Is this an accurate picture of settlement in the West Bank?

[Loren Pechtel]

You're utterly missing the point here.

The fact that there were attacks then says that the Arabs want war with Israel regardless of the "occupied territories". Going back to the 67 borders would go back to the status before the 67 war--which was a pattern of repeated raids from Israel's neighbors.

As Israel became capable of taking out their bases in the neighboring countries the tactics switched from small unit attacks to terrorism but it's still the same war.

No, you are the one missing the point. The status quo has changed considerably: in 1967 there was no peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, and Middle-East politics were overall different. Syria has become a pariah state, Egypt is bribed by the U.S. to behave, Jordan has cut off Palestine and is no longer looking to annex territory, Israel has nukes, and so on.

There is no coherent group called "Arabs" that would revert back 50 years if Israel were to pull out of West Bank, and Israel is already facing terrorist attacks so it can't really get any worse.

The peace treaties with their neighbors are irrelevant now that it's a war of terrorism.

The basic problem is that there are powerful forces in the Islamic lands that want war. They put enough money towards this objective that somebody will take it. So long as this money flows there will be war.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No, you are the one missing the point. The status quo has changed considerably: in 1967 there was no peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, and Middle-East politics were overall different. Syria has become a pariah state, Egypt is bribed by the U.S. to behave, Jordan has cut off Palestine and is no longer looking to annex territory, Israel has nukes, and so on.

There is no coherent group called "Arabs" that would revert back 50 years if Israel were to pull out of West Bank, and Israel is already facing terrorist attacks so it can't really get any worse.

The peace treaties with their neighbors are irrelevant now that it's a war of terrorism.

The basic problem is that there are powerful forces in the Islamic lands that want war. They put enough money towards this objective that somebody will take it. So long as this money flows there will be war.

So illegally taking over territory in the West Bank is a war against Terrorism? However the settlers who are doing this may well believe this as the terrorists are phantom bogeymen.

Hammas in Gaza will be lobbing missiles here and there, but then Israel has the capacity to carpet bomb them if it desires.

 

[Jayjay]

No, you are the one missing the point. The status quo has changed considerably: in 1967 there was no peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, and Middle-East politics were overall different. Syria has become a pariah state, Egypt is bribed by the U.S. to behave, Jordan has cut off Palestine and is no longer looking to annex territory, Israel has nukes, and so on.

There is no coherent group called "Arabs" that would revert back 50 years if Israel were to pull out of West Bank, and Israel is already facing terrorist attacks so it can't really get any worse.

The peace treaties with their neighbors are irrelevant now that it's a war of terrorism.

The basic problem is that there are powerful forces in the Islamic lands that want war. They put enough money towards this objective that somebody will take it. So long as this money flows there will be war.

If it's war on terror, then it should not matter what land Israel occupies or does not occupy, and that's exactly why it is not a valid reason to continue the occupation. In conventional war, you could justify temporary occupation by defensive reasons, but against terrorism it's irrelevant at best and counter-productive at worst.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes, plenty of attacks. Just not by Palestinians.

By Arabs, nationality unspecified.

Are you suggesting that Israelis had no idea who they were actually fighting in the Israeli War of Independence, the Six Day War or the Yom Kippur War?

I'm forced to call bullshit if you are. Palestinian groups -- to the very limited extent that the Palestinians could be said to have "groups" prior to 1967 -- were non-combatant in all of those conflicts. It was Jordanian troops in the West Bank and Egyptian forces in the Gaza Strip during the Six Day War; the Palestinians weren't attacking Israel at that time because ISRAEL didn't control those territories and weren't the problem for them. There WAS some mob violence and a lot of activism against Jordan and Egypt at that time, none of which was particularly organized and didn't devolve into terrorism at the time; If Israel hadn't occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it's unlikely they would be a target of that violence today either.

The fact that there were attacks then says that the Arabs want war with Israel regardless of the "occupied territories". Going back to the 67 borders would go back to the status before the 67 war--which was a pattern of repeated raids from Israel's neighbors.

