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

[Reffo]

Well, Israel can and would get something in return if it withdraws the settlers from (at least) the lands east of the barrier: It would make the probability of an impossibility to withdraw from most of the West Bank to be zero

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here.

It would also help to reduce friction between settlers and Palestinians, thus fostering stability

You mean like it did after the unilateral Gaza withdrawal?

However if what you advocate here instead is a withdrawal in exchange for a comprehensive peace deal, then you assume that that what you propose, would be acceptable to the Palestinians. But from what I read about it, I doubt that it would.

and - in the event of a new Intifada - it would also make its civilians to be in a much safer environment. At complete withdrawal of its settlers from the West Bank would also greatly improve Israel's international standing, which would greatly undermine efforts of delegitimization of Israel.

Whoopie doooo ... Israel's international standing. If that's your only criteria for Israel's success, then maybe Israel should just bite the bullet and do what most of Israel's detractors want. It should surrender, hand over it's weapons to the Arabs and place itself in their mercy.

[wat0n]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Simple, the less spread settlements are in the West Bank, the easier it will be to achieve a solution when Palestinian politics allows for one.

You mean like it did after the unilateral Gaza withdrawal?

The IDF would remain in place, so no.

However if what you advocate here instead is a withdrawal in exchange for a comprehensive peace deal, then you assume that that what you propose, would be acceptable to the Palestinians. But from what I read about it, I doubt that it would.

Soldiers would be withdrawn conditional on a peace deal.

Whoopie doooo ... Israel's international standing. If that's your only criteria for Israel's success, then maybe Israel should just bite the bullet and do what most of Israel's detractors want. It should surrender, hand over it's weapons to the Arabs and place itself in their mercy.

International standing is not a sacred thing, but it is certainly important for Israel in the longer run.

[Reffo]

Simple, the less spread settlements are in the West Bank, the easier it will be to achieve a solution when Palestinian politics allows for one

What kind of solution would you have in mind?

The IDF would remain in place, so no

And what would that achieve? It would be nearly as bad as the unilateral Gaza withdrawal.

First of all it would still not bring peace. Secondly, Israel would still be accused of "occupation", siege and oppression. Thirdly, the evicted settlers would be up in arms. Fourthly, it would cost Israel to provide accommodation to the evicted families. Last, but not least, it would encourage the Palestinian Arabs to continue to be intransigent because once again they would be seeing Israel withdrawing in return for NOTHING!

Soldiers would be withdrawn conditional on a peace deal

Again, what kind of a peace deal have you got in mind?

International standing is not a sacred thing, but it is certainly important for Israel in the longer run

Sure. I agree, but how much are you willing to give up just so everyone would like Israel? My problem with this "obsession" that Israel has to be liked at all cost is that there are many nations out there who would gladly see Israel disappear and like Israel posthumously. Some because they just don't like Jews anyway but I won't accuse everyone of Antisemitism. That would be unfair and simplistic. I would however accuse them of self interest. And let's face it, many nations value oil and the huge Arab-Muslim bloc much more than that "shitty little country" which they consider Israel to be.

[wat0n]

What kind of solution would you have in mind?

Again, what kind of a peace deal have you got in mind?

One which ends with two states for two peoples.

And what would that achieve? It would be nearly as bad as the unilateral Gaza withdrawal.

First of all it would still not bring peace. Secondly, Israel would still be accused of "occupation", siege and oppression. Thirdly, the evicted settlers would be up in arms. Fourthly, it would cost Israel to provide accommodation to the evicted families. Last, but not least, it would encourage the Palestinian Arabs to continue to be intransigent because once again they would be seeing Israel withdrawing in return for NOTHING!

What would this achieve? It would rid us of this time-bomb the expansion of settlements across the West Bank is (I don't know what you believe as of today, but I don't like the prospect of a one state solution and if you agree with me then I don't see why should Israel expand settlements that will be removed in the future at a much greater cost than now), it would stop the flow of news like this (thus automatically improving Israel's PR efforts by getting this crap out of the news) and it would help to ease tensions there (so both settlers and Palestinians don't try to burn, lynch and shoot each other as in this news).

Sure. I agree, but how much are you willing to give up just so everyone would like Israel? My problem with this "obsession" that Israel has to be liked at all cost is that there are many nations out there who would gladly see Israel disappear and like Israel posthumously. Some because they just don't like Jews anyway but I won't accuse everyone of Antisemitism. That would be unfair and simplistic. I would however accuse them of self interest. And let's face it, many nations value oil and the huge Arab-Muslim bloc much more than that "shitty little country" which they consider Israel to be.

It's not about how much I am willing to give up, but what I am not willing to give up for the sake of PR. I don't think Israel should risk its security for the sake of PR (as it would do if, for example, it opened its crossings with Gaza), but it should definitely consider the effects of its actions on PR otherwise. Israel is lacking soft power, and it is impossible to get that if you don't care about what others think about you.

As for Arab oil, come on Reffo let's be honest: The Arabs don't care enough about the Palestinians to stop enforcing their quotas at the OPEC and losing their main source of income as a result of an oil boycott just for the sake of the Palestinians. This is not 1973, the Arabs don't need an excuse to set up an oil cartel because OPEC already exists.

[Reffo]

One which ends with two states for two peoples

What I was trying to get you to restate is a view that you expressed to me in the past. Which is that Israel should withdraw from the whole of the West Bank. And I guess that would mean East Jerusalem, am I right? Or am I misrepresenting you?

What would this achieve? It would rid us of this time-bomb the expansion of settlements across the West Bank is (I don't know what you believe as of today, but I don't like the prospect of a one state solution and if you agree with me then I don't see why should Israel expand settlements that will be removed in the future at a much greater cost than now), it would stop the flow of news like this (thus automatically improving Israel's PR efforts by getting this crap out of the news) and it would help to ease tensions there (so both settlers and Palestinians don't try to burn, lynch and shoot each other as in this news)

Let me correct the perception that you are creating, whether you want to do it or not: the overall areas of the "settlements" are NOT expanding. New buildings are being built within the existing areas of the "settlements" to cater for natural population growth. Overall however, the areas of "the settlements" are not expanding.

As for the prospect of a one state solution, that will never happen. The Arab residents of the West Bank will never become Israeli citizens. That's what the Arabs have been clamoring for with their so called right of return demand. But Israel will NEVER, I say NEVER agree to that.

With regards to the bad press that Israel is receiving. Don't you think the bad press and the propaganda would continue the same way while the Israeli soldiers remain in the West Bank (and probably afterwards too)? Do you think the clashes would stop if the "settlers" go and the soldiers remain? I tell you, watOn, that's a delusion. That's not what happened in the past.

It's not about how much I am willing to give up, but what I am not willing to give up for the sake of PR. I don't think Israel should risk its security for the sake of PR (as it would do if, for example, it opened its crossings with Gaza), but it should definitely consider the effects of its actions on PR otherwise. Israel is lacking soft power, and it is impossible to get that if you don't care about what others think about you

Consider it how? How much should Israel be prepared to sacrifice for that elusive PR that you are talking about? It seems to me that nothing is enough. No matter what concessions and what sacrifices Israel made in the past, they always want more from Israel but expect nothing from the Arabs.

As for Arab oil, come on Reffo let's be honest: The Arabs don't care enough about the Palestinians to stop enforcing their quotas at the OPEC and losing their main source of income as a result of an oil boycott just for the sake of the Palestinians. This is not 1973, the Arabs don't need an excuse to set up an oil cartel because OPEC already exists

Stop kidding me and yourself watOn. You know very well that the Saudis invoked the oil weapon in the past. And the perception is that if pushed, they would do it again. It's not just embargos you know. There are more subtle ways too. And let's not minimize the influence of the 1.3 billion strong Arab-Muslim bloc either.

[Pleepleus]

...As for Arab oil, come on Reffo let's be honest: The Arabs don't care enough about the Palestinians to stop enforcing their quotas at the OPEC and losing their main source of income as a result of an oil boycott just for the sake of the Palestinians. This is not 1973, the Arabs don't need an excuse to set up an oil cartel because OPEC already exists.

...Stop kidding me and yourself watOn. You know very well that the Saudis invoked the oil weapon in the past. And the perception is that if pushed, they would do it again. It's not just embargos you know. There are more subtle ways too. And let's not minimize the influence of the 1.3 billion strong Arab-Muslim bloc either.

I think the Saudis are much more concerned about Iran than Israel. That is not to say that they are friends of Israel by any means, but they really don't like the Palestinians much either. I really don't see them cutting off their own oil profits on behalf of the Palestinians.

[wat0n]

What I was trying to get you to restate is a view that you expressed to me in the past. Which is that Israel should withdraw from the whole of the West Bank. And I guess that would mean East Jerusalem, am I right? Or am I misrepresenting you?

I'm open to the idea of 1:1 land swaps based on the Green Line. But if there won't be any swaps, yes, Israel should leave the whole WB under a peace treaty.

Let me correct the perception that you are creating, whether you want to do it or not: the overall areas of the "settlements" are NOT expanding. New buildings are being built within the existing areas of the "settlements" to cater for natural population growth. Overall however, the areas of "the settlements" are not expanding.

True, yet the population of settlements east of the barrier is growing, thus making it harder to withdraw from there. Do you think there are no long-term risks in this?

As for the prospect of a one state solution, that will never happen. The Arab residents of the West Bank will never become Israeli citizens. That's what the Arabs have been clamoring for with their so called right of return demand. But Israel will NEVER, I say NEVER agree to that.

True, and that means then that eventually Israel will have to withdraw - and this also means that, if the status quo remains until then, more settlers will have to be removed in the future than those who would have to leave under a future withdrawal.

With regards to the bad press that Israel is receiving. Don't you think the bad press and the propaganda would continue the same way while the Israeli soldiers remain in the West Bank (and probably afterwards too)? Do you think the clashes would stop if the "settlers" go and the soldiers remain? I tell you, watOn, that's a delusion. That's not what happened in the past.

It won't disappear, but it will have to change. For example, the stupid Apartheid analogy would disappear for good.

Consider it how? How much should Israel be prepared to sacrifice for that elusive PR that you are talking about? It seems to me that nothing is enough. No matter what concessions and what sacrifices Israel made in the past, they always want more from Israel but expect nothing from the Arabs.

Not as much as you may believe I'm advocating (e.g. I advocate settlement withdrawals for other reasons unrelated to PR, some of which are more important strategically than PR anyway), but PR should definitely get a much more prominent role in decision and policy-making.

Stop kidding me and yourself watOn. You know very well that the Saudis invoked the oil weapon in the past. And the perception is that if pushed, they would do it again. It's not just embargos you know. There are more subtle ways too. And let's not minimize the influence of the 1.3 billion strong Arab-Muslim bloc either.

In the past, yes, in 1973 for sure. But that was a one-time thing, as an excuse was needed for oil producers to set up their cartel.

And yes, it is also true that oil can be used to negotiate - but since the cartel is already in place, any changes in production will end up hurting OPEC producers economically, so there are limits to this. Thus, it begs the question of what could the main Arab oil producers win from forcing concessions from Israel on the Palestinian issue that they would lose billions in profits in the process? The Saudis are fundamentalists, yes, but they are not stupid. Heck, this could even apply to non-Arab OPEC members like Iran too.

[Reffo]

I'm open to the idea of 1:1 land swaps based on the Green Line. But if there won't be any swaps, yes, Israel should leave the whole WB under a peace treaty

Israel will never give up the major settlement blocks. It would involve the self ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Israelis from their homes. Those people would have to be accommodated by the Israeli government and there is already a housing crisis in Israel. Remember the mass demonstrations last year?

To give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem, let's do a quick back of the dnvelope calculation. I think we are talking about 500,000 people. Say the average family size is 5 people, then we are talking about 100,000 families. Let's say the average cost of a new home is $300,000. Then the cost to accommodate all the families would be 100,000 X $300,000 = $30,000,000,000. That's 30 billion dollars. And I won't even talk about the time that it would take to build 100,000 homes, nor the fact that for $300,000, the evicted families would never get the same quality of homes that they now have.

And for what, why should Israel and Israelis make such a sacrifice? For peace, you say? What peace? Do you think that if Israel would do that, there would be peace? There is only one word that I will invoke for you, to prove that there would not be peace: "HAMAS"!!!

True, yet the population of settlements east of the barrier is growing, thus making it harder to withdraw from there. Do you think there are no long-term risks in this?

Like I said, there won't be any major withdrawals. When and if peace ever comes, there will be land swaps.

True, and that means then that eventually Israel will have to withdraw - and this also means that, if the status quo remains until then, more settlers will have to be removed in the future than those who would have to leave under a future withdrawal

No, it does not mean that at all. There will be land swaps. Most Israelis will remain where they already are and most Palestinians will remain where they are too. Jews will be Israeli citizens and Arabs will be citizens of Palestine or Palestinistan, or Hamastan or Fatahstan or whatever they will choose to call their new state.

Oh, and the existing Israeli Arabs who are Israeli citizens will be able to choose whether they want to remain Israeli citizens or whether they want to become citizens of the new Arab state. One or the other but not both.

It won't disappear, but it will have to change. For example, the stupid Apartheid analogy would disappear for good

Why will it have to change? Because you and I say so? Since when have the detractors of Israel worried about the facts? They make them up as they go along. Why do you think that will change?

Not as much as you may believe I'm advocating (e.g. I advocate settlement withdrawals for other reasons unrelated to PR, some of which are more important strategically than PR anyway), but PR should definitely get a much more prominent role in decision and policy-making

Oh come on, watOn! Don't you know that according to many who drive the anti Israel PR, Israel is still occupying Gaza? Why wouldn't they treat Israel's withdrawal from the West bank the same way? They would treat that too the same way that they are treating Gaza. What makes you think that they would not? Many in the press, particularly the radical left press, make up facts to suit themselves. They don't bother about reality. Of course the radical right (like the Nazis) are even worse. But even the centre left is not immune from making distortions.

I think the Saudis are much more concerned about Iran than Israel. That is not to say that they are friends of Israel by any means, but they really don't like the Palestinians much either. I really don't see them cutting off their own oil profits on behalf of the Palestinians

In the past, yes, in 1973 for sure. But that was a one-time thing, as an excuse was needed for oil producers to set up their cartel.

And yes, it is also true that oil can be used to negotiate - but since the cartel is already in place, any changes in production will end up hurting OPEC producers economically, so there are limits to this. Thus, it begs the question of what could the main Arab oil producers win from forcing concessions from Israel on the Palestinian issue that they would lose billions in profits in the process? The Saudis are fundamentalists, yes, but they are not stupid. Heck, this could even apply to non-Arab OPEC members like Iran too

OK guys, so it is just my imagination that the UN is totally biased against Israel? Is it my imagination that there are thousands of anti Israel resolutions but I am not aware of too many, if any, anti Palestinian resolutions? Or are you guys agreeing with the UN that Israel has been the only transgressors and the Palestinian Arabs never did anything wrong? Or Lebanon? Or Syria, or Egypt, or etc ...

By the way, you guys are putting a "straw man" in my mouth. I never said that the Saudis will invoke another oil embargo for the Palestinians (although, who knows?). I said, they can apply other sorts of subtle pressure. I also talked about perceptions and I talked about the influence of the Arab-Muslim bloc. Is all that just my imagination?

[Pleepleus]

You guys both assume that Jews have to be ethnically cleansed from any Palestinian state. The idea that Palestine must be judenrein is racist.

Once the boundries have been drawn between Israel and Palestine, it should be up to the individual settlers on the Palestinian side of the line to decide whether they remain in Palestine as citizens of that state or repatriate to Israel.

[Reffo]

You guys both assume that Jews have to be ethnically cleansed from any Palestinian state. The idea that Palestine must be judenrein is racist

Actually, I assumed no such thing. I clearly said that the major settlement blocks will be part of Israel through land swaps.

As for the smaller settlements that won't be kept (probably, although who knows ... ), I doubt that any Jews would opt to stay and take their chance under Palestinian Arab rule. Would you risk your family if you would be in their shoes? I certainly would NOT!

[Aliyah1995]

As one who could be in their shoes (hopefully not, as Gush Etzion has a good chance of remaining part of Israel), I say DEFINITELY NOT!!!! It would be one thing if I was single, but to subject my kids to that, no way!!!!

[Pleepleus]

Actually, I assumed no such thing. I clearly said that the major settlement blocks will be part of Israel through land swaps.

As for the smaller settlements that won't be kept (probably, although who knows ... ), I doubt that any Jews would opt to stay and take their chance under Palestinian Arab rule. Would you risk your family if you would be in their shoes? I certainly would NOT!

I was referring to those smaller settlements that will be on the wrong side of the border, Reffo. No one should make the decision for those individuals except themselves as to whether they will be remaining or repatriating to Israel.

As one who could be in their shoes (hopefully not, as Gush Etzion has a good chance of remaining part of Israel), I say DEFINITELY NOT!!!! It would be one thing if I was single, but to subject my kids to that, no way!!!!

That should be your choice to make Aliyah. Not the government, nor the U.N., nor anyone else.

[Reffo]

I was referring to those smaller settlements that will be on the wrong side of the border, Reffo. No one should make the decision for those individuals except themselves as to whether they will be remaining or repatriating to Israel.

The Palestinian Arabs have already said that they would not allow any "settlers" to live in their new state (I'll try and find a link and post it).

As for me, I wouldn't dream of telling any Israeli what to do or not to do. I am here just airing my opinions. I admit, I have strong opinions but they are based on a lifetime of following the Arab Israeli conflict.

[Reffo]

Here, Pleepleus, here is the link ...

January 24, 2011
Arab Leader: No Jew in Future Palestinian State

By Morton Klein

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas has reiterated that a future Palestinian state, if established, will be Jew-free saying, "We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won't agree to the presence of one Israeli in it."

[wat0n]

Israel will never give up the major settlement blocks. It would involve the self ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Israelis from their homes. Those people would have to be accommodated by the Israeli government and there is already a housing crisis in Israel. Remember the mass demonstrations last year?

To give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem, let's do a quick back of the dnvelope calculation. I think we are talking about 500,000 people. Say the average family size is 5 people, then we are talking about 100,000 families. Let's say the average cost of a new home is $300,000. Then the cost to accommodate all the families would be 100,000 X $300,000 = $30,000,000,000. That's 30 billion dollars. And I won't even talk about the time that it would take to build 100,000 homes, nor the fact that for $300,000, the evicted families would never get the same quality of homes that they now have.

And for what, why should Israel and Israelis make such a sacrifice? For peace, you say? What peace? Do you think that if Israel would do that, there would be peace? There is only one word that I will invoke for you, to prove that there would not be peace: "HAMAS"!!!

Like I said, there won't be any major withdrawals. When and if peace ever comes, there will be land swaps.

No, it does not mean that at all. There will be land swaps. Most Israelis will remain where they already are and most Palestinians will remain where they are too. Jews will be Israeli citizens and Arabs will be citizens of Palestine or Palestinistan, or Hamastan or Fatahstan or whatever they will choose to call their new state.

Even if Israel keeps the major settlement blocs and swaps land in exchange (which is reasonable), it will still have to withdraw from smaller settlements and outposts - and if we look at Wikipedia even if Israel kept the settlements west of the barrier and withdrew from those in the east, it would still have to move tens of thousands of settlers. Why should Israel wait until this number reaches the hundreds of thousands order of magnitude? Or you think Israel can in practice end up with land east of the barrier? Because I doubt so.

Also, you really believe there are no long-term risks in keeping the status-quo in this regard?

Oh, and the existing Israeli Arabs who are Israeli citizens will be able to choose whether they want to remain Israeli citizens or whether they want to become citizens of the new Arab state. One or the other but not both.

True.

Why will it have to change? Because you and I say so? Since when have the detractors of Israel worried about the facts? They make them up as they go along. Why do you think that will change?

Oh come on, watOn! Don't you know that according to many who drive the anti Israel PR, Israel is still occupying Gaza? Why wouldn't they treat Israel's withdrawal from the West bank the same way? They would treat that too the same way that they are treating Gaza. What makes you think that they would not? Many in the press, particularly the radical left press, make up facts to suit themselves. They don't bother about reality. Of course the radical right (like the Nazis) are even worse. But even the centre left is not immune from making distortions.

Because there would be no settlers in the West Bank, thus negating the whole point of the analogy? In fact, it would be great if they kept pushing their point in the absence of settlers - it would become even more apparent that they are just fanatical nuts to the rest of society. Just like the fact that Israel is not in Gaza undermines their arguments too (and even among the smarter ones who may cite precedents and international law such as the Hostages Trial, it is rather easy to disprove their points).

OK guys, so it is just my imagination that the UN is totally biased against Israel? Is it my imagination that there are thousands of anti Israel resolutions but I am not aware of too many, if any, anti Palestinian resolutions? Or are you guys agreeing with the UN that Israel has been the only transgressors and the Palestinian Arabs never did anything wrong? Or Lebanon? Or Syria, or Egypt, or etc ...

But this comes from the automatic majority by the Islamic and third-world anti-Western states, not due to Arab oil. Even UNSC resolutions are under Chapter VI, which rules out any military sanctions against Israel.

By the way, you guys are putting a "straw man" in my mouth. I never said that the Saudis will invoke another oil embargo for the Palestinians (although, who knows?). I said, they can apply other sorts of subtle pressure. I also talked about perceptions and I talked about the influence of the Arab-Muslim bloc. Is all that just my imagination?

Care to explain?