It's religious irredentism. Those settlers aren't moving into Palestinian territory because Israel is just too crowded. They're moving in because they believe they have a mandate from God to take over the land and drive out the "Canaanites." Not a few settlers are Hasidim who moved straight to the West Bank from New York.
The Israeli government tried out the idea of dismantling settlements when they withdrew from Gaza. They literally had to force the settlers out at gunpoint and physically subdue them. It was a political catastrophe -- and Gaza has always been Philistine/Palestinian territory dating from antiquity. If Israel ever tried to pull settlers out of the West Bank, they would have a civil war on their hands.
Let's face it, in retrospect, creating Israel was just a case of Westerners feeling guilty about the Holocaust and deciding to appropriate land that wasn't theirs to the Jewish people. Since in 2009 the notion that America and major European powers get to make all major decisions about the world is only starting to be questioned, clearly in 1948 the major powers hardly batted an eyelash at deciding the fate of tracts of Middle Eastern land. The problem now is that after 6 million Jews have moved to Israel, it would be another injustice simply to say, "Oops, never mind, that was a mistake, you're on your own," because the West is responsible for their being there. The at ude therefore has become, "Well, if they're there already, don't try to move them."
So the Jewish extremists once thought they could co-opt that stance from the West such that if they built a bunch of settlements in the West Bank before a peace agreement was reached, their allies would say, "Well, if they're there already, don't try to move them." Since the peace agreement has fallen apart, now they just don't care. They can move to the settlements, their government doesn't have the political will to stop them, and it is impossible to move them out without destroying the country in the process.
The biggest difference between the Jewish extremists and the Muslim extremists is that when the Jewish extremists get the IDF to demolish Palestinian houses with bulldozers and force the residents into the camps, that isn't considered terrorism.
As for Charles Krauthammer, there are two possibilites:
1) He knows this undercurrent makes Israel look very, very bad, and aims to obscure it with a series of red herrings.
2) He is one of the Jewish extremists.
P.S. Not a few of the pro-Israeli group among evangelical American Christians are fanatics who think that once Israel takes over all the land and kills off/drives out all the Arabs, they can rebuild the Jewish temple and set in motion a bunch of events culminating in the second coming of Jesus. Yeah, sure, as many of 20% of the Palestinians who have been driven out since 1948 are themselves Christians, but of course the brown ones don't really matter, and besides, they're probably Catholic or Orthodox or one of those other works-based heretical cults. (Right, Crookshanks?)
I had a discussion with Darrin about this the other day. Oddly, he was too bogged down with the jargon of rights to een get to realpolitik. Does Iran have the *right* to nuclear power? Don't we have the *right* to stop them? Stuff like that.
Behind every complaint, liberal humanizers perceive a nascent *right* as the solution.
Very nice.
The conflict started in the late 19th century when significant groups of European Jews decided to move back to their ancestral homeland to get away from European oppression, and the Arabs suspected that their ultimate intent was not to submit to Ottoman rule.
I used to subscribe to the "this battle has been going on for thousands of years" canard. Unfortunately for the propagandists, then I read a whole bunch of history on the region. While certainly there have been a bunch of wars in the Levant, the Jewish-Muslim conflict is a modern phenomenon.
One of two things is happening here:
1) You are arguing against a strawman, namely one claiming that Palestinians would stop fighting Israel if it withdrew from the settlements.
2) You think that as long as there are Muslim extremists fighting Israel, it is somehow justified in confiscating Arabs' homes and land to build settlements.
I think we all understand (well, except Duff) that groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, and to a certain extent Fatah, view the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East as an unacceptable affront to Islam, that the land is irreversibly Dar al-Islam, that the only legitimate government in that land is an Islamic one under which Jews are dhimmis, and that it is their sworn duty before Allah to wage jihad until "salaam" is achieved.
I do believe that if Israel did not have its illegal settlements that sympathy for the jihadist view in the Arab world would be much lower. I do believe that without the settlement issue Israel would have the moral high ground. I also believe that the Israeli government would get rid of the settlements tomorrow if it were politically possible.
I also believe that if Arabs kill settlers as opposed to Israelis in Israel proper, they are killing enemy combatants rather than innocent civilians. There are no innocent settlers.
Sure worked out great when they abandoned settlements in 2005.
If they abandoned the settlements, why are they still in the settlements?
Sententious, yet trite. A very typical DarrinS post.
1 a: given to or abounding in aphoristic expression b: given to or abounding in excessive moralizing
2: terse, aphoristic, or moralistic in expression : pithy, epigrammatic — sen·ten·tious·ly adverb
You notice that I didn't use the word "all".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
Is the state of Texas an illegal settlement?
I thought Gaza was clear contextually. Darrin specified 2005.
Texas will be sovereign State before I'm done.
Depends on who you ask. Mexicans and Texans don't see eye to eye on it for sure.
Initially, whitey moved into Texas under the terms of a contract with Mexico -- so no, they were not illegal.
There are still settlements, no?
As long as there are Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, that argument doesn't work. That's like asking why there was still French resistance when Germany only occupied part of France.
Nice one.
The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo receives inequal esteem between the two peoples. People still talk of the Nueces River as being the correct northern border of Mexico....
Were communications any better back then, we would have just annexed all of Mexico after the war -- so I see it as a compromise.
Here's the problem with trying to oversimplify the Israeli-Palestinian problem: There is no easy definition of "Settlement" or agreement about what the borders of Israel should be.
Israel was founded in 1948 when Britain et al decided the Jews deserved a homeland in reparation for the Holocaust. Zionism existed prior to 1948, Jews lived in what was then known as Palestine before 1948. Some parts of the modern state known as Israel have had Jews living there for 3,000 years. However, Israel had to fight for their right to exist way back in 1948.
Originally the borders of Israel included none of the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, or the Golan Heights, and Jerusalem was a divided city. However, in 1967 and 1973, a coalition of Arab countries hostile to Israel's existence (Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon) declared war on Israel. Israel defeated them, which in and of itself is pretty astounding. However, people who have been to Egypt, for example, may know that the common belief there is that the Yom Kippur war (1973) never ended. In 1967, Israel took control of the West Bank (Judea/Samaria), Gaza, the Golan Heights, Sinai, and Jerusalem.
Since then, they gave the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace. They gave Gaza in exchange for peace, though this hasn't panned out so well.
Jerusalem is the holiest city in the world to Jews. Giving it up would be cruel, IMO. Giving up the Golan Heights is problematic because that is where most of the water in Israel comes from. However, I think giving up at least parts of or all of the West Bank will be necessary to obtain any sort of peace.
But let's be clear - these are steps most other countries have not had to take in the past. The rules of war are changing, I suppose, but Israel is operating under the rules of war for millenium - when you win a battle, you gain control of the land. The very countries that refused to allow Palestinian Arabs to live in their countries (Jordan, Syria, Iran) are now siding with them in demanding Israel give up land won in wars they started in the first place.
I think it is worth it to Israel to give up the land, and it is cruel and unfair for the Palestinians who have been basically kicked out of multiple nations to continue to not have a country of their own, but it is by no means a black and white issue, nor are there any clear "good guys" and "bad guys". Israel has behaved badly, so has the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. But both have had leaders who have genuinely tried at times to find a middle ground.
How about we let the Israelis figure it out on their own?
I wonder, Supergirl. Are you sure? Iran is a safe bet, but Jordan and Syria are not so clear cut IMO.
Land unlawfully taken should be restored, period. Otherwise, peace is a fig leaf for the ulative force of ejection. No?The number of descendents of Palestinian refugees by country as of 2005 were as follows:
- Jordan 1,827,877 refugees
- Gaza 986,034 refugees
- West Bank 699,817 refugees
- Syria 432,048 refugees
- Lebanon 404,170 refugees
- Saudi Arabia 240,000 refugees
- Egypt 70,245 refugees[1]
Note: The UNHCR does NOT consider refugee status hereditary. Refugees are required to be granted asylum where they arrive, and their descendents given citizenship.[32]
Well, I would tend to agree with you, but this is not how the world has worked. Look at America - we took Texas by force, Hawaii by force. Should we give those states back to their previous owners?
Britain, Rome, France, Germany, Spain...all these countries have long histories of taking over countries by force and then remaining in charge, either explicitly or behind the scenes. One could make the argument that all of world history is a series of colonialist takeovers.
Why, then, is Israel considered so outrageous for doing what everyone else does throughout history?
On the one hand, like I said, I agree that colonialism is morally and ethically wrong. One the other hand, Israel being held to a standard different from most of the rest of the world looks...a little suspect.
Because it hasn't *gotten away with it* yet. The passage of time makes historical crimes respectable, but it is much harder to conceal atrocities now. Israel is still young, and the whole world watches.
Well, they're kinda kin to The Boss, right? Certainly that doesn't give them a license to do worse than *most of the rest of the world*, does it?
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-08-2009 at 07:44 PM.
..
Nice, Extra Stout
I guess my American upbringing can't help but influence my angle of perspective on the jewish extremists. But it makes sense. Extremists on the Israeli side are seemingly non existent in western media, even in print.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