Bullshit. Half the governments involved in those wars don't even EXIST anymore, and their regimes have changed a dozen times since those treaties were founded. Even if Jordan and Egypt were offered a chance to re-occupy the West Bank and Gaza, they wouldn't WANT it, because they know the Palestinians would eventually start lobbing rockets at THEM instead and demand independence.

Palestine is not pre-1967 Jordan; JORDAN isn't even pre-1967 Jordan. The kinds of people who would end up RUNNING a Palestinian state have a far more realistic idea of what their new nation would and wouldn't be capable of. Winning any kind of war with Israel is not one of those things, and is not going to be part of their national aspirations any time this century. Removing the West Bank settlements is doable, however.

 

[Axulus]

By Arabs, nationality unspecified.

Are you suggesting that Israelis had no idea who they were actually fighting in the Israeli War of Independence, the Six Day War or the Yom Kippur War?

I'm forced to call bullshit if you are. Palestinian groups -- to the very limited extent that the Palestinians could be said to have "groups" prior to 1967 -- were non-combatant in all of those conflicts. It was Jordanian troops in the West Bank and Egyptian forces in the Gaza Strip during the Six Day War; the Palestinians weren't attacking Israel at that time because ISRAEL didn't control those territories and weren't the problem for them. There WAS some mob violence and a lot of activism against Jordan and Egypt at that time, none of which was particularly organized and didn't devolve into terrorism at the time; If Israel hadn't occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it's unlikely they would be a target of that violence today either.

The fact that there were attacks then says that the Arabs want war with Israel regardless of the "occupied territories". Going back to the 67 borders would go back to the status before the 67 war--which was a pattern of repeated raids from Israel's neighbors.

Bullshit. Half the governments involved in those wars don't even EXIST anymore, and their regimes have changed a dozen times since those treaties were founded. Even if Jordan and Egypt were offered a chance to re-occupy the West Bank and Gaza, they wouldn't WANT it, because they know the Palestinians would eventually start lobbing rockets at THEM instead and demand independence.

Palestine is not pre-1967 Jordan; JORDAN isn't even pre-1967 Jordan. The kinds of people who would end up RUNNING a Palestinian state have a far more realistic idea of what their new nation would and wouldn't be capable of. Winning any kind of war with Israel is not one of those things, and is not going to be part of their national aspirations any time this century. Removing the West Bank settlements is doable, however.

The settlements don't need to be removed. The Jews living there can become citizens of Palestine if they wish to continue living there.

 

[aeebee50]

Reminds me of Lenin!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Are you suggesting that Israelis had no idea who they were actually fighting in the Israeli War of Independence, the Six Day War or the Yom Kippur War?

I'm forced to call bullshit if you are. Palestinian groups -- to the very limited extent that the Palestinians could be said to have "groups" prior to 1967 -- were non-combatant in all of those conflicts. It was Jordanian troops in the West Bank and Egyptian forces in the Gaza Strip during the Six Day War; the Palestinians weren't attacking Israel at that time because ISRAEL didn't control those territories and weren't the problem for them. There WAS some mob violence and a lot of activism against Jordan and Egypt at that time, none of which was particularly organized and didn't devolve into terrorism at the time; If Israel hadn't occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it's unlikely they would be a target of that violence today either.

The fact that there were attacks then says that the Arabs want war with Israel regardless of the "occupied territories". Going back to the 67 borders would go back to the status before the 67 war--which was a pattern of repeated raids from Israel's neighbors.

Bullshit. Half the governments involved in those wars don't even EXIST anymore, and their regimes have changed a dozen times since those treaties were founded. Even if Jordan and Egypt were offered a chance to re-occupy the West Bank and Gaza, they wouldn't WANT it, because they know the Palestinians would eventually start lobbing rockets at THEM instead and demand independence.

Palestine is not pre-1967 Jordan; JORDAN isn't even pre-1967 Jordan. The kinds of people who would end up RUNNING a Palestinian state have a far more realistic idea of what their new nation would and wouldn't be capable of. Winning any kind of war with Israel is not one of those things, and is not going to be part of their national aspirations any time this century. Removing the West Bank settlements is doable, however.

The settlements don't need to be removed. The Jews living there can become citizens of Palestine if they wish to continue living there.

Which is a whole different can of worms! Israel put them there in the first place so they could say "Well, we can't pull out now, we've got SOOOOO many people living there, and we need to be able to protect them!" It's their "foot in the door" to keep the return of the West Bank from being in any way plausible as a realistic thing.

"The settlers can be citizens of Palestine" is similar to someone suggesting "You can't close the door, my foot is stuck!" and the person on the other side pulling out a machette saying "That's okay. I'll just keep that foot."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The peace treaties with their neighbors are irrelevant now that it's a war of terrorism.

The basic problem is that there are powerful forces in the Islamic lands that want war. They put enough money towards this objective that somebody will take it. So long as this money flows there will be war.

So illegally taking over territory in the West Bank is a war against Terrorism? However the settlers who are doing this may well believe this as the terrorists are phantom bogeymen.

Hammas in Gaza will be lobbing missiles here and there, but then Israel has the capacity to carpet bomb them if it desires.

I don't like the settlements in the West Bank. It's just I recognize that they aren't the cause of the conflict.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The peace treaties with their neighbors are irrelevant now that it's a war of terrorism.

The basic problem is that there are powerful forces in the Islamic lands that want war. They put enough money towards this objective that somebody will take it. So long as this money flows there will be war.

If it's war on terror, then it should not matter what land Israel occupies or does not occupy, and that's exactly why it is not a valid reason to continue the occupation. In conventional war, you could justify temporary occupation by defensive reasons, but against terrorism it's irrelevant at best and counter-productive at worst.

Exactly--it doesn't matter what they occupy or don't occupy. Giving up the West Bank will do nothing to bring peace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

By Arabs, nationality unspecified.

Are you suggesting that Israelis had no idea who they were actually fighting in the Israeli War of Independence, the Six Day War or the Yom Kippur War?

I'm forced to call bullshit if you are. Palestinian groups -- to the very limited extent that the Palestinians could be said to have "groups" prior to 1967 -- were non-combatant in all of those conflicts. It was Jordanian troops in the West Bank and Egyptian forces in the Gaza Strip during the Six Day War; the Palestinians weren't attacking Israel at that time because ISRAEL didn't control those territories and weren't the problem for them. There WAS some mob violence and a lot of activism against Jordan and Egypt at that time, none of which was particularly organized and didn't devolve into terrorism at the time; If Israel hadn't occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it's unlikely they would be a target of that violence today either.

What you are missing is that we are simply seeing multiple fronts in a single war.

The fact that there were attacks then says that the Arabs want war with Israel regardless of the "occupied territories". Going back to the 67 borders would go back to the status before the 67 war--which was a pattern of repeated raids from Israel's neighbors.

Bullshit. Half the governments involved in those wars don't even EXIST anymore, and their regimes have changed a dozen times since those treaties were founded. Even if Jordan and Egypt were offered a chance to re-occupy the West Bank and Gaza, they wouldn't WANT it, because they know the Palestinians would eventually start lobbing rockets at THEM instead and demand independence.

Of course they wouldn't reoccupy those lands.

And neither Egypt nor Jordan is part of the problem these days (although Egypt was starting to become a problem again for a few years), that's irrelevant. Terrorism doesn't need borders.

- - - Updated - - -

The settlements don't need to be removed. The Jews living there can become citizens of Palestine if they wish to continue living there.

In other words, commit suicide.

 

[Arctish]

The settlements don't need to be removed. The Jews living there can become citizens of Palestine if they wish to continue living there.

In other words, commit suicide.

...because Jews have never, ever, ever lived in Palestine among Muslims and Christians without slitting their wrists in despair.

 

[Jayjay]

If it's war on terror, then it should not matter what land Israel occupies or does not occupy, and that's exactly why it is not a valid reason to continue the occupation. In conventional war, you could justify temporary occupation by defensive reasons, but against terrorism it's irrelevant at best and counter-productive at worst.

Exactly--it doesn't matter what they occupy or don't occupy. Giving up the West Bank will do nothing to bring peace.

But not giving up the settlements prevents a two-state solution, which makes it a lot harder to achieve any kind of negotiated solution. Axing the settlements or most of them is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for peace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, commit suicide.

...because Jews have never, ever, ever lived in Palestine among Muslims and Christians without slitting their wrists in despair.

I'm not talking about despair, I'm talking about them being murdered.

That's what Palestinians tend to do to Jews they get their hands on these days.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly--it doesn't matter what they occupy or don't occupy. Giving up the West Bank will do nothing to bring peace.

But not giving up the settlements prevents a two-state solution, which makes it a lot harder to achieve any kind of negotiated solution. Axing the settlements or most of them is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for peace.

Giving up the settlements does not enable a two-state solution. The Palestinians consider Israel itself to be the occupied territory.

Giving them up provides absolutely no benefit to Israel. All it would do is cause the terrorists to pick another objective to try to get the fools of the world to pressure Israel into.

 

[crispy]

Giving them up provides absolutely no benefit to Israel. All it would do is cause the terrorists to pick another objective to try to get the fools of the world to pressure Israel into.

Do you understand that the settlements should not even be there in the first place, and giving them up is not even a negotiation point?

 

[Axulus]

The settlements don't need to be removed. The Jews living there can become citizens of Palestine if they wish to continue living there.

In other words, commit suicide.

Uh, no. Actually not.

 

[Jayjay]

...because Jews have never, ever, ever lived in Palestine among Muslims and Christians without slitting their wrists in despair.

I'm not talking about despair, I'm talking about them being murdered.

That's what Palestinians tend to do to Jews they get their hands on these days.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly--it doesn't matter what they occupy or don't occupy. Giving up the West Bank will do nothing to bring peace.

But not giving up the settlements prevents a two-state solution, which makes it a lot harder to achieve any kind of negotiated solution. Axing the settlements or most of them is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for peace.

Giving up the settlements does not enable a two-state solution. The Palestinians consider Israel itself to be the occupied territory.

Giving them up provides absolutely no benefit to Israel. All it would do is cause the terrorists to pick another objective to try to get the fools of the world to pressure Israel into.

What I said has nothing to do with what "Palestinians consider to be the occupied territory", but what is making two-state solution impossible. Palestinians can still have some other grievances but if they have a shot at a viable state, that's one less obstacle to overcome. Nobody gets everything they want in a compromise solution. Israel has to give up the settlements, Palestinians have to give up dreams of driving Jews to the sea.

You keep missing the point. Israel should not give up the illegal settlements because of terrorism. They should give them up because they are an immoral land grab by religious fanatics, a war crime, and because they make two-state solution impossible. As for terrorists picking another objective, so what? Who says Israel has to give in to any other demands?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Are you suggesting that Israelis had no idea who they were actually fighting in the Israeli War of Independence, the Six Day War or the Yom Kippur War?

I'm forced to call bullshit if you are. Palestinian groups -- to the very limited extent that the Palestinians could be said to have "groups" prior to 1967 -- were non-combatant in all of those conflicts. It was Jordanian troops in the West Bank and Egyptian forces in the Gaza Strip during the Six Day War; the Palestinians weren't attacking Israel at that time because ISRAEL didn't control those territories and weren't the problem for them. There WAS some mob violence and a lot of activism against Jordan and Egypt at that time, none of which was particularly organized and didn't devolve into terrorism at the time; If Israel hadn't occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it's unlikely they would be a target of that violence today either.

What you are missing is that we are simply seeing multiple fronts in a single war.

Except we're not. We're seeing multiple wars that each, individually, lay the seeds of the NEXT war in their resolution. The War of Independence set the stage for the conflict over resources that took place in the Jordan River conflