Israeli election thread

[VetLegion]

Whose tears?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Eli

Together with Labour, Pensioners, and Meretz, thats 61 MKs = a simple majority for the Zionist pro-seperation parties.

This is going to end with tears.

I dont see an option that doesnt. Hopefully not as many tears, and something to show for them.

[Eli]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Whose tears?

I dont see an option that doesnt. Hopefully not as many tears, and something to show for them.

Everyone's tears.

This is getting ridiculous. Since when do you give up power and positions for nothing in return? Gaza was an exception I managed to agree with, but taking it even further just makes no sense.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Eli

I dont see an option that doesnt. Hopefully not as many tears, and something to show for them.

Everyone's tears.

This is getting ridiculous. Since when do you give up power and positions for nothing in return? Gaza was an exception I managed to agree with, but taking it even further just makes no sense.

The question is whether remote civilian settlements represent power, or just a burden.

and im not sure it would be for nothing in return. Combined with the withdrawl, would be an annexation. Condi Rice today said the US would not oppose unilateral action. She didnt, IIUC go so far as to promise that the US would recognize the annexation. But given an Israeli govt clearly commited to peace, and a rejectionist Pal govt, one can easily envision such recognition. It would not be inconsistent with US views since 1967.

[Eli]

The question is whether remote civilian settlements represent power, or just a burden.

Of course they represent power. They are convenient bases for the army to operate from, they are another card on the negotiation table, they fulfill the ideology of significant parts of the population, and there are very negative consequences for internal stability if you try to remove them. And the West Bank is not the Gazan urban hornets nest so the cost of keeping them is not too high.

Sure, a caravan on a hill here and there is usually a pure burden. I'm all for removing all those illegal outposts.

Note that I would support removing most settlements(outside of the usual blocks) in a final peace treaty, but simply giving them up for nothing makes no sense.

[Eli]

and im not sure it would be for nothing in return. Combined with the withdrawl, would be an annexation. Condi Rice today said the US would not oppose unilateral action. She didnt, IIUC go so far as to promise that the US would recognize the annexation. But given an Israeli govt clearly commited to peace, and a rejectionist Pal govt, one can easily envision such recognition. It would not be inconsistent with US views since 1967.

What's the use? It's the Palestinians we're fighting against, not the Americans. If they dont recognize the annexation then we're not any closer to the End of Conflict. Eventually, when we sit around the negotiations table, we will have less cards to play with while the Palestinian claims will remain the same.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Eli

The question is whether remote civilian settlements represent power, or just a burden.

Of course they represent power. They are convenient bases for the army to operate from,

The Olmert proposal does not involve the IDF being removed, IIUC, in contrast to the Gaza withdrawl. I presume people who know more than I do about the situation are weighing their value as bases.

they are another card on the negotiation table,

Theyre not a negotiation card if theyre a net burden on all other grounds. If there are even going to be negotiations. If Hamas thinks it can outbirth Israel, and go for a single state with an arab majority, how do you get them to negotiate a two state solution?

they fulfill the ideology of significant parts of the population, and there are very negative consequences for internal stability if you try to remove them.

Yes, the cost of getting them out will be high. But that doesnt make them power. It makes them a burden some dont want to give up. At some point the nation cant be hostage to the dreams of a minority. But of course any withdrawl should be done carefully.

And the West Bank is not the Gazan urban hornets nest so the cost of keeping them is not too high.

Over time ive seen frequent reports of terr attacks on settlements in the West Bank, as many as ive seen from Gaza. And of course reprisals by settlers, that dont add strength to Israel either.

Note that I would support removing most settlements(outside of the usual blocks) in a final peace treaty, but simply giving them up for nothing makes no sense.

If you have a partner that wants a two state solution, maybe. If you have an opponent that does NOT want a two state solution, that sees no difference between Elon Moreh, and Ramat Gan, then Elon Moreh is just another thing that prevents the seperation of Ramat Gan from Nablus, and of Nablus from Nazareth, that weaves together what had been two seperate societies.

