Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 125

Thread: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

  1. #106
    Senior Member Pleepleus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    269

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by wat0n View Post
    Well, let's be honest, shall we? If the settlers stayed where they are under a Palestinian state, it is likely they would be harassed and economically strangled (I'm being optimistic here) so they leave. I think we should be realistic about the prospects of coexistence between settlers and Palestinians under a Palestinian state.
    I have been honest. I believe every word I've written. If you are going to be honest, why don't you just go ahead and admit that you personally don't like the settlers and don't think they have any right to be in the lands liberated in 1967? Your animosity and support for ethnically cleansing them has been crystal clear.

    So, basically what you are saying is that the racist Palestinians are not ready for a real peace yet. Then maybe we need to wait another 10 or 20, or 50 years until it sinks in to the Palestinians that the Jews are home and Palestine is never going to be Judenrein ever. Jews and Palestinians are going to share the land between the river and the sea forever. They had better get used to the presence of Jews, because they aren't going to go away.

    It should be the choice of the settlers alone as individuals whether they stay or go. Not the Israeli government, not the U.N., not the Palestinians, and definitely not yours. And any treaty must include guarantees that they will be treated fairly. And Israel will surely be in a position to react to provocations. Don't you doubt it.

    Look, if peace is not attained, the result will NOT be a binational state. Israel will NEVER agree to that. The Jewish population of Area C will continue to grow and reach 200,000, 300,000, and more. Israel will eventually annex Area C and the Palestinians will be left with only Gaza and about 40% of the West Bank. If that happens, the Palestinians will have gotten what they deserved. They are not victims here. They are the aggressors and perpetrators of a failed campaign of genocide. They are no different than the former German inhabitants of Silesia, Pomerania, and Prussia. Their own racism is the main source of their problems. Pandering to Arab racism will never bring peace.

  2. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    1,077

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Reffo View Post
    So you are saying that you are the only one who believes that the time is against Israel? Are you saying that the Arabs think that as time marches on, Israel would be better off? But they still refuse to negotiate in good faith and maintain their intransigence? Is that your opinion of the Arabs?
    No. I'm saying that as long as significant numbers of Israeli settlers live outside the main settlement blocs (which are close to the Green Line), Arabs and also I will believe time is against Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reffo View Post
    Me too. And I think that right now, Israel would be willing to dismantle (for the sake of peace) some of the small and isolated settlements. But as time goes on, as those settlements would grow (in population), Israel won't oblige and those settlements too will become part of Israel, while the Arab areas won't. That's why the demographic threat that you keep bringing up is just a red herring.

    The settlements with larger populations will become part of Israel. Israel won't be able to, nor would it want to, ethnically cleanse those settlements. Nor will it allow them to become part of any new Arab state, for the reasons that you yourself gave. They won't stand idly by watching the Arabs massacring or economically strangling Jews.
    Well if even settlements far from the Green Line would become part of Israel if they become too populated, then there will effectively be no two-state solution by then, and a one-state solution will be in place.

  3. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    1,077

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus View Post
    I have been honest. I believe every word I've written. If you are going to be honest, why don't you just go ahead and admit that you personally don't like the settlers and don't think they have any right to be in the lands liberated in 1967? Your animosity and support for ethnically cleansing them has been crystal clear.
    I'm not a fan of the settlement project, but if I thought there was a realistic chance for settlers to live in a Palestinian state then I would not care about settlements. But there isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus View Post
    So, basically what you are saying is that the racist Palestinians are not ready for a real peace yet. Then maybe we need to wait another 10 or 20, or 50 years until it sinks in to the Palestinians that the Jews are home and Palestine is never going to be Judenrein ever. Jews and Palestinians are going to share the land between the river and the sea forever. They had better get used to the presence of Jews, because they aren't going to go away.

