The State of the Israeli Democracy 2003

[Whaleboy]

"Dismantling the settlements(except some small and isolated ones) is simply not practical"

True, but it is not impossible. There should certainly not be any more built. Under a Palestinian state, any existing ones would presumably come under the juristiction of that state, unless you going to have a very twisted borderline which the Palestinians will not go for. The settlers would have to be happy with that I would have thought.

I hope that the settlers come to live in peace with the Arabs, but I cant see that happening unless Israel makes concessions.

Whatever way, however painful in the short term, is it desireable to have peace. There is so much bad blood over the decades, which will make it harder, and more painful in the short term to have peace, but no doubt few will disagree when I say it is worth it. It is surely desireable to have Israelis and Palestinians living side by side, in peace and prosperity, as the Declaration of Israeli Independence implies.

[Eli]

Originally posted by elijah
True, but it is not impossible. There should certainly not be any more built.

I agree, but you cant stop "natural growth" in existing settlements.

Under a Palestinian state, any existing ones would presumably come under the juristiction of that state,

Highly unlikely.

unless you going to have a very twisted borderline which the Palestinians will not go for. The settlers would have to be happy with that I would have thought.

You can get a reasonable border line while still including ~80% of the settlements. Territory exchange can compensate for the "lost" Palestinian land.
The Gaza strip is very dense, a large area to the south of it that will be given to the Pals in exchange for the settlement blocks in Judea&Samaria will considerably help them.

I hope that the settlers come to live in peace with the Arabs, but I cant see that happening unless Israel makes concessions.

Funny.

Whatever way, however painful in the short term, is it desireable to have peace. There is so much bad blood over the decades, which will make it harder, and more painful in the short term to have peace, but no doubt few will disagree when I say it is worth it. It is surely desireable to have Israelis and Palestinians living side by side, in peace and prosperity, as the Declaration of Israeli Independence implies.

I agree, but I still maintain that the only practical solution to the settlements problem is annexing the lands of most of them and giving the Pals some other territory.

Look on it this way.
What people often see on TV, two caravans and five people living there, this is not a settlement. It's an outpost and there are ~75 of them in Judea&Samaria. Evacuating them is not a big problem.

The settlements are different though. Large and small towns, even one city, with villas, small buildings, schools, culture centers, etc.
And 250,000-300,000 Israelis live there.

Even if in the scenario of complete evacuation the only resistance the settlers will offer will be passive, that is they will chain themselves to their homes and will refuse to move... And if someone tries to move them, he'll have to carry them himself.
How many reserve divisions will the IDF have to mobilize to take every one of those 300,000 people, cut their chains, carry them one by one to trucks or something, drive them to Israel proper and make sure they dont come back the next morning?
How many soldiers will refuse such orders?
How many hundreds of thousands of Israelis will go to the streets protesting this?

It wont happen.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Eli
Dismantling the settlements(except some small and isolated ones) is simply not practical.

Why is this so? If they were created they can be dismantled.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by panag



hi ,

yes and no , we have patton on one hand who is calling for a boycott and who is doing with his secretary emma whatever he can to make sure Israeli produts are kept out of the market , ..... going from grape juice and wine to diamonds and white gold , from keter plastics to IMI bullet proof vests , .....

belgium that is the main EU tradepartner with us is to thank for that , ..... again the export and inport has fallen , ..... but they forget one thing , one we have more trade with them then all the arab countries combined , two they cut themselfs with this , .... why , simple , less money means less taxes , .....

down with the belgian and eu boycott people

the position of the dollar versus the euro has also made it hard , together with the global down trend , ....

but things are looking better , one step at the time , .....

have a nice day made in Eretz Israel

What boycott?

I suspect the reason trade between both countries has dropped is because the lion share of that trade is in diamonds (more specifically between Antwerp and Tel Aviv), and the diamond business has been suffering in general. I could try to look up some figures if you want.

Besides, the Jewish community in Antwerp has a large stake in the diamond business, and I don't think they'd boycott your country either.

