Israel's Coming Civil War

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
With regards to the OT: I say let anyone who wants to stay there stay. It's just as unfair to uproot people who lived there for 20 years, as it is unfair to uproot palestinians. They can arrange their own militia, and defend themselves. Why the hell is it so important that the lands the palestinians get are jew-free?

Why is it important to make sure the settlements remain Arab free?

I would agree with you, let the settlers stay, as long as they announce they will follow palestinian law and give up any benefits they currently have, they will pledge to be good citizens of Palestine, and if they refuse, well, they have the right to return to Israel.

[Az]

maybe this has come up ones before...but what is the state tells the settlers evac with us to isreal or stay behind and not have the protection of the IDF? ok you will get a power vacuum and laying seeds for further conflict between settlers, isreal and any arab country....but according to the sate of isreal the settlers are being evaced because they live in places that isnt part of isreal...

That's the preferred option for me, and some leftists, and rightists. That those people would stay there, either killing arabs ( rightist pov), hugging arabs ( leftist pov), or doing-whatever-they-****ing-want-as-long-as-they-don't-bother-me ( my pov).

Sadly, this is not an option in the mainstream political talk, neither her, not internationally.

[Sandman]

Hmm. I was led to believe that most of the settlers were relatively harmless commuters, not the crazed 'I'm raising my kids to kill Arabs' types.

[DeathByTheSword]

then mainstream politcal talks are stupid...which I can say because i live over here and we have IDIOTS running the country...

[Eli]

Originally posted by Azazel
With regards to the OT: I say let anyone who wants to stay there stay. It's just as unfair to uproot people who lived there for 20 years, as it is unfair to uproot palestinians. They can arrange their own militia, and defend themselves.

I agree as far as fairness is concerned, but is it practical? Leaving the settlements to their own means will cause a hell of a lot of chaos and death in the territories.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I don't know if he's trolling, but I agree with what he's saying; compared to deliberately targeting civilians killing civilians as "collateral damage" is nice.

And who says that IDF isn´t deliberately killing civilians? It´s just that they mask it as "war on terror"...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sandman
Hmm. I was led to believe that most of the settlers were relatively harmless commuters, not the crazed 'I'm raising my kids to kill Arabs' types.

Most settlers live in a few large settlements ringing jerusalem.

The 7000 in Gaza are the more ardent nationalist types.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
And who says that IDF isn´t deliberately killing civilians? It´s just that they mask it as "war on terror"...

It would be impossible for the IDF to do so under current conditions. Oh sure, a crazed soldier here and there can kill an innocent civilian, or some company may have a faulty "culture" and be reckless in it's operations, but as an organization the IDF has too many restraints on it to actually have a policy of "deliberately killing civilians".

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kamrat X


And who says that IDF isn´t deliberately killing civilians?

Kuciwalker for one.

Not that it relates to the comparison being made.

[Az]

And who says that IDF isn´t deliberately killing civilians? It´s just that they mask it as "war on terror"...

Even if you go in a machiavellian analysis, what's the point? For the terrorists, there is little disadvantage in killing civilians, but a strong advantage. This is not the case for the IDF.

I agree as far as fairness is concerned, but is it practical? Leaving the settlements to their own means will cause a hell of a lot of chaos and death in the territories.

Nope. I don't think so. Not more or less than the stalemate we're facing now ( I expect negotiations meltdown in 10-15 months, unless the USA somehow hypnotizes the palestinians into stopping their stupid "come to Israel" demands, or something similar ).

It's just that the death and destruction will occur very rapidly. which is a plus: the same death and destruction, much less time wasted.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


Why is it important to make sure the settlements remain Arab free?

Doesn't matter, since they won't long remain Arab-free if the IDF ceases to protect them.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Azazel
Nope. I don't think so. Not more or less than the stalemate we're facing now ( I expect negotiations meltdown in 10-15 months, unless the USA somehow hypnotizes the palestinians into stopping their stupid "come to Israel" demands, or something similar ).

It's just that the death and destruction will occur very rapidly. which is a plus: the same death and destruction, much less time wasted.

I disagree.

First, while the success of the negotiations is uncertain, their failure will definetely be certain if the settlements remain only with their own means. Whatever chance the peace process has will be destroyed by the outbreak of new, disorganized and much more brutal warfare in the territories.

Second, why do you think the "death and destruction" will be rapid? The settlers wont be able to win, only to hold out for as long as possible. So a rapid end means the death of all settlers. Hardly utilitarian.

[lord of the mark]

settlers in Gaza - while theyre not commuters, they are a mix of backgrounds and, apparently, motives. Haaretz has a nice guide to the Gaza settlements (and the 4 in northern west bank which will also be included in the disengagement) Some had settled in Sinai and were later moved to Gaza. Some are religious, some secularists, some are in collective or semi-collective settlements. A few intend to stay on, some intend to move back to Israel, and at least one group plans on moving to a Kibbutz!!!! And BTW, not all who settled with religious/nationalist motives are equally militant or violent.

As for settlers living under Pal rule - well the problem is that SOME folks in Palestine wont want them there, and whenever something bad happens to them, or allegedly bad, it will create a stink in ISRAELI politics - all in all, given the delicate nature of things, it would be much better if theyd simply leave. Its just trouble waiting to happen if they stay on.

As for Arabs in settlements, IIUC Israeli Arabs in theory could move to Israeli settlements in the territories. Im not aware any have though, which i suspect is a function of both a hostile social environment in the settlements, and Israeli arab refusal to lend any legitimacy to the settlements.

[Az]

I disagree.

First, while the success of the negotiations is uncertain, their failure will definetely be certain if the settlements remain only with their own means. Whatever chance the peace process has will be destroyed by the outbreak of new, disorganized and much more brutal warfare in the territories.

Oh, I don't think it will happen now. It's what will happen when the real stuff will come to the table, and the **** will return to it's beloved fan.

Second, why do you think the "death and destruction" will be rapid? The settlers wont be able to win, only to hold out for as long as possible. So a rapid end means the death of all settlers. Hardly utilitarian.

You think that the settlers are in a bad shape? The settlers will probably get thousands of volunteers. They have the funding to secure arms shipments. Many of them are well trained. I don't fear for them or their existance as an entity.

As to the utilitarianism of the stance, this is a very important part of the "cut your losses" plan that I envision as the short term strategy of our oasis of sanity. I've thought about it a lot, and it's the most utilitarian solution, at this point.

[Boris Godunov]

Seems to me the settlements should be "at your own risk." It's my understanding many of them arose without government sanction anyway, correct? So Israel can issue a stern warning to them to leave and offer to help resettle them elsewhere, but they shouldn't force them to leave.

But, then the IDF won't be responsible for protecting anyone who chooses to remain. So if the settlers don't want to be at the mercy of the PA, they'll either have to leave or be in charge of defending themselves.