The Disengagement Thread

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Az
Controlling the territories wasn't ever in Israel's best interests, and that's why Israel never annexed them - we don't want them, except for certain pockets. But leaving them back in the 70s was ****ing improbable - leave them to whom? the 70s PLO?!

Did they come as a gift from the magical land fairy and were plopped down where there was no land before?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az

Because many Israelis would see the potential danger of living with a large palestinian population, docile or not. Duh. The settlements were a burden on Israel, war or not - and you didn't have to have an intifada to let Israel go. If anything, Intifada, and the attacks on Israeli civilians especially, were the ones that prolonged Israeli control of the territories.

You have to be ****ing kidding me!

I am sorry, but its beyond me were you get the idea that back in 1985 there was any serious debate in Israel about the abandonment of Palestinian lands. As for "the settlements are a burden", please explain just HOW the first itifadah lead to a more than doubling of the settler population from 1987 to 1997.

Man, you're like the palestinian Scott Mclellan. What were those measures exactly? The major thing that hurt the palestinians the most was that it hurt the sale of palestinian goods and labor to Israel - and that wasn't done to "tighten it's evil grip" - but to protect it's territory from attacks and infiltrations.

Right. Cause those attacks on Israelis had nothing to do with israeli military rule over the occupaied territories, nothing...nothing at all.

Controlling the territories wasn't ever in Israel's best interests, and that's why Israel never annexed them - we don't want them, except for certain pockets. But leaving them back in the 70s was ****ing improbable - leave them to whom? the 70s PLO?!

Again, you have to be kidding me. Where exactly are you getting your primer on history? Its sure isn;t either he labor or Likud handbooks-your view is just too bizzare.

[Az]

Did they come as a gift from the magical land fairy and were plopped down where there was no land before?

No, you silly boy, they were conquered from Jordan.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Too bad.

so if and when the PA disarms Hamas, and the NYT reports how emotional it is, how bad Hamasniks feel that their own people are disarming them, will you be equally unsympathetic.

What's sad is that you have such a dumb view of me that you would think I would be emotional about that. NO, I would be happy to see them being disarmed. But if you need to seer me an an anti-semite or Arab lover to make yourself feel better, go right ahead. I don;t care.

I didnt ask if you would be happy to see them disarmed. I am happy to see the disengagement, yet I can muster some human sympathy for the spectacle of the settlers being evicted by soldiers of the army of their own country. So i asked, if Hamas is disarmed, and their are articles about the anguish, will you be so quick to dismiss that?

None of which implies you are an antisemite. Note well, one need not be an antisemite to be a hypocrite.


And of course theres nothing wrong with being an arab lover. Arabs are human beings, and loving fellow human beings is a good thing. Indeed, some arabs have been the direct victims of the intifada - notably Druze and Beduins who serve in the IDF. I certainly grieve for their deaths at the hands of terrorists.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I didnt ask if you would be happy to see them disarmed. I am happy to see the disengagement, yet I can muster some human sympathy for the spectacle of the settlers being evicted by soldiers of the army of their own country. So i asked, if Hamas is disarmed, and their are articles about the anguish, will you be so quick to dismiss that?

None of which implies you are an antisemite. Note well, one need not be an antisemite to be a hypocrite.

Your attempt to make it seem like I would care about Hamas suffering but not Settler suffering is your implication of anti-semitism (since that seems the usual label you would then place on someone who would 'treat the jews worse")

And no, I can muster no sympathy whatsoever for their "plight", because thier plight, just like that of the members of Hamas would be based purely on their own choices of lifestyle and actions, choices taken actively and rationally. Hamas gunmen chose to be armed, just as Settlers chose to live in Gaza behind barbed wire fences instead of living in Israel itself.

Choices have consequences. I save my sympathy for victims of chance and fate, not victims of their own bad choices.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

You have to be ****ing kidding me!

I am sorry, but its beyond me were you get the idea that back in 1985 there was any serious debate in Israel about the abandonment of Palestinian lands. As for "the settlements are a burden", please explain just HOW the first itifadah lead to a more than doubling of the settler population from 1987 to 1997.

The israelis will correct me, but in 1985, the govt of Israel was preoccupied with defeating hyperinflation, and the situation in Lebanon, Israel having just withdrawn from most Lebanon to a small part of South Lebanon. The PLO was in Tunisia, and there was talk of reaching an agreement with Jordan, for some kind of West Bank - Jordan confederation. Foreign policy initiatives were difficult, as Israel had a Labor-Likud coalition at the time, and the two parties were working at cross purposes. Then the intifada broke out, Jordan washed its hands of the West Bank, and Likud won the next Israeli election and instituted a hard line govt. The likud victory, and the Jordanian turn away, can be both be laid at the hands of the intifada, and both made territorial concessions more difficult in the circumstances of the time.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Your attempt to make it seem like I would care about Hamas suffering but not Settler suffering is your implication of anti-semitism (since that seems the usual label you would then place on someone who would 'treat the jews worse")

And no, I can muster no sympathy whatsoever for their "plight", because thier plight, just like that of the members of Hamas would be based purely on their own choices of lifestyle and actions, choices taken actively and rationally. Hamas gunmen chose to be armed, just as Settlers chose to live in Gaza behind barbed wire fences instead of living in Israel itself.

Choices have consequences. I save my sympathy for victims of chance and fate, not victims of their own bad choices.

Fine.

[Az]

You have to be ****ing kidding me!

I am sorry, but its beyond me were you get the idea that back in 1985 there was any serious debate in Israel about the abandonment of Palestinian lands.

Since it was on the table since day 1 of after 67', I don't see why wouldn't it return to the table in the mid 90s.

As for "the settlements are a burden", please explain just HOW the first itifadah lead to a more than doubling of the settler population from 1987 to 1997.

The settlements that grew aren't a real problem or danger to any palestinian state anyway, so I fail to see what's your argument here.

Right. Cause those attacks on Israelis had nothing to do with israeli military rule over the occupaied territories, nothing...nothing at all.

Eh, considering the fact that they started occuring prior to 67', yes. Let us remind you that the Intifada was sparked from the outside. Fatah started outside the west bank, and was introduced there, and in Gaza.

Again, you have to be kidding me. Where exactly are you getting your primer on history? Its sure isn;t either he labor or Likud handbooks-your view is just too bizzare.

You apparently know little to nothing on Israeli leadership views on the west bank and Gaza. Pity.

[lord of the mark]

from a 1985 interview with Shimon Peres.



Q: How do you think the Hussein initiative can be advanced given the contradictory reactions of yourself and of Vice Prime Minister Shamir to King Hussein's U.N. speech. He said the speech was verbiage and contained nothing new, whereas you welcomed the vision of peace and the readiness for direct negotiations. Can the king's initiative be advanced given this conflict?

A: There is no point in denying that this government is composed of two viewpoints, two appraisals, two parties, and I'm never amazed that members of one party react in one way and members of another party in a different way. This is hardly some military secret that's not known here or abroad. But we have agreed on a common basis, which Mr. Shamir this evening reiterated at the U.N., to meet with a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation - and Mr. Shamir was accurate when he said: Representatives of the residents of the territories, and other representatives to be agreed upon, to sit without prior conditions in face-to-face negotiations. In fact, there was also an initiative of my own, which was announced in the Knesset and generated considerable reverberations. You can call them initiatives. Let us analyze the debate. In fact it has to do with three actual issues: The easiest one to explain is the international conference. What do the Jordanians and Palestinians say? 'We find it uncomfortable to meet with Israel in one fell swoop face to face in broad daylight and launch negotiations.' Although I don't understand why they have to be so bashful when it comes to peace and so liberated when it comes to war: When the Arab states went to war, did they also seek mediators, superpowers? They didn't. But that's the excuse. Now they say, let's meet under an "umbrella" or under "auspices." (Incidentally, Dr. Burg, who has both a sense of humor and knowledge, proved to us that Hussein's expression - "appropriate auspices" - actually has the same root as the custom on our festival of Sukkot, "Ushpizin.')

Now we say, 'do you know what? We are definitely ready for international accompaniment. But for an international accompaniment whereby both Israel and the other side will have equal conditions.' Hussein is proposing to bring in the five permanent members of the Security Council: Russia, China, England, France and the U.S. When it comes to the U.S., England and France, we have no objections. But Russia broke off relations, and I have said before and reiterate now: There are even Arab statesmen who have reached the conclusion that if the Russians don't renew diplomatic relations with Israel, they shouldn't be invited to an international conference. This is also the U.S. position.

Q: Mr. Peres, I must interrupt you here. You after all served in a government which took such pride in the Geneva Conference in 1973 - and who if not the Soviet Union was the chairman of that conference. So what happened?

A: You're right. We've gained experience since then. What was the result of the Geneva Conference? It was a futile exercise. And besides that, we're allowed to have second thoughts and new considerations. Israel has aged by 12 years since then. Why can't Israel say to the Russians, 'Do you want to serve as mediators, as a bridge? First of all, renew diplomatic relations.' What's wrong with that? Why do I have to emulate 1973? Policy isn't an emulation of precedents. I see that this stand of ours is gaining increasing support and understanding, certainly in the U.S., and if my ear is properly attuned, even the Soviet Union is beginning to be impressed by this reasoning.