Do you see evidence that Hamas wants a two state solution?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Eli

and im not sure it would be for nothing in return. Combined with the withdrawl, would be an annexation. Condi Rice today said the US would not oppose unilateral action. She didnt, IIUC go so far as to promise that the US would recognize the annexation. But given an Israeli govt clearly commited to peace, and a rejectionist Pal govt, one can easily envision such recognition. It would not be inconsistent with US views since 1967.

What's the use? It's the Palestinians we're fighting against, not the Americans. If they dont recognize the annexation then we're not any closer to the End of Conflict. Eventually, when we sit around the negotiations table, we will have less cards to play with while the Palestinian claims will remain the same.

You dont think what the Americans and others (but mainly the Americans) recognize matters to negotiations? Israel's diplomatic position is part of her strength. Not all of it, but part of it.

[Eli]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The Olmert proposal does not involve the IDF being removed, IIUC, in contrast to the Gaza withdrawl. I presume people who know more than I do about the
situation are weighing their value as bases.

Then what's the point of removing the settlements?

Theyre not a negotiation card if theyre a net burden on all other grounds. If there are even going to be negotiations. If Hamas thinks it can outbirth Israel, and go for a single state with an arab majority, how do you get them to negotiate a two state solution?

The Palestinians want them removed, therefore they are a negotiation card.

And if there are not going to be any negotiations, which means that we're into a long period of varying intensity conflict(which is what I think will happen) then the last thing we should be doing is a withdrawal.
The fence is going to prevent most of the "usual" attacks inside Israel but the Pals will still be able to do huge deal of damage using rockets fired from the West Bank. If you want to prevent that, you must have heavy presence there.

Yes, the cost of getting them out will be high. But that doesnt make them power. It makes them a burden some dont want to give up. At some point the nation cant be hostage to the dreams of a minority. But of course any withdrawl should be done carefully.

You have two options, to withdraw or not to withdraw. While the cost of withdrawal does not make the settlements into any kind of power, it is a good reason against a withdrawal.

Over time ive seen frequent reports of terr attacks on settlements in the West Bank, as many as ive seen from Gaza. And of course reprisals by settlers, that dont add strength to Israel either.

Of course money and blood have to flow to keep those territories. But IMO they will flow much stronger if you withdraw, especially under a Hamas government.

If you have a partner that wants a two state solution, maybe. If you have an opponent that does NOT want a two state solution, that sees no difference between Elon Moreh, and Ramat Gan, then Elon Moreh is just another thing that prevents the seperation of Ramat Gan from Nablus, and of Nablus from Nazareth, that weaves together what had been two seperate societies.

Do you see evidence that Hamas wants a two state solution?

Again, if you're facing conflict, why should you damage your own side? We should not withdraw from Elon Moreh exactly because Hamas sees no difference between it and Ramat Gan. If there was a difference, a withdrawal could've prevented conflict but since such a difference does not exist, you will still have conflict but without Elon Moreh and with a thoroughly pissed off segment of the population.

You dont think what the Americans and others (but mainly the Americans) recognize matters to negotiations? Israel's diplomatic position is part of her strength. Not all of it, but part of it.

It matters, but you're negotiating with the Pals and they will not recognize the annexation.
This is a very moot point anyway. I dont see the Americans supporting Israel annexing anything, especially with the US current unfavorable position in the Arab world.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Eli

"Then what's the point of removing the settlements?

So you dont have to defend them, and so you can establish a border. Where YOU want it.

Theyre not a negotiation card if theyre a net burden on all other grounds. If there are even going to be negotiations. If Hamas thinks it can outbirth Israel, and go for a single state with an arab majority, how do you get them to negotiate a two state solution?

The Palestinians want them removed, therefore they are a negotiation card.

The "moderate" pals want them ALL removed, to establish the '67 lines. They DONT want convergence on the security barrier line. As for Hamas, I dont know that Hamas really wants them removed.

And if there are not going to be any negotiations, which means that we're into a long period of varying intensity conflict(which is what I think will happen) then the last thing we should be doing is a withdrawal.

If the settlements are points of weakness, why not?

The fence is going to prevent most of the "usual" attacks inside Israel but the Pals will still be able to do huge deal of damage using rockets fired from the West Bank. If you want to prevent that, you must have heavy presence there.

Heavy military presence, not civilians. The settlements just give the terrorists more vulnerable targets. Just today there was an attack on a WB settlement, killing several.

Yes, the cost of getting them out will be high. But that doesnt make them power. It makes them a burden some dont want to give up. At some point the nation cant be hostage to the dreams of a minority. But of course any withdrawl should be done carefully.

You have two options, to withdraw or not to withdraw. While the cost of withdrawal does not make the settlements into any kind of power, it is a good reason against a withdrawal.

Yes. But that must be weighed against reasons for.

Over time ive seen frequent reports of terr attacks on settlements in the West Bank, as many as ive seen from Gaza. And of course reprisals by settlers, that dont add strength to Israel either.

Of course money and blood have to flow to keep those territories. But IMO they will flow much stronger if you withdraw, especially under a Hamas government.

I dont think that it makes strategic sense to locate your civilians in a war zone. The Labour govt, pre-1977, did NOT establish settlements in the midst of Pal population centers - they settled along the green line, around Jerusalem, in the Jordan Valley, and the Gush Etzion. They discouraged settlement in other areas? Were they wrong to not settle, given the strategic advantages you claim for settlements? Likud DID establish settlements in other areas, but thats because they wanted to KEEP those areas. ID venture that no Israeli govt has seen such strat benefit in civilian settlements, to establish them in places they didnt wish to keep.

If you have a partner that wants a two state solution, maybe. If you have an opponent that does NOT want a two state solution, that sees no difference between Elon Moreh, and Ramat Gan, then Elon Moreh is just another thing that prevents the seperation of Ramat Gan from Nablus, and of Nablus from Nazareth, that weaves together what had been two seperate societies.

Do you see evidence that Hamas wants a two state solution?

Again, if you're facing conflict, why should you damage your own side? We should not withdraw from Elon Moreh exactly because Hamas sees no difference between it and Ramat Gan. If there was a difference, a withdrawal could've prevented conflict but since such a difference does not exist, you will still have conflict but without Elon Moreh and with a thoroughly pissed off segment of the population.

Because its costly to defend the folks in Elon Moreh, in money and blood and resources, and diplomatically.

The ex-settlers will be pissed? Like theyre such calm folks now, who do things on the West Bank that screw up govt policies when there IS a potential partner. Hell, theyll be pissed if you take away their unauthorized hilltops. Anyway, you give them a chance to move to someplace like Maaleh Adumim, or Ariel. You want to build the land - here, DO IT. And my impression is there is no small number of Israelis who are pissed off at sacrificing to defend the settlers.

[Eli]

We have just moved to summer time. Which means that 00:00 suddenly turned into 01:00. I'll answer tommorow.

[lord of the mark]

kol b'tseder.

But could we get back to the coalition politics? I think we've had this debate before, about the strategic value of settlements, and I dont think we're going to come to agreement soon.

BTW, the attack today was at Kedumim, which, IIUC, is NOT an isolated settlement, but is slated to be within the security barrier. OTOH the barrier isnt complete there yet, so strategically, for now, its more like an isolated settlement.

[Az]

Eli's right. This hope that the americans are going to see things our way in return to our withdrawal is really silly. What did we gain by our withdrawal from Gaza? zip. All the talk about a heavy handed response was bull****, and the security situation hasn't stabilized at all.

[VetLegion]

You gained moral high ground?

[Az]

noone gives a toss about it.