[gsmoove23]

Sorry, crosspost, you seem to talk about dismantling as if it can only happen in one fell swoop. It would be much easier to first of all stop the incentives offered for people to move in to these communities. Start offering incentives for people to move OUT of these communities. Slowly phase the settlements out. There is nothing impossible about this, just difficult.

As for "natural growth" of course this could be stopped, its been stopped in the West Bank and Gaza for years, not to mention palestinian areas of Jerusalem.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by panag
down with the belgian and eu boycott people

I honestly believe the people who are pushing this boycott are much less high minded then they claim. What was the name of that Arab living in Belgium who keeps saying Euros should boycott American and Israeli goods and claims the Belgian government is controlled by Jews and Zionists? He even claimed the Belgium government should give reparations to Arabs for not helping them more in the past.

This man and everyone who follows him are just old-fashioned bigots and the "high minded intellectuals" who help him are just old style Euro anti-Semites in new clothes.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I honestly believe the people who are pushing this boycott are much less high minded then they claim. What was the name of that Arab living in Belgium who keeps saying Euros should boycott American and Israeli goods and claims the Belgian government is controlled by Jews and Zionists? He even claimed the Belgium government should give reparations to Arabs for not helping them more in the past.

This man and everyone who follows him are just old-fashioned bigots and the "high minded intellectuals" who help him are just old style Euro anti-Semites in new clothes.

Abdul Jah Jah is the name. Not sure who the bigots and the intellectuals you're talking about are. Jah Jah's following is pretty much limited to frustrated youths, Muslim fundamentalists and restyled communists. Most of the Muslim community rejects him and the boycott you're talking about is way overblown. Besides, 90% of the people wouldn't even know which products to boycott. (I wouldn't know either what you guys are selling us, aside of diamonds and oranges)

[Spiffor]

Is there a boycott against Israel going on in Belgium ? I knew the Israeli-Belgian relations are cold for some time now, but I was completely unaware of such a boycott.

[Sandman]

The only rational solution is a one-state solution. The only practical solution is... there isn't one.

[Eli]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Sorry, crosspost, you seem to talk about dismantling as if it can only happen in one fell swoop. It would be much easier to first of all stop the incentives offered for people to move in to these communities. Start offering incentives for people to move OUT of these communities. Slowly phase the settlements out. There is nothing impossible about this, just difficult.

And the Palestinian state will sit and wait while the settlers slowly leave?
Besides, many will leave, but a large chunk will still remain and will still make evacuation almost impossible.

Why tearing 300,000 people from their homes? Remove 30,000 and agree on territory exchanges(1:1 ratio), it's a much simpler and easier to implement solution.

As for "natural growth" of course this could be stopped, its been stopped in the West Bank and Gaza for years, not to mention palestinian areas of Jerusalem.

As Sharon said to Powell on this issue : "Do you reccomend all the settler women to abort their children?"

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Is there a boycott against Israel going on in Belgium ? I knew the Israeli-Belgian relations are cold for some time now, but I was completely unaware of such a boycott.

There isn't one going on.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Eli
And the Palestinian state will sit and wait while the settlers slowly leave?

Uh, do they really have a choice. I don't think any reasonable person would expect a mass exodus so yes. The land could be leased until some deadline is met, same as the Israeli proposal for the land bordering Jordan.

Besides, many will leave, but a large chunk will still remain and will still make evacuation almost impossible.

Those who stay will have to be evacuated and sufficiently compensated. Needless to say a good portion of this money will probably be paid by the US and frankly I wouldn't mind at all if it was money spent for a plan that had a reasonable chance of success.

Why tearing 300,000 people from their homes? Remove 30,000 and agree on territory exchanges(1:1 ratio), it's a much simpler and easier to implement solution.

I don't suggest getting rid of all the settlements, just all of the settlements in Gaza, all of the isolated WB settlements and a fair bit of the settlement blocks that can create a fairly contiguous state with a somewhat even border. BTW 1:1 land trade is worthless if the land gained is not the least bit comparable to the land lost.

As Sharon said to Powell on this issue : "Do you reccomend all the settler women to abort their children?"

This is such utter bs, whats more Sharon would obviously say the same thing to palestinian women in Jerusalem or in the territories before Oslo, as palestinian growth has always been restricted.