    It should be the choice of the settlers alone as individuals whether they stay or go. Not the Israeli government, not the U.N., not the Palestinians, and definitely not yours. And any treaty must include guarantees that they will be treated fairly. And Israel will surely be in a position to react to provocations. Don't you doubt it.
    Well I'm more pessimistic than you are, I don't think settlers would ever be accepted in a Palestinian state by most Palestinians. I expect them to be treated like whites in Zimbabwe at best, or the French in Algeria right after independence (i.e. ethnic cleansing) at worst.

    Is this fair? No, but life isn't fair and if we are concerned about morality, I place a higher priority to the settlers' physical safety and lives over other concerns. And so far my perception is that Palestinians are neither willing nor able to guarantee the settlers' safety.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus View Post
    Look, if peace is not attained, the result will NOT be a binational state. Israel will NEVER agree to that. The Jewish population of Area C will continue to grow and reach 200,000, 300,000, and more. Israel will eventually annex Area C and the Palestinians will be left with only Gaza and about 40% of the West Bank. If that happens, the Palestinians will have gotten what they deserved. They are not victims here. They are the aggressors and perpetrators of a failed campaign of genocide. They are no different than the former German inhabitants of Silesia, Pomerania, and Prussia. Their own racism is the main source of their problems. Pandering to Arab racism will never bring peace.
    Well this 40% of the West Bank would in practice be under Israeli control, given the distribution of Area C. That would amount to a one state solution in practice.

  4. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,114

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by watOn
    No. I'm saying that as long as significant numbers of Israeli settlers live outside the main settlement blocs (which are close to the Green Line), Arabs and also I will believe time is against Israel
    They are deluded and as I demonstrated to you, historically they have been deluded. They are like gamblers who keep on losing and instead of quitting (from making war in their case), they come back for more and want to play "double or nothing". And people like you help them stay deluded.

    Well if even settlements far from the Green Line would become part of Israel if they become too populated, then there will effectively be no two-state solution by then, and a one-state solution will be in place
    Why? That's a huge leap of faith on your part. As I already explained to you, Palestinian Arabs would never be citizens of Israel. They could become citizens of their own state or become part of Jordan. It would be their business what they would want to do. But no matter how they jump up and down, they would never become citizens of Israel. There goes your demographic threat theory ...

    I'll tell you why, watOn, because Israel owes nothing to the Arabs, except the same contempt that the Arabs have been displaying towards the Jews for the last 100 years.
    Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
    Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright

  5. #110
    Senior Member Pleepleus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    269

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by wat0n View Post
    I'm not a fan of the settlement project, but if I thought there was a realistic chance for settlers to live in a Palestinian state then I would not care about settlements. But there isn't.
    All of Israel is a settlement project. If you don't like the settlements, what do you think of Israel? There is no moral difference between Tel Aviv and Kiryat Arba. Was the whole Zionist project a mistake in your view?

    Funny, I think there is no realistic chance for an independent Palestinian state. By the time the Palestinians realize they made yet another mistake by not negotiating, there will be at least a half a million or more Jews living in Area C.

    Quote Originally Posted by wat0n View Post
    Well I'm more pessimistic than you are, I don't think settlers would ever be accepted in a Palestinian state by most Palestinians. I expect them to be treated like whites in Zimbabwe at best, or the French in Algeria right after independence (i.e. ethnic cleansing) at worst.

    Is this fair? No, but life isn't fair and if we are concerned about morality, I place a higher priority to the settlers' physical safety and lives over other concerns. And so far my perception is that Palestinians are neither willing nor able to guarantee the settlers' safety.
    It is not your place to make decisions about their lives and safety. Each settler would need to decide that for themselves should such a situation arise. But regardless, the Palestinians are NOT going to negotiate in good faith or sign any treaties that would end the conflict. They don't want peace, they want victory and revenge. The Jewish population of Area C is going to continue to expand and grow and the Palestinians are to blame for turning down so many generous offers. They have no one to blame but their own inept and corrupt leaders.