The second issue is the PLO, and here let us speak clearly: If the Palestinians, in the form of the PLO, genuinely want to form a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, there are enough representatives in the territories who represent the will of the residents, authentic representatives who could be members of that delegation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az
Since it was on the table since day 1 of after 67', I don't see why wouldn't it return to the table in the mid 90s.

Newsflash Az, the first intifadah ended by 1992.

The settlements that grew aren't a real problem or danger to any palestinian state anyway, so I fail to see what's your argument here.

The Gaza settlements doubled in that time, and there was plenty of gorwth outside of the suburbs of jerusalem, which by the way DO endganger the envisioned Palestinian state.

Eh, considering the fact that they started occuring prior to 67', yes. Let us remind you that the Intifada was sparked from the outside. Fatah started outside the west bank, and was introduced there, and in Gaza.

Fatah stared in Gaza, under Egyptian tutelage. Fatah candidates won mayoral eelctions in the West Bank in 1981 (or earlier). Its funny you think those wonderfully pliable Palestinians living under this wonderful Israeli military leadership (after Israel scrapped its attempt at civl leadership cause darned inconvinient parties kept getitng into power) wanted nothing but to continue to be non-citizens of anywhere.

You apparently know little to nothing on Israeli leadership views on the west bank and Gaza. Pity.

And you do?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The israelis will correct me, but in 1985, the govt of Israel was preoccupied with defeating hyperinflation, and the situation in Lebanon, Israel having just withdrawn from most Lebanon to a small part of South Lebanon. The PLO was in Tunisia, and there was talk of reaching an agreement with Jordan, for some kind of West Bank - Jordan confederation. Foreign policy initiatives were difficult, as Israel had a Labor-Likud coalition at the time, and the two parties were working at cross purposes. Then the intifada broke out, Jordan washed its hands of the West Bank, and Likud won the next Israeli election and instituted a hard line govt. The likud victory, and the Jordanian turn away, can be both be laid at the hands of the intifada, and both made territorial concessions more difficult in the circumstances of the time.

Oh, so you equate trying to pass of the West Bank to a friendly Arab authoritarian regime to giving the Palestinians their own lands back? But I can see just how the Plo, having being thrown out by Hussein in 1970 would just be itching to call him King...

Oh, and it was Peres and Rabin who got out the iron hand in 1987. They certainly did not react to the beginnings of the intifadah with kid gloves.

[lord of the mark]

summary - there was talk in 1985 about establishing talks between Israel and Jordan (talks that obviously would have discussed the fate of the territories) Israel's ideal position was direct face to face talks with Jordan - the arab position was A. To incorporate the PLO into those talks, and B. To have all 5 UNSC perm members involved. Israel objected to the participation of the USSR, which at the time did not recognize Israel, and suggested that residents of the territories substitute for PLO reps, (and lets please not rehash the Israeli objections to meeting with the PLO, and the counters - Ive lived through the debates of the 80s enough) This was the formula that was adopted at Madrid, in 1991.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Oh, so you equate trying to pass of the West Bank to a friendly Arab authoritarian regime to giving the Palestinians their own lands back?

Errr.... Uhh...

Given that the land was captured from Jordan, wouldn't Jordan be the one to give the land back to?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Oh, so you equate trying to pass of the West Bank to a friendly Arab authoritarian regime to giving the Palestinians their own lands back? But I can see just how the Plo, having being thrown out by Hussein in 1970 would just be itching to call him King...

Oh, and it was Peres and Rabin who got out the iron hand in 1987. They certainly did not react to the beginnings of the intifadah with kid gloves.

They were trying to withdraw from the territories, and that was what i thought was at issue. At the time it was not at all clear that Pal opinion in the territories was completely supportive of Fatah vs Jordan. Certainly Jordan was the last arab owner of the west bank, so giving lands back could well be to Jordan. Certainly had they given the lands back to Jordan, the lands would not have been part of "greater Israel".

Nor is it clear even in retrospect that Jordan had no appeal in the territories. The intifada itsefl, the Jordanian abandonment, and the Oslo process have all changed the political situation in the territories.

as for Jordan being authoritarian, there was no reason in 1985 to think that the PLO would run a democratic state. Indeed, from 1992 up to the death of Arafat, they were fairly authoritarian, as even folks like Hanan Ashrawi have complained.

as for not treating the intifada with kid gloves, that hardly contradicts that they were contemplating withdrawl, as part of negotiations, and with a partner they trusted.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


They are much closer to statehood today than in 1981. I doubt Israel would have ever accepted the principle of a Palestinian state without it. IN fact, they most certainly would have not.

Soon after the Six Day War, Israeli representatives talked with the Palestinian representatives to consider a proposal of establishing their own state. It was rejected. Likely it was rejected because it would have required recognizing and living in peace with Israel, which even if they would have been willing to accept, would have meant being ostracized by the Arab world.