TW: This is the happy horse dung that I just do not understand from the Israelis. I understand they live in a rough neighborhood and need extraordinary security arrangements and guarantees, and the right of return for the Palestinians is a no-go for instance. But colonizing the West Bank makes no sense to me. It serves no purpose other than appeasement of the rabid right-wing settler community but undercuts their moral standing as a nation. The day an American POTUS says no mas to the settlements will be a good day.
The spokesman's rationales make no sense. To continue "natural growth" assumes they have a right to be there in the first place and/or that they will stay forever. That they are needed for security implies also that they will stay forever. If they are staying forever then they are true colonies and will require another series of wars to figure out if the Arabs are comfortable with an enlarged Israel.
From Haartez:
"Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon spoke on Saturday about the meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, held earlier this week, saying that Israel's government will not allow the U.S. to dictate its policy, and that "settlement construction will not be halted."
"Settlements are not the reason that the peace process is failing, they were never an obstacle, not at any stage," Ya'alon told Channel 2 News. "Even when Israel pulled out of [Palestinian] territory, the terror continued. Even when we uprooted [Jewish] communities, we got 'Hamastan.' That is why I propose that we think about it - not in slogans and not with decrees." According to Ayalon, "we will not halt the construction in the settlements within the framework of natural growth. There are people here who are living their lives, raising children. Housing is required ? it wasn't housing that has prevented peace."
... We won't let them threaten us," Ya'alon added. "From the banks of the Potomac in Washington it is not always clear what the real situation here is," Ya'alon concluded. "This is where Israel must step in and help her ally understand the situation."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087541.html
7 comments:
The argument I heard once about giving up the land (maybe on that 60 mins piece a few months ago) was that it was a major saftey concern as it is within rocket firing distance to Tel Aviv airport. That sounds like a legit concern. is it? Also one always here's the israeli's say "why cant the bordering arab states carve up some land for the palestinians. why won't they let them in their country?. is it b/c it's beneficial to their interests to let them wage their war in israel despite their living conditions? what's the objective answer on those q?
Re the airport- within time the entire state of Israel will be within range of Hizbollah and/or Hamas, Syrian or Iranian rockets. One way or the other Israel will have to develop defenses or deterrence. That argument relative to expanding settlements carries no water with me.
Re the issue of other states harboring the Palestinians ultimately. That would re-open the entire can of worms going back to the original creation of Israel. If the Israelis want to annex the West Bank, that would be a huge step that would be supported by just about no one outside Israel. It would also require the Israelis to either ethnically cleanse the West Bank, establish apartheid for the Arabs or lose their Jewish majority status throughout greater Israel.
one more thing on the land, if the ultimate agreement were to trade a little land here and there to accomodate Israeli security that makes sense to me, what makes NO sense are colonies of frequently zealous settlers being planted and expanded in throughout the West Bank outside any specific security structure.
ok. how about this one.. virtually all land was acquired in a war of some sorts for all countries. so why should israel give there's back? and if they have to, for the good of mankind, why not negotiate the land with their neighbors for the palestinians? ie. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon each donate some border land as well. why does it all come out of israel?
that gets you right back to annexation
The West Bank and Gaza were sovereign entities in 1967, I recommend Tom Segev's "1967", several of the top Israeli leaders at that time wanted to withdraw from most the occupied territory they acquired (obviously not Jerusalem) because they foresaw many of the problems which have materialized.
Again you end up with the cleansing, apartheid problems if you annex. You would also greatly destabilize Jordan (more than it already has been). Those Palestinians have been there a loooong time.
Your question says "why does it all have to come out of Israel", the world recognizes the pre-1967 borders as Israel not the post. So it is not coming out of "Israel", again to open that can of worms is a radical step that certain Likudniks might favor but it is utterly unrealistic unless you cleanse or create apartheid. Israel can do neither without foregoing their moral stature (and by association America's which to me is completely unacceptable).
Btw another angle
What is the motive of the settlement expansion?
Is it tactical security (i.e. the airport thing)?
Gradual annexation?
Religious zealotry?
i will check out the book.
i figure it's a sense of entitlement. which is close to your second and third option.
Post a Comment