I suspect Abbas - were he more powerful and able to credibly deliver peace - may indeed be able to make something work - but in the absence of such credibility, negotiations are pretty much a waste of time.

---

Then help him become more powerful and credible already :o

I agree with minx's sentiments. If Israel wants to defend and protect itself from existential threats, they should concern themselves with Palestinian needs, and negotiate with the PA leadership. Al Abbas is the kind of moderate/centrist Palestinian leader that Israel has claimed to want for decades. And Egypt has the anti-Muslim Brotherhood administration they've also wanted for years. Put the two together....and it's worth asking WTF Israel is doing, or what position the US should take. :sour:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You didn't answer my question (maybe you have me on ignore status?) but countries weigh these decisions all the time and consider it part of International Relations, Statesmanship, Diplomacy.

As far as I can tell, Israel is the only small nation whose very existence is recognized, and protected, by the larger world. Smaller and weaker nations have border disputes all the time -- the political, global map changed dramatically after WWII, but also during the 21st century after USSR's demise, and then after the Arab Spring -- with countries trying to gain international legitimacy.

---

East Timor immediately springs to mind. Taiwan arguably serves as an example, the same might be said for Cyprus going in the other direction. Israel is fairly unique in that it is a highly developed country beleaguered by weaker and less developed enemies and does not have any major-power enemy involved in the conflict/tensions.

I'm not going to get dragged into the the rest but the above was just factually inaccurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I have been wondering about that issue of recognition, because at times the Palestinian refusal has been cast as nothing more than anti-Semitism and obstinacy, and at times I've been given the impression that the issue is with recognising Israel as a Jewish state which for some reason is against the Palestinian agenda. I have assumed that that conflict would have something to do with either the non-Jewish Arabs in Israel or with the issue of returning refugees.

---

I think a statement you made earlier (albeit, one you directed at the other side) would apply here.

"If you make an "offer" that essentially amounts to giving back things that are not legally yours to begin with, and condition that on terms that you know to be unacceptable to the other side, while simultaneously doing things that demonstrate a complete disregard for the wishes of the other side as well as for the spirit of the negotiations, then maybe you're not really making an offer and maybe you'll never have to go through with that "offer"."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

East Timor immediately springs to mind. Taiwan arguably serves as an example, the same might be said for Cyprus going in the other direction. Israel is fairly unique in that it is a highly developed country beleaguered by weaker and less developed enemies and does not have any major-power enemy involved in the conflict/tensions.

I'm not going to get dragged into the the rest but the above was just factually inaccurate.

---

Israel has the US as its undying ally, and unconditional protector. Can't say the same about East Timor, Taiwan, Cyprus...or even Ukraine or South Korea. There's a limit to where the US will extend itself, on behalf of other nations, when their policies are anti-thetical.

Israel doesn't get a "pass" just because the US is their most formidable ally, or the biggest contributor to the UN. No, Israel has a duty to protect Palestinian civilians, especially when their "defensive" efforts turn into "offensive" measures that kill thousands of Palestinian children.