[Eli]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Uh, do they really have a choice. I don't think any reasonable person would expect a mass exodus so yes. The land could be leased until some deadline is met, same as the Israeli proposal for the land bordering Jordan.

There will be no mass exodus. The "worse" thing that can happen is removal of all the benefits for settlers, and it wont change much.
Again, 80% of the settlers are there to stay.

Those who stay will have to be evacuated and sufficiently compensated. Needless to say a good portion of this money will probably be paid by the US and frankly I wouldn't mind at all if it was money spent for a plan that had a reasonable chance of success.

Let's see... 300,000 people, 60,000 families, 60,000 homes, 150,000$ for every home, plus all the other infustructure. Tens of billions of dollars, not very reasonable.

I don't suggest getting rid of all the settlements, just all of the settlements in Gaza, all of the isolated WB settlements and a fair bit of the settlement blocks that can create a fairly contiguous state with a somewhat even border. BTW 1:1 land trade is worthless if the land gained is not the least bit comparable to the land lost.

That's pretty much what i'm saying. Try to include as many settlements as possible while maintaining a reasonable border.

As for the Gaza strip, the settlements inside have to go, but there are some settlements on the north of it, adjacent to Israel proper, there is no reason to remove them.

This is such utter bs, whats more Sharon would obviously say the same thing to palestinian women in Jerusalem or in the territories before Oslo, as palestinian growth has always been restricted.

Well, then I guess you will support it when the settlers start building tens of thousands of illegal homes every year to accomodate themselves, just like the Arabs in E. Jerusalem, the Beduins in the Negev and some Arabs in the Galilee do.

[Whaleboy]

I dont see it as unlikely that a new Palestinian state will incorporate the jewish settlements. If they want to stay, then they will be Palestinian citizens. If they wish to remain Israeli, then they will have to decide to go.

The most logical Palestinian state is for Israel to be restored to pre-1967 borders, thus obeying that UN resolution. I doubt very strongly that the Palestinians will accept anything less, nor would many people in their shoes, but I think that proposition is a reasonable one.

The only other plausible solution would be to give the Palestinians the Sinaii peninsula, call that Palestine, while Israel keeps the North and the West Bank. That wont happen because of the significance of Jerusalem and the desert conditions in much of Sinaii peninsula.

With regards to Jerusalem, both sides want it, and I dont feel that a joint capital will work... not for several years until things calm down a little. Perhaps a good idea would be for Jerusalem to become a city state like the Vatican, it has much religious and historical significance for the three semetic religions, and would help to cut out another potential problem to a lasting peace.

While it is true that the Jewish settlements should not be forced to be closed, the Israelis should accept that a new Palestinian state will incorporate them. There are Arabs in Israel, lets hope that Jews in Palestine will receive better treatment... what I saw when I visited reminds one of apartheid in South Africa... only South Africa didnt get billions of $ per year.

Natural growth is of course going to happen to those Jewish settlements, but hopefully, if they are part of a Palestinian state, they will become integrated into a new community... there is the possibility that one of the sticking points of this conflict becomes a seed of integration and unity.

Hopefully Palestine will give its minorities better treatment, but in any case, anyone who chooses to stay in the settlements would have to accept citizenship of that nation, otherwise, they would choose to move back to Israel.

[Eli]

You want to incorporate into the radical Palestinian society the most radical Israelis? Good luck.

They dont sit there because they like the view, they sit there to ensure that the land will stay under Israeli control. And they succeeded in this, large chunks of land are (relatively) heavy populated and will probably be not given to the Pals.
Living under Pal sovereignity is completely against their ideals, so the choice of come back to Israel or be Pal citizens is not really giving them any choice but to leave(or be forced to leave), and this, from reasons I stated earlier, is not going to happen.

Also, if anything will go wrong(for example, radicals attacking the settlers) Israel will have to interfere.
The Mossad works days and nights to prevent attacks against Jewish targets around the globe, so if something happens to those ex Israelis who live 20 minutes from Tel Aviv, Israel will have to interfere and it wont end well.