    Quote Originally Posted by wat0n View Post
    Well this 40% of the West Bank would in practice be under Israeli control, given the distribution of Area C. That would amount to a one state solution in practice.
    No, it would not be one state in practice at all. Only Area C will be annexed and legally part of Israel. The Palestinians in Gaza and Areas A & B will NEVER get Israeli citizenship or voting rights. Gaza is essentially independent already, but Areas A & B will be autonomous Palestinian enclaves that Israel will enter at will should they misbehave. It can go on like this for centuries if they are really that stupid.

  6. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,114

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus
    They have no one to blame but their own inept and corrupt leaders
    If only we could pretend that it's all the fault of the Palestinian Arab leaders. It may have been true at the early stages of the conflict but since then, there have been generations of Palestinian Arabs who have been brain washed. The net result is that today, it would have to be a very brave and strong leader (Abbas is not one) who would dare to make brave decisions based on compromise. If they would, then they would have to watch their backs to ensure that they won't meet with the fate of Sadat after he signed a peace deal with Israel.

    No, it would not be one state in practice at all. Only Area C will be annexed and legally part of Israel. The Palestinians in Gaza and Areas A & B will NEVER get Israeli citizenship or voting rights. Gaza is essentially independent already, but Areas A & B will be autonomous Palestinian enclaves that Israel will enter at will should they misbehave. It can go on like this for centuries if they are really that stupid
    You are absolutely right Pleepleus. I don't know where this obsession (for some) is coming from that Israel somehow has to be responsible for the well being of Palestinian Arabs, no matter what. The reality is that at some point, if they keep being stupid and intransigent, then they will just have to bear the consequences of their own stupidity.

    I'll say it again. All the Palestinian Arabs need to do is recognize the rights of the Jewish people too to have self determination. After that, Jews too would be willing to recognize their rights and would be willing to compromise. I say compromise, not giving in to 100% of Palestinian demands. Because the Palestinians need to compromise too.
    Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
    Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright

  7. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    1,077

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Reffo View Post
    They are deluded and as I demonstrated to you, historically they have been deluded. They are like gamblers who keep on losing and instead of quitting (from making war in their case), they come back for more and want to play "double or nothing". And people like you help them stay deluded.
    Just because war hasn't worked for them (and hopefully it never will), it doesn't really mean there is no strategic risks in the status quo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reffo View Post
    Why? That's a huge leap of faith on your part. As I already explained to you, Palestinian Arabs would never be citizens of Israel. They could become citizens of their own state or become part of Jordan. It would be their business what they would want to do. But no matter how they jump up and down, they would never become citizens of Israel. There goes your demographic threat theory ...

    I'll tell you why, watOn, because Israel owes nothing to the Arabs, except the same contempt that the Arabs have been displaying towards the Jews for the last 100 years.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus View Post
    No, it would not be one state in practice at all. Only Area C will be annexed and legally part of Israel. The Palestinians in Gaza and Areas A & B will NEVER get Israeli citizenship or voting rights. Gaza is essentially independent already, but Areas A & B will be autonomous Palestinian enclaves that Israel will enter at will should they misbehave. It can go on like this for centuries if they are really that stupid.
    So you guys would support a one-state solution ending in, basically, Apartheid over unilaterally withdrawing from settlements Israel would still have to withdraw from under any realistic two-state solution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus View Post
    All of Israel is a settlement project. If you don't like the settlements, what do you think of Israel? There is no moral difference between Tel Aviv and Kiryat Arba. Was the whole Zionist project a mistake in your view?
    No, it wasn't. And I do see a difference between Tel Aviv and Kiryat Arba, actually, as the latter is as of today a bigger obstacle for self-determination for both peoples than the former.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus View Post
    Funny, I think there is no realistic chance for an independent Palestinian state. By the time the Palestinians realize they made yet another mistake by not negotiating, there will be at least a half a million or more Jews living in Area C.
    So you don't deny that a single state may become a reality if the status quo remains?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus View Post
    It is not your place to make decisions about their lives and safety. Each settler would need to decide that for themselves should such a situation arise. But regardless, the Palestinians are NOT going to negotiate in good faith or sign any treaties that would end the conflict. They don't want peace, they want victory and revenge. The Jewish population of Area C is going to continue to expand and grow and the Palestinians are to blame for turning down so many generous offers. They have no one to blame but their own inept and corrupt leaders.
    Sure, in the end it isn't my call, but if I think the settlers will end up worse if there will be a two-state solution then I do have to say I disagree with leaving them in a Palestinian State. Particularly if as you say Palestinians don't want peace and prefer victory and revenge instead.

  8. #113
    Senior Member Pleepleus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    269

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by wat0n View Post
    Just because war hasn't worked for them (and hopefully it never will), it doesn't really mean there is no strategic risks in the status quo.

    So you guys would support a one-state solution ending in, basically, Apartheid over unilaterally withdrawing from settlements Israel would still have to withdraw from under any realistic two-state solution?

    No, it wasn't. And I do see a difference between Tel Aviv and Kiryat Arba, actually, as the latter is as of today a bigger obstacle for self-determination for both peoples than the former.

    So you don't deny that a single state may become a reality if the status quo remains?

    Sure, in the end it isn't my call, but if I think the settlers will end up worse if there will be a two-state solution then I do have to say I disagree with leaving them in a Palestinian State. Particularly if as you say Palestinians don't want peace and prefer victory and revenge instead.
    Any risks in the status quo fall more on the Palestinians than the settlers. The Arabs avoid peace at their own peril. The longer this goes on, the more settlers will be in Area C and the safer the settlers' situation becomes. And this will never become a one-state situation because Gaza and Areas A & B are not going to be annexed to Israel. If the Palestinians are not careful, those will be the only territories they end up with.

    Jews living in the West Bank are not an obstacle at all for Palestinian self-determination. They are only a problem for those who think that any Palestinian state must be Jew free. The Palestinians who reject Jews living in Kiryat Arba also reject the right of Jews to live in Tel Aviv. So, the only moral difference between Kiryat Arba and Tel Aviv is that Kiryat Arba stands in the way of your dream of a Jew-free Palestine.

    You are saying Jews must be forced out of the West Bank because Arab racists don't want them there. Saying that Jews cannot be Palestinian citizens is the true Apartheid, Waton. Arabs who live in the state of Israel are citizens. And when Area C is annexed, any Arabs living there will be offered citizenship as well just as they were in East Jerusalem.

  9. #114
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    1,077

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus View Post
    Any risks in the status quo fall more on the Palestinians than the settlers. The Arabs avoid peace at their own peril. The longer this goes on, the more settlers will be in Area C and the safer the settlers' situation becomes. And this will never become a one-state situation because Gaza and Areas A & B are not going to be annexed to Israel. If the Palestinians are not careful, those will be the only territories they end up with.
    Yet given the geographic distribution of Areas A, B and C it will be hard for the Palestinians to have much control over Areas A & B.

    http://www.phg.org/data/maps//geo-po.../abc_zones.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus View Post
    Jews living in the West Bank are not an obstacle at all for Palestinian self-determination. They are only a problem for those who think that any Palestinian state must be Jew free. The Palestinians who reject Jews living in Kiryat Arba also reject the right of Jews to live in Tel Aviv. So, the only moral difference between Kiryat Arba and Tel Aviv is that Kiryat Arba stands in the way of your dream of a Jew-free Palestine.

    You are saying Jews must be forced out of the West Bank because Arab racists don't want them there. Saying that Jews cannot be Palestinian citizens is the true Apartheid, Waton. Arabs who live in the state of Israel are citizens. And when Area C is annexed, any Arabs living there will be offered citizenship as well just as they were in East Jerusalem.
    Well, if settlers are willing to face the risks involved in their stay on Palestinian territory were a peace treaty to be signed, they should be allowed to do so. But seriously, if you ask me that would not end well for them.

  10. #115
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,114

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by watOn
    Just because war hasn't worked for them (and hopefully it never will), it doesn't really mean there is no strategic risks in the status quo
    Of course there are risks. But the risks associated with the solution that you propose, are much greater (I already outlined them in an earlier post, I won't repeat myself again).

    So you guys would support a one-state solution ending in, basically, Apartheid over unilaterally withdrawing from settlements Israel would still have to withdraw from under any realistic two-state solution?
    How would that be a one state solution? How would that be apartheid?

    I'll say it for the third time. The Palestinians could become citizens of their own state, citizens of Jordan or if they would not wan't either, they could wallow in their own misery but they would never become citizens of Israel, not first class citizens, not second class citizens nor third class citizens.

    This apartheid analogy is another red herring watOn. The Arabs made war on Israel, they lost, they continued making war on Israel and they kept on losing. Why is Israel obliged to make them citizens because of that? Actually, the analogy is not even a red herring, it is a crude attempt at blackmailing Israel into making concessions under threat while letting the Arabs off the hook and not requiring them to formally renounce their anti Jewish state ideology.
    Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
    Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright

  11. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    1,077

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Reffo View Post
    Of course there are risks. But the risks associated with the solution that you propose, are much greater (I already outlined them in an earlier post, I won't repeat myself again).
    I think the risks of the status quo are bigger on the long-run. I don't think we will agree on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reffo View Post
    How would that be a one state solution? How would that be apartheid?

    I'll say it for the third time. The Palestinians could become citizens of their own state, citizens of Jordan or if they would not wan't either, they could wallow in their own misery but they would never become citizens of Israel, not first class citizens, not second class citizens nor third class citizens.

    This apartheid analogy is another red herring watOn. The Arabs made war on Israel, they lost, they continued making war on Israel and they kept on losing. Why is Israel obliged to make them citizens because of that? Actually, the analogy is not even a red herring, it is a crude attempt at blackmailing Israel into making concessions under threat while letting the Arabs off the hook and not requiring them to formally renounce their anti Jewish state ideology.
    It would be a one-state solution because the Palestinians can't have a viable state on areas A and B alone, and it would at least look a lot like Apartheid if Palestinians won't get citizenship even though they are not immigrants.

  12. #117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,114

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by watOn
    I think the risks of the status quo are bigger on the long-run. I don't think we will agree on this
    It seems we can't but I'll sum up why I think that the risks associated with your solution are greater. They are greater because peace would not be the outcome and not only would the war with the Arabs continue, but there would be internal civil strife within Israel much greater than what we have now which is part of the normal democratic discourse. But under your proposal, it would escalate beyond that and there would still not be the pay-off of having peace with the Arabs. A case of having the worst of all possibilities.

    It would be a one-state solution because the Palestinians can't have a viable state on areas A and B alone, and it would at least look a lot like Apartheid if Palestinians won't get citizenship even though they are not immigrants
    Why couldn't they have a viable state? If Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican are viable, then 60% of the West Bank would certainly be viable too. But even if you are right (which you arn't), they could become part of Jordan which in fact they were part of before 1967. So why this insistence that they would have to be part of Israel? Of course that was a rhetorical question, we all know the answer to that one, it's called the demographic time bomb. That's why Israel will never agree to it. Nor should it because it owes nothing to the Palestinian Arabs except the same feelings that they have shown towards the Jews for the last 100 years (I'll let you work out what those feelings are).

    The Arabs have choices today and they will have choices down the track. All they have to do is exercise those choices and they'll have viable alternatives to have a good life. But they will never force Israel to make choices for itself that would threaten Israel's existence, despite all the scare mongering and the blackmail from even well meaning (but brainwashed) people like yourself, watOn.
    Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
    Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright

  13. #118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    1,077

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Reffo View Post
    It seems we can't but I'll sum up why I think that the risks associated with your solution are greater. They are greater because peace would not be the outcome and not only would the war with the Arabs continue, but there would be internal civil strife within Israel much greater than what we have now which is part of the normal democratic discourse. But under your proposal, it would escalate beyond that and there would still not be the pay-off of having peace with the Arabs. A case of having the worst of all possibilities.
    Maybe. Or maybe not, maybe most settlers are law-abiding Israeli citizens and as such they will respect any withdrawal decision if it is upheld by the Supreme Court and only a small minority will try to oppose a withdrawal by force.

    Interestingly I am not the only one advocating this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Haaretz
    Ehud Barak: If negotiations fail, Israel must consider unilateral withdrawal from West Bank

    Israel's defense minister says current broad governing coalition presents an opportunity for progress in talks with the Palestinians.

    By Barak Ravid | May.30, 2012 | 1:29 PM

    Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday that Israel should consider unilateral moves if negations with the Palestinians fail to bear fruit.

    "We are a coalition of 94 MKs, this is the time to lead a diplomatic process," Barak said Wednesday morning in a speech at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies. "But if it isn't possible to reach a permanent agreement with the Palestinians, we must consider an interim arrangement or even a unilateral move."

    "We are on borrowed time. We will reach a wall, and we'll pay the price. People who are now in a coma will then ask how we didn't see [this coming]," he added.

    ...

    Barak's remarks came after he received a position paper from his former bureau chief, Gilad Sher, who is now co-chairman of an organization called Blue White
    Future, which has been advocating unilateral Israeli action, coordinated, however, with the Palestinian Authority. The group's other co-chairmen are high-tech entrepreneur Orni Petruschka and former Shin Bet security service director Ami Ayalon.

    As part of such a process proposed by Blue and White Future, the Israeli government would pass a compensation law that would provide payment to tens of thousands of residents of isolated West Bank Jewish settlements who move within the boundaries of Israel proper in a two to three year period. In contrast with Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the plan would not call for the removal of the Israel Defense Forces from the entire West Bank.

    Sher, Petruschka and Ayalon have also begun an international media campaign in support of their position, prompting New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman last week to suggest that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu embrace the group's "constructive unilateralism," as he called it.

    Friedman noted that the plan would call for Israel to state its willingness to resume negotiations without demanding Israeli sovereignty over territory beyond the security fence, while committing to halt settlement construction and adopting a plan to resettle 100,000 West Bank settlers within Israel's recognized borders.
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...-bank-1.433347

    Interestingly, the Palestinians oppose this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Haaretz
    Israeli unilateral withdrawal from West Bank will perpetuate Mideast conflict, Palestinian official says

    Comment by chief Abbas aide comes after Defense Minister Barak says Israel should weigh such a move if talks fail; Gideon Sa'ar: Barak doesn't represent government's view.

    By Barak Ravid | May.30, 2012 | 5:51 PM

    A top Palestinian official rejected a suggestion made by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, according to which Israel should consider unilaterally withdrawing from the West Bank in case peace talks failed, saying on Wednesday that such a move would only serve to perpetuate the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

    Speaking at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) earlier in the day, Barak said: "We are a coalition of 94 MKs, this is the time to lead a diplomatic process," adding, however, that if such an attempt failed, "we must consider an interim arrangement or even a unilateral move."

    "We are on borrowed time. We will reach a wall, and we'll pay the price. People who are now in a coma will then ask how we didn't see [this coming]," he added.

    In response to Barak's remarks, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' chief aide Nabil Abu Rudineh said later Wednesday that an "Israeli unilateral moves will lead to the formation of a Palestinian state in temporary borders, to which we object."

    "This policy will lead to the conflict's continuation and not to a solution, burying the two-state solution," Abu Rudineh said, adding that the Palestinian Authority was committed to "a final agreement in which a Palestinian state will be formed with Jerusalem as its capital."

    "Without Jerusalem, we won't agree to anything," he added.

    Also responding to Barak's comments, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar severely criticized the defense minister, saying that his "position did not represent the government's position, one that is in a clear minority both in the government and in the coalition."

    "It's strange how some people are willing to toy with such a dangerous notion after the utter failure of [Israel's] unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip," Sa'ar added.

    In another response to Barak's comment, the head of the Yesha Settlement Council Danny Dayan said that "anyone speaking about a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank seven years after the catastrophe of the disengagement is a lost cause."

    "Barak has learned nothing from his own mistake in Lebanon and from [former Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's in Gaza. The 94-MK coalition needs to be used to bolster Israel, not to weaken it."
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...-says-1.433401

    They should be definitely ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reffo View Post
    Why couldn't they have a viable state? If Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican are viable, then 60% of the West Bank would certainly be viable too. But even if you are right (which you arn't), they could become part of Jordan which in fact they were part of before 1967. So why this insistence that they would have to be part of Israel? Of course that was a rhetorical question, we all know the answer to that one, it's called the demographic time bomb. That's why Israel will never agree to it. Nor should it because it owes nothing to the Palestinian Arabs except the same feelings that they have shown towards the Jews for the last 100 years (I'll let you work out what those feelings are).

    The Arabs have choices today and they will have choices down the track. All they have to do is exercise those choices and they'll have viable alternatives to have a good life. But they will never force Israel to make choices for itself that would threaten Israel's existence, despite all the scare mongering and the blackmail from even well meaning (but brainwashed) people like yourself, watOn.
    Monaco has a population of roughly 35,000 and the Vatican has a population of roughly 800. I don't think either case would be comparable to the Palestinians' case.

  14. #119
    Senior Member Pleepleus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    269

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by wat0n View Post
    Maybe. Or maybe not, maybe most settlers are law-abiding Israeli citizens and as such they will respect any withdrawal decision if it is upheld by the Supreme Court and only a small minority will try to oppose a withdrawal by force...
    To bad for you that the Palestinians have no desire to make peace. By the time they realize they made yet another mistake, there will be 200,000 or 300,000 or even more Jews living in Area C. If you think that many will be "evacuated" (i.e. ethnically cleansed) you are mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by wat0n View Post
    ...Monaco has a population of roughly 35,000 and the Vatican has a population of roughly 800. I don't think either case would be comparable to the Palestinians' case.
    Singapore has a population of 5.2 million on 710 square kilometers. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have 4.3 million on 2,286 square kilometers (if you can trust their inflated population totals).

  15. #120
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    1,077

    Re: To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus View Post
    To bad for you that the Palestinians have no desire to make peace. By the time they realize they made yet another mistake, there will be 200,000 or 300,000 or even more Jews living in Area C. If you think that many will be "evacuated" (i.e. ethnically cleansed) you are mistaken.
    Well if you actually think Israel is willing to risk a one-state reality you are very mistaken. I see an evacuation or leaving Israeli citizens living under Arab rule more likely than self-destruction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleepleus View Post
    Singapore has a population of 5.2 million on 710 square kilometers. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have 4.3 million on 2,286 square kilometers (if you can trust their inflated population totals).
    Yet Singapore is neither fragmented like the Palestinian State in the WB (areas A & B) would be nor its neighbors can potentially exert control over it due to this territorial fragmentation.

    I think this overoptimism regarding the lack of a clear geographic division between both states and/or the prospects of a single state is very dangerous for Israel's future. Whether it comes from the right or the +972 blog-like bleeding heart liberals is not relevant, IMO.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-08-2009, 07:31 AM
  2. The Leaving for the Sake of the Return
    By intenseGaze in forum Religion/Culture
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-05-2006, 04:48 AM
  3. Rabbi visits Mosque for solidarity's sake
    By genghis_tom in forum In The News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-14-2006, 12:29 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2005, 06:07 PM
  5. Israel Forum - The Ultimate Advocate
    By danholo in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-01-2003, 10:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •