Israel-Palestine: Settlements As The Death of Peace
Following Annapolis, the Israeli government made the decision to authorize another 300 plus homes in the Har Homa settlement outside Jerusalem. That is the kind of blunder that has destroyed previous attempts at negotiations.
To her credit, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice quickly expressed U.S. opposition to the settlement’s expansion -- but that is unlikely to make a difference. The United States has a long record of expressing formal opposition to the settlement enterprise while doing nothing that indicates any seriousness about it. The Har Homa move specifically violates Phase 1 of the Roadmap, which both Israelis and Palestinians are committed to implement.
But even aside from the Roadmap, settlement expansion is a clear obstacle to peace. Given that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are about exchanging land for peace, specifically the West Bank, in exchange for an end to anti-Israel violence, settlement expansion is by definition a flagrant violation. As a Palestinian once told me, “Two people cannot discuss how many slices of a pie each one will get if one of them is busy wolfing slices down as fast as he can.”
There is no doubt that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert knows just how destructive the Har Homa expansion is. But he is boxed in by right-wingers in his coalition who threaten to bolt at the mere mention of freezing settlements.
That is why he probably welcomed Rice’s strong statement of disapproval. The safest way for Israeli prime ministers to do the right thing is when they can tell the hard-liners that “the Americans made me do it.” Rice did him a favor and she knows it.
Of course, like Olmert, she too will come under pressure from domestic opponents of any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In yesterday’s Salon, Gregory Levey, a Canadian writer and former speechwriter for Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, described a new right-wing outfit here that is using the fake “dividing Jerusalem” issue to kill the Annapolis process.
The new “Coordinating Council on Jerusalem” consists of all the usual suspects, like the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), but also more serious groups like the Orthodox Union. Also supporting the Council is Watergate criminal Gordon Liddy and the rapture crowd of conservative Christians whose theology requires the in-gathering of Jews to Israel to help precipitate what they call end-times and we can call the end-of-the Jews.
Levey quotes Mort Klein, head of the ZOA, explaining the position of the new lobby. “Israel should not be willing to give away any part of Jerusalem to another entity, just as the U.S. wouldn’t give away any part of Washington. . . . Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in our holy book. It’s not mentioned even once in the Quran.”
Of course, Washington is mentioned in neither book. More to the point is that no one is proposing dividing Jerusalem but rather sharing it.
Vice Prime Minister Haim Ramon has explained that none of the Jerusalem neighborhoods that would come under Palestinian sovereignty were ever part of Jerusalem and aren’t now. “In 1967, after the Six Day War, Israel annexed twenty-eight villages that historically were part of the West Bank and defined them as Jerusalem. They had never been Jerusalem. Now, they are part of Jerusalem. So the response to those who say, ‘You want to divide Jerusalem,’ is to say that we are not dividing anything.”
In any case, Palestinian Jerusalem will not be separated from Israeli Jerusalem. The tourist walking from the King David Hotel to the Western Wall will not know when he is leaving or entering areas under Israeli (or Palestinian) sovereignty.
Free movement by all will be unimpeded because neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will accept anything less. (I doubt there is a single Palestinian living in East Jerusalem today who would accept a division of the city that would prevent him from shopping on Jaffa Road. Nor are there merchants on Salah al-Din Street in East Jerusalem or in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City who want an arrangement that would prevent Israeli shoppers or tourists from spending money at their business).
No one, I repeat no one, is contemplating physical division of the city.
The issue of “dividing Jerusalem” is a total sham, raised not to protect Jerusalem but to guard against any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.
That is clear in an interview Ha’aretz correspondent Shmuel Rosner conducted this week with Jeff Ballabon who directs the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem. Ballabon told Rosner that there can be no peace process because “Israel's enemies do not just want Jerusalem. To this day, they demand every inch from the ‘river to the sea.’ The ‘Green Line’ is a bedtime story some Israeli politicians tell, but which has no influence on Israel’s enemies.”
In other words, nothing has changed since 1948. Everybody wants the Jews dead, including presumably the Egyptians and Jordanians who signed peace treaties with Israel that have saved countless lives on both sides -- and Mahmoud Abbas who completely rejects violence and who both Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert considered a partner for peace.
For Ballabon, who was the Bush-Cheney ticket’s liaison to the Orthodox community in the 2004 election, Prime Minister Olmert does not even have the right to negotiate on Israel’s behalf. That is because Olmert’s government has as its “primary goal” the “redivision of Jerusalem and the release and arming of terrorists in order to create a state for Israel’s enemies along its most vulnerable border.” In other words, the Israeli government has as its goal the destruction of Israel.
Ballabon has only contempt for that government.
“We have a saying popular among conservatives and libertarians in America: ‘I love my country but I fear my government.’”
In other words, the “Land of Israel, yes. The State of Israel, no.”
At its foundation, this is what the right-wing in Israel (and, more so, in New York) has become: opponents of the real Jewish state for the sake of preserving Israel’s rights to territory in which Jews are, and always would be, a tiny minority.
This is a new kind of Zionism: Zionism as a movement to establish the right of Jews to live as a permanent minority in the land of Israel rather than in places like Tel Aviv, Haifa, West Jerusalem i.e, the State of Israel.
Bizarro Zionism for the bizarro universe where the far right lives.
As to how the Palestinians fit into all this, see today's Washington Post.
Also, note,back in the day when I was a pro-Israel activist on campus, I did it out of love. Now the pro-Israel Right is paying kids a thousand bucks to stand up for Israel. Depressing, Perhaps if the pro-Israel campus groups supported both Israel and an end to the occupation, the kids wouldn't have to be paid or, as AIPAC does, given free all-expenses paid trips to Washington!
Comments (132)
IMPORTANT EXPERIMENT: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, DAVAI.
Let him rant all he wants but don't give him the satisfaction of replying to him.As TPM management indicated yesterday, Josh is loathe to ban people but rather relies on TPM regulars not to encourage trolls to fill the place up by engaging them.
Davai is one of only two trolls in these parts. There are others who disagree and disagree strongly, which is cool, but only Davai and the Greenbaum guy attack both the author and TPM posters in general in ugly terms.
December 15, 2007 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an experiment Mark. Try telling the truth for a change. On the Rosenberg threads there is almost no disagreement. That is why you find it cool. Everything is Israel's fault and the Arabs and the Palestinians have no role in the situation. The suggested solution inevitably are those that require Israelis to allow their citizens to be killed and will result in the death of large numbers of Jews.
I reject the leftwing ideological version of Bush and neo-Cons. The taking of positions that devoid of fact and are basically anti-Semitic fantaies.
Most of your posts are foolish and silly based as they are on nothing more than anti-Israeli ideolgy. Rosenberg often has trouble with both the truth and logic. I will not be silent in the face of stupidity and dishonesty. There have always been Jews who have assisted the anti-Semites. History shows that being silent in the face of such behavior rarely has a good outcome.
Have a good day.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 15, 2007 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did it ever occur to you, leftAhead, and those who agree with you and Mr. Rosenberg that the reason the settlers are able to wield such influence over the policies of the Israeli government is precisely because of over two thousand obsolete rockets--since Irael withdrew from Gaza in 2005 --aimed from Gaza solely for the putrpose killing innocent Israelis? How much support would the settlers have from that government if Arafat and the Hamas leaders had emulated Anwar Sadat,recognized Israel was here to stay, and cut a deal. In 1980 Ariel Sharon forcibly kicked some of those settlers out of Yamit, in what is now Egypt, because Sadat did make a deal and was prepared to enforce it. When the Palestinians find their Sadat, the support for, or acqiuescence in, the demands of settlers will greatly diminish among most Israelis.
December 16, 2007 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Emet18.
"the support for, or acqiuescence in, the demands of settlers will greatly diminish among most Israelis"
Some of the disapora are just as insatiable for the land as are the settlers they succor. The hardcore have no intention of giving up a dunum as their basic attitude to the Government is anarchic and the worst are seditious. The IDF is their militia in the OT and obeys orders from the central Israeli government only if the generals feel like it. Basically means that there is no partner for peace among the current crop of Israeli politicians as their edicts to the IDF have no effect when in comes to the daily lives of their Palestinian charges.
Unless the Israelis get fed up with their fanatic welfare types and have a leader tough enough to give the IDF orders that they WILL obey all the way down the line, things will continue as per usual with always the threat/promise of a bloodbath in the offing.
I'm glad to see that the issue of how much influence the American disapora should have over internal Isreali decisions is churning within Israel. Overreach can be a bitch.
Sderot, rockets and it's utility as-is are a whole 'nother subject.
December 16, 2007 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
LeftAhead:
You write to Daniel as follows:
"In this article, MJ gives a concrete example of Israeli confiscation of Palestinian land, and sends Daniel A. Greenbaum on a rant that is a parody of his own accusations against MJ--devoid of fact, foolish and silly."
What nonsense and how unfair. Daniel was responding to a post by Mark Weinberg in which Daniel is called a troll and you then criticize Daniel for not addressing MJ's substantive points?
Baloney, really. And what a metaphor for how these threads have operated in fact.
By the way, including my own comments, and yours too leftahead, how many people in this thread have directly responded to MJ's post beyond the usual, "excellent post MJ", or "you're full of it MJ?"
Bruce
P.S. And, no, I do not condone personal attacks on MJ, from Daniel, davai, or anyone else. I will say, as I've said before, that MJ has in the past been deliberately provocative, and it has colored my perception of how seriously MJ takes this forum. I stand by that assessment.
December 18, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a third alternative: one can be pro-American, and for or against Israel to the extent that relations with Israel promote the national security interests of the United States. Now, whether supporting actions of the State of Israel are attractive in the domestic politics of the United States, just as an implacably hostile policy toward Cuba are attractive to a different voting bloc, is quite another matter.
While there were requests to attack the Nazi death camps in Poland in WWII, the reality, given the aircraft and bases available, is that no effective raid could have been conducted by the West, unless the Soviets gave landing and refueling rights, which they refused. Poland was too far from the bases being used by British and American bombers of the time.
In 1956, Americans were surprised when the Hungarians actually revolted against the Russians. For all the anti-Communist rhetoric, there was little practical action the US could take to avoid the killing and imprisonment of large numbers of Hungarians. The unfortunate events in Budapest, here and there, gave a reality check to various foreign policy activists: don't write a check for another nation, unless you are willing to spend the lives and treasure to cash it.
UN inaction certainly did not reduce the slaughter in Rwanda, although I believe that if the on-scene UN commander, MG Romeo Dallaire, had been given the authority to take specific noncombat action, the casualties were much less.
While I regret the casualties in Rwanda, the US was not involved in that situation. I regret the genocide in Cambodia, but, again, there was little the US could have done about it.
The US first invoked the NATO treaty on 9/11/2001, having taken a direct attack on its soil. Should there be a terrorist threat against another NATO country, or a country with which the US has a mutual defense treaty, the US is obliged to act.
The US has no such treaty with Israel, and the US is not the world's policeman. If the actions of the State of Israel cause it to suffer casualties, and Israel has no effective means of stopping the casualties, the responsibility of the United States is no more than to any country under attack. I'm sure Buddhists are being killed in Myanmar and Tibet, but it is not anti-Buddhist to say it is not the US responsibility.
Right now, I do not consider the actions of the State of Israel to be of net benefit to the United States. Such a statement is not based on religion or perceived ethnicity. It is based on geopolitics, and, if unwise Israeli actions cause security risks to the US, then the US may need to take actions that get the attention of the Israeli government, such as suspending military deliveries. Under no circumstances should the US provide Israel with weapons, such as the M26 rocket, which have been used in violation of the sales agreement, in violation of US doctrine for the use of those weapons, and in a manner that did not either stop Hizbollah or protect Lebanese citizens.
Now, here's an experiment. Try explaining why the M26 was used in that manner, and why there were no alternatives to an approximate 1600:1 destructive reply to a GRAD, much less a Qassam. Explain to me why the US response to such weapons in Iraq manages to be much more selective.
Try explaining why Israel went after the Lebanese electrical power system, and how that relates to the collective punishment clause of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Bombing Beirut International Airport to fine powder would have been appropriate, but that wasn't a significant part of the response.
Try explaining why Israel has stopped joint development of the Nautilus laser system and of the Israeli-modified Oerlikon Skyguard, both of which have been demonstrated to be able to shoot down a light artillery rocket.
You might even try to explain why Israel doesn't seem to be able to infiltrate snipers into Gaza, or use UAVs to detect and engage rockets.
Davai will probably say something silly and incoherent, but why don't you try a substantive response rather than flinging accusations of anti-semitism? Who knows, you might even want to discuss the correlation of nuclear weapons capabiity in the region.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 15, 2007 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Mark,
On December 11, 2007 - 6:24pm mjrosenberg said:
I don't write to convince my fellow TMPers but to help reinforce them in their views
People who read MJ' posts so that MJ help reinforce them in their views, should skip my comments, and don't reply to them. It probably would be fair for Daniel and other people who might disagree with MJ to warn the readers that reading their comments will NOT reinforce them in their views, so that some readers can skip such dissident comments without reading.
December 15, 2007 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fellow commenters, please also take note of davai's Law when making your responses:
December 15, 2007 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is a troll here? Can you just ignore me?
Why do you make circus out of MJ thread more than MJ make it by his post?
December 15, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could (and often do) ignore you, davai, but today i'm choosing to make an example out of you:
davai's Law is so that we will never forget the viewpoint of who is davai, and why this person is so discredited and degenerate, an intellectual beggar at the table who is taking advantage of this forum by demanding attention to his niggardly contributions.
Just as with terrorists and cockroaches, you can't convert or kill 'em all, so I don't expect that this will change anything, however, I just want to put the lie to your faux character, dismiss with civility, and definitively prove what an assclown you really are.
In fact, I think that, like Howard's ending quote by Santayana, davai's Law would make an excellent sig--so that we will always be reminded of the words of the great and wise man, davai.
December 15, 2007 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, Davai should be banned. Previously I recommended someone find him a job for his own good. However, my cries went unheard. Now, I believe we must ban him.
This is not because of his shrill language and troll nature, but because he degenerates every conversation into a redherring debate on anti-semitism.
Some may say we should just ignore him. But inevitably he ruins most threads by getting personal and changing the subject. Thus destroying the thing that brings me to TPM Cafe, the powerful, competitive exchange of ideas. I think most would agree this website brings about a more issue-centered dialog than the average place. Unfortunately Davai seeks to destroy this through baseless ad-hominem attacks that change the debate.
It is time we put Davai out to pasture, so to speak, so he go back to his normal routine of checking under his bed for anti-semitism.
December 15, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davai,
This is the first and only time I will be responding to you. My comment was meant for other posters here not you. I do realize it may be hard for you to understand that the world cares little about your opinion--my post certainly paid yours little concern--however,it may be hard to realize this posting in your mother's basement (Yes, I too can engage in the ad hominem).
While I certainly do not come to this spot to have my opinions reinforced by MJ--I am to the left of him(insert Davai's accusation of anti-semitism)--I do think MJ's opinion is useful. However, to your concern about pointing to "any example (sic) of exchange of ideas in MJ's threads," I will respond.
First, I am not sure how MJ can exchange ideas in his posts. That would likely result in a cumbersome writing style of point, counterpoint. People "exchange ideas," hence the TPM community, not MJ. He writes a column based on his opinion.
Second, if by exchange of ideas you mean that he writes from a nuanced, independent method, I believe he does. For instance, while MJ is nominally of the left, he has taken many opinions that some of us disagree with. He was in support of the catastrophic invasion of Lebanon, believes that Jimmy Carter's rather tepid Peace not Apartheid is wrong, and is wed to the fictionalized narrative of Israel as innocent victim in '48 and '67 (negated by Ben Gurion, Dayan and others)while denying its ultimate territorial motive. This is fine. I disagree with him. On the other hand, despite his past working for AIPAC and other organizations, he is highly critical of settlements, American "friends of Israel," the occupation, and the fiscal isolation of Palestine. It requires guts to disparage past allies and positions, which MJ does regularly.
Finally, in regards to your concern that it is others, not you, that debase the debate, you are way of the mark (par the course). I am curious what accusing people of antisemitism for using the word "neocon" is? Is calling Dick Cheney a neocon anti-semetic? How about George Bush? Further, what is intellectually competitive about calling MJ a murderer and others anti-semetic when they are not? Likely it is because you have no original ideas and rely on rightwing talking points to comment.
If you read this whole post--which seems unlikely since you instantaneously respond to everything, offering useless, baseless rants--I suggest you do not respond. I have little need for your input and I will not be responding. And I will leave you to smear excrement around the bars of your play pen.
P.S. May a suggest a hobby? Maybe Knitting or running. Or reading, perhaps. Yes, think that may do you some good.
December 15, 2007 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess your experiment ended in a total failure.
There are bunch of morons who couldn't not help themselves.
December 15, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark:
If management thinks davai is ruining the discourse in these threads then it can and should take steps to remedy the situation.
But, then, seriously Mark, what would you do if you didn't have davai to kick around anymore? You exist in this venue for the sole purpose of taking shots at people like davai. Anyone can review your comments and reach the same conclusion. You and your alter ego Sean below have offerred nothing of substance to these discussions. Calling davai and Daniel and others trolls is not substance.
Bruce
December 18, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well M.J. this should be a normal thread long and full of vituperative comments about you and all of the other posters who share the desire for a two state solution. I look forward to reading this thread either later today or tomorrow. Keep up the good work.
December 15, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see here that MJ is rehashing all the old falshoods we have seen before in one posting.
(1) "No, we are not DIVIDING Jerusalem, we are SHARING it"...PLEASE, this is total nonsense. You claim that the Arabs of Jerusalem don't want the city divided. That is true, that is why most want it to remain under Israeli rule, because they know that putting the Palestinian Authority in charge of parts of Jerusalem means getting terrorist gunmen free reign, AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE ARAB RESIDENTS OF THE AREA. This is exactly what happened in Bethlehem when Israel pulled out and gunmen started firing on the Gilo neighborhood. The local residents of Beilehem didn't like it, but they are not about to argue with someone who is pointing an AK-47 in their face.
(2) You say "No one, I repeat no one, is contemplating physical division of the city". I have pointed out that the Left in Israel does not make this claim, they don't call it "sharing" the city, they call it "dividing the city", and dividing the city means returning to the mine fields, barbed wire and anti-sniper walls that were Jerusalem's lot before the Six-Day War.
(3) You say: "In any case, Palestinian Jerusalem will not be separated from Israeli Jerusalem. The tourist walking from the King David Hotel to the Western Wall will not know when he is leaving or entering areas under Israeli (or Palestinian) sovereignty."
This is totally preposterous. WHO THE HECK IS GOING TO BE IN CHARGE OF SECURITY IN THE DIFFERENT AREAS? A couple of weeks ago, three official Palestinian uniformed policemen murdered a Jewish motorist in a drive-by shooting. Do you really believe these people will protect the security of Israelis in Jerusalem? Are Israeli police in charge of the Jewish areas, and Palestinian police in the Arab areas, or will it be a joint police force? Where else in the world, in such a sensitive place is there such a cumbersome arrangement?
(4) MJ, you stated "Also, note,back in the day when I was a pro-Israel activist on campus, I did it out of love. Now the pro-Israel Right is paying kids a thousand bucks to stand up for Israel."
Since you are such an idealist, MJ, I suggest you give up your salary at the Israeli Policy Forum to serve as an example to the rest of us. In any event, although we here in Israel oppose this goverment's suicidal policies appreciate the help from the Jews in American who support our position on Jerusalem (which is the MAJORITY position of American Jews), it is we here who will make the major effort and we have plenty of young and old idealists who will do the job.
December 15, 2007 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Talmud, for instance, refers to Bar-Kokhba as "Ben-Kusiba", a derogatory term used to indicate that he was a false Messiah.
December 15, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is not viewed in Jewish history as a "false messiah" but rather as a "failed messiah". Opinions about him are divided on him to this day. That is why I took that as my pen-name. The "Bar-Kochba controversy" was recently re-ignited in Israel (it comes up every so often) by a new book by Rabbi Dr Benny Lau who blasted him. Leftists like Yossi Sarid were ecstatic about the book. Lau obviously has a political agenda..he is using Bar-Kochba to attack the Jewish settlement movement in Judea/Samaria. But the analogy is wrong. The Jews of Judea/Samaria didn't initiate an uprising againt foreign occupation. The real parallel in modern times to Bar-Kochba is Ben-Gurion who, by declaring the state of Israel, led to a war with the Arab states. Of course, Lau and Sarid don't realize this comparison...they are Zionists and like Ben-Gurion, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, the Arabs oppose any Jewish state within any borders, just like the Romans of Bar-Kochba's time.
December 15, 2007 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to point out that the current municipal boundaries of Jerusalem where drawn up shortly after the Six-Day War by then General Rehavam Ze'evi. The assumption was that in the event of the removal of Israeli security control from areas of Judea/Samaria surrounding Jerusalem, it is necessary for Israeli to maintain control of the areas are vital for the protection of the main part of the city. That is why the Arab villages Haim Ramon is complaining about were put within the city's municipal boundaries. Of course, Haim Ramon's demagogic claim that "our forefather's didn't pray for Walajeh and Abu Dis" is nonsense...they prayed for all of Eretz Israel which is holy in Jewish tradition. One could add that he could add to his list the places where the Knesset, the Israeli Museum, the King David Hotel and most of the rest of western Jerusalem which were not within the boundaries of the biblical city.
Ramon and the Labor Party are also in favor of removing the most of the Old City and the surrounding City of David and Mount of Olives from Israeli control and putting them under some sort of ill-defined "international regime" which no one knows how it will work, and these areas were the parts of Jerusalem "our forefathers prayed for" even according to Haim Ramon (BTW-your comment that G Gordon Liddy who is helping us on Jerusalem is a "convicted Watergate criminal", well, your pal Ramon is a convicted sex offender.)
After the Six-Day War it was unthinkable for the entire Israeli political spectrum to divide the city. As late as 1999, both the Labor Party and MERETZ opposed it. What changed? First, the Israeli Left has become post-Zionist and "post-Jewish"--Jewish nationalism has become anathema to them, and giving away Judaism's holiest places is viewed as a positive good. You all have seen MJ's denounciation of Orthodox/religious Jews here and many in the Israeli Left agree with him. They view cutting off the Jewish people from the holy sites as a way to weaken the religious community.
Secondly, the Left, as a result of Oslo has seen that they have been able to get away with destroying the security of Israeli citizens...When the suicide bomber war began in earnest in 2000-2001, Mr Hawk Sharon kept saying that it wasn't possible to stop it, that our "friend" Mr Bush opposed taking action, etc. Finally, after the Pesach Seder Nite Massacre in 2002, Sharon was finally forced to take action, and Mr Bush had to keep silent. Today, the security of the citizens around the Gaza Strip has been destroyed due to the destruction of Gush Katif, and yet there is little public protest and the gov't keeps making idle threats to do something. These people who support dividing Jerusalem, apparently believe that the Israeli population will tolerate the Jewish parts of the city being turned into the insecure shooting gallery it was before 1967. They know dividing the city will bring this situation back and they think they can get away with this crime.
December 15, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Military control without a civilian presence is simply "military occupation" and is unviable in the long run. Jews have lived CONTINUOUSLY for over 2000 years in Gaza and Sharon committed a crime against the Jewish people in expelling the Jews from there.
December 15, 2007 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be pedantic about this, but I was unaware there were Jews in Gaza between 1948 and 1967.
Regardless, the argument about dismantling the settlements in Gaza was that the cost of maintaining a population of 8,000 Jews is a sea of 1.5 million Palestinians was not worth it, especially since few Israelis felt any emotional attachment to Gaza.
Also, your argument that "military control without a civilian presence is simple "military occupation" and is unviable in the long run is an interesting one. I have to ask why you think that is the case. Furthermore, under any conceivable arrangement that even you could endorse, there will be a need for Israel to have final say over security matters, whether it is control over airspace or control over borders. It would take 50 years of peace before Israel would relinquish these things. How is that different from the mere "military occupation" you deride?
December 16, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agee, Token 8000 people don't make any difference. I as well as majority American Jews and American people in general can understand simply "military occupation" in the long run as long as it's needed to protect Israeli cities from rocket attacks, but I can't defend military occupation for protection of 8000 settlers in Gaza.
December 16, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Jews of Gaza were either killed or run out at gunpoint in 1948 (many were also forced out as a result of Arab terror in 1936), so your "pedantic" point makes no sense.
How do you think the whole Zionist enterprise got started?....small, scattered settlements all over the country. If Gush Katif had been allowed to develop normally, there would have been tens of thousands of Jews there in a few years, and then more and more. Before the axe fell, most of the houses in the Gush were full and there was demand for more.
December 16, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 16, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the Zionist enterprise got started, the small scattered settlements were not cheek-by-jowl with a teeming mass of more than a million radicalized Arabs.
I never understood the attachment of some to Gaza. Why did the settlements get started there in the first place? It's not attractive strategically, had no resources or other assets of any value, only had a marginal Jewish presence before Israel was established, was not that important historically and had the most radical, fanatic Arabs to contend with. Didn't Israel try to dump the place on the Egyptians soon after the Six-Day War anyway?
What was the point?
Every country has to make cost-benefit analyses and I have a hard time believing the benefits of establishing settlements in Gaza outweighed the costs of defending it. The early Zionist pioneers made those kinds of calculations all the time. Why are you unable to?
December 16, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should listen to yourself.
December 16, 2007 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid you are not up on the history of Zionism. Many existing, old-Yishuv (i.e. pre-Zionist) communities were right in the middle of existing towns with Arab populations such as Jerusalem, Haifa, Tiberias, Jaffa-Tel Aviv, GAZA, Safed, Hevron, Shechem (Nablus) and others. Many newer Zionist settlements were put in areas that had Arabs in the vicinity.
To the Jewish people, ERETZ ISRAEL is holy, and many non-religious people can understand that as well as the religious. That is why the Zionist movement rejected Britain's offer to settle in Kenya (called "the Uganda Plan") even though Herzl supported it. Gaza is 100% part of Eretz Israel and it has many fine qualities, although unfortunately we don't hear about them today. The Jewish community that existed there more or less continuously for the last 2000 years was one of the most prosperous in the country.
The largest synagogue-floor-mosaic from the Talmudic period is found in Gaza City. Settling the area was a high priority for the Zionist movement in the pre-state period.
Yitzhak Rabin and other non-religious people were the prime movers for settlement in Gaza in the 1970's.
December 18, 2007 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the sake of argument, let us assume that a people can establish historical occupancy in an area, going back centuries or millenia. Let us assume they, but not necessarily the world, considers the land holy to them. Let us assume that they have been driven from some of their traditional lands, although not in the recent past, and large portions of the population, at that time, was slaughtered.
When, therefore, can the Apache Nation return to their ancestral lands? While the exact rules vary with the tribe/nation, to return to the lands, one usually must be able to document that at least one grandparent or great-grandparent was a recognized member of the tribe. Germany and Ireland use the single-grandparent rule, even if, the grandparent were born in lands that are not part of the current nation of Germany.
There seems to be an exceptionalism at work here.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 18, 2007 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Britain (Balfour Declaration 1917), League of Nations (1922 Mandate for Palestine) and United Nations (1947 Palestine Partition Resolution) all accepted it, so you had better learn to live with it. Also, at least de jure, so did Sadat in Egypt, King Hussein in Jordan and even Yasser Arafat in his Oslo move (there is no mention of any settlement freeze or the such in the Oslo Agreements). I once rode in a convoy to the Netzarim settlement in the Gaza Strip escorted partly by Palestinian Police under Arafat's command.
December 18, 2007 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ Thank you for WP pointers:
The monsters sent this young woman to die, so that in the future it would be hard for Palestinians to get a health care in Israel.
How can you negotiate with such monsters? Until Palestinians get rid of such monsters or at least denounce such monsters, there is no chance for peace.
December 15, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
DanielGree said:
WOW, I didn't know this about the Rosenberg threads. Tell me more.
"I will not be silent in the face of stupidity and dishonesty." heh heh heh.
December 15, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, Why do you need Daniel to tell you more.
YOu know that "Everything is Israel's fault and the Arabs and the Palestinians have no role in the situation" is the official party line of MJ and his followers and admirers. So why are you trolling here and asking stupid questions? If you have nothing to say, don't.
December 15, 2007 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have known John for a number of years and he is far from a troll. Your claim that he is saying nothing shows your lack of reading skills. Maybe he should have added sarcasm tags for you to see the sarcasm embedded in his post.
December 15, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kathy,
I usually ignore that character, however, if I'm ever tempted to post to him, I sing that old song to myself:
"Buckle down Winsocki, buckle down,
You can win Winsocki, if you knuckle down...."
and the urge to post passes, works every time.
December 15, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it useful to remind myself that a canard is sometimes just a duck. At that point, I need not duck the flow of images, but picture the noisy one in a Donald Duck sailor suit, squawking "AFLAAAC!"
Did I mention that I practiced for my Boy Scout silent movement test by sneaking up behind ducks, at the local pond, and goosing them?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 15, 2007 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
lulz
December 15, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
"AFLAAAC!"
You're selling Insurance now?
GROAN!
December 15, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's examine davai's latest disinformation nugget--that there is no support by Israelis for sharing Jerusalem. A quick Google search turns up plenty of support, including links such as this one:
PRINCIPLES FOR SHARING JERUSALEM
In the January 31, 2000 issue, Time Magazine reported that "a group of establishment figures in Israel has endorsed the idea of sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians. 'This is the real beginning of slaughtering of sacred cows,' said Shlomo Gazit, a former head of Israeli military intelligence. After meetings between Israeli and Arab academics, diplomats and retired military officers sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation and the University of Oklahoma, the participants agreed that West Jerusalem should serve as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. . .. .'There is ideology and reality, and we have to be realists,' said Joseph Ginat, an anthropologist at Haifa University who initiated the project."
Released January 23, 2000 to the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel and to the Office of the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority:
Signatories
Participants:
Dr. Mohammed Ali, Jordanian
Prof. Manuel Hassassian, Palestinian
Mr. Rateb M. Amro, Jordanian
Prof. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Egyptian
Dr. Taisir Amre, Palestinian
Mr. Abdullah T. Kanaan, Jordanian
(Amb.) Tahseen Basheer, Egyptian
Dr. Menachem Klein, Israeli
Prof. Dale Eickelman, American
Prof. Moshe Ma'oz, Israeli
Dr. Kahlil Elian, Jordanian
Mr. Rami Nasrallah, Palestinian
Dr. Baheildin Elibarchy, Egyptian
(Amb.) Edward Perkins, American
Prof. Abraham Friedman, Israeli
Dr. Hussein Ramzoun, Jordanian
(Gen.) Shlomo Gazit, Israeli
Dr. Yitzhak Reiter, Israeli
Prof. Joseph Ginat, Israeli
Prof. Shimon Shamir, Israeli
Dr. Motti Golani, Israeli
Prof. Shibley Telhami, American
Dr. Mohammed Jadallah, Palestinian
Mr. Khalil Tufakji, Palestinian
Prof. Mohanna Haddad, Jordanian
Prof. Ephraim Yaar, Israeli
December 15, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Notice, that there were few people dreaming about such thing in 2000. After horors of Second Intifada, how many of them still think this way?
What's the support of such ideas today in Israel?
December 15, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is the tolerance of the world community for Zionist Israel's flouting of international laws and its own agreements?
December 15, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't care
December 15, 2007 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haaretz published just today an article about the recent report by the Red Cross, a highly respected international NGO, outlining the humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Territories (Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem).
In general, there is much more awareness of the Palestinian side of the story of the conflict in Europe.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 15, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie,
Let me repeat:
It’s very unfortunately that bleeding heard liberals, like you never denounce senseless mindless, pointless campaign of Hamas and other terrorist/freedom fighters group directed to create humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Once you and your fellow bleeding heard liberals direct your fury where it belongs, on Hamas, they stop this mindless campaign of temper tantrum.
December 15, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are missing the point: Under international law, collective punishment is NEVER acceptable. Therefore, Israel's actions are not acceptable. Full stop.
December 17, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that Japanese civilians flied to US for medical care during WW2.
I'm not sure that Israel has a duty to provide a medical care for residents of Gaza in Israel anyway, leave alone if goverment of Gaza use "sick" women for suicide terrorist acts.
BTW, Israel continiue to provie madical care for Palestinians in Gaza, however, rocket attacks on Israel and border crossing as well as additional measure that Israel has to take, make such treatment harder to get for Palestinians.
December 17, 2007 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You apparently haven't read the stories of the Palestinians who had died in Gaza because they could not leave to get medical care. Try using Google.
Your posts all contain what Wittgenstein criticized most: imprecision of language to create ambiguity. You try to give words multiple meanings so that you wiggle out of their consequences. Here is your routine: You react to an unpleasant fact by trying to minimize it's substance, as if that changes the unpleasant fact. For example, you claim that Palestinian land is not being expropriated for settlements (it is, if only to build access roads), then you concede that only a small portion is being taken. Then you concede that compensation is being paid, etc. (As if that justifies the taking.) If the Palestinians don't want to take the compensation, what is the alternative? They get nothing. I think Don Corleone, a fictional character, called this process "making him an offer he can't refuse."
Your point is to deny the fact, then admit a portion of it, and then deny its consequence. In the law, this is called pleading in the alternative. In rhetoric, it is called moving the goalposts.
Finally, when all else fails, you plead "tu quoque," i.e., the "you too" argument. This is the ultimate kindergarten argument and actually proves nothing. We all know that our wonderful country used to endorse slavery, killing off Native Americans, etc. Relevance?
December 19, 2007 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a One-Stater. That the price the Zionists pay for stealing the best farmland in the West Bank. It can be argued that longer the Peace Process is delayed by successive Israeli governments, the more they doom themselves. Notice how France was quite happy to fete the air plane bomber. The Arabs states have mountains of cash. It's time they used to change American policy forever.
December 17, 2007 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid Mr Mythbuster is creating myths. As I explained at length in a recent thread ALL of the Jewish settlements in Judea/Samaria were built on empty lands, mostly on uninhabited hilltops. Most are in areas that have little Arab population in the vicinity. No valuable "farmland" has been taken.
In addition, Jews have been living throughout Judea/Samaria more or less continuously for 4000 years so we have as much right, if not more, to be there than do the Arabs.
December 17, 2007 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct about "farmland"
But I have a question, why do you need to live
on "uninhabited hilltops"?
I agree that Jews have a right to live throughout Judea/Samaria , however, Jews and Arabs who live throughout Judea/Samaria will have to EVENTUALLY have the same goverment and live in the same contry that would have to govern by Western democratic standards. There is no way around this.
December 17, 2007 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
See this is why I don't join the anti-Davai bandwagon. While we disagree, you do make distinctions. Others, unfortunately, do not.
My wife's relatives live in Israel (East Jerusalem) and some others in the West Bank. They are educated and want secular government. In fact, the ones in East Jerusalem work for Israeli companies and do not chant "Death to Israel" nightly.
The settlers are making it very hard for them to support a Two-State solution. By talking the "unihabited land"--i.e. olive groves, etc., the Settlements make a separate state non-viable. And without a viable state, what is the alternative: fusion.
December 17, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any prove that Israel takes "olive groves" from Palestinians and give them to settlers. I'm sure that very small amount of land was taken for the fence. I know you don't like it, but it's a different issue.
December 17, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The farmland is taken for the benefit of Israel. It is land that was not owned or occupied by Israelis. And small amount? That is a very relative term. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference.
December 17, 2007 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fence has nothing to do with the settlements. It was the Left that wanted the fence so they could dilineate what they hoped would become a border line that would be close to the Green Line (pre-67 cease-fire line), using the suicide bomber attacks as the justification, even though it doesn't really have to do with that. The Judea/Samaria Jews more-or-less oppose the fence.
December 18, 2007 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your point is what? The Apartheid Wall just puts a limit on Settler Expansionism. Hence, the Settlers don't like it.
December 18, 2007 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Del
December 15, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
After months of defending davai, I have now switched to the ban davai camp because of his refusal to heed the warnings of management. A poster who ignores multiple warnings is a troll and davai has amply demonstrated that he can't or won't change his MO. Davai continues to exhibit contempt for MJ, the TPMCafe community and Andrew Golis. In addition, he appears to be escalating his offensive behavior instead of "chilling" as requested.
To me, davai is the type of poster who literally becomes obsessed with a community and in this case, he has also become fixated on MJ to the point where he has morphed into a stalker.
Enough is enough. Off with 'is 'ed.
(If banned, I would fully expect davai zombies to emerge in the future; even using new ISPs in order to "participate". His pattern is a familiar one )
December 15, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally, why do you have defend or offend me. I wrote few short comments. If you don't like my comments, ignore them, skip them, write something interesting yourself that people will comment on your comments, It's called competition in markepace of ideas.
December 15, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in this marketplace your comments are consistently given low ratings. Isn't the customer always right?
December 18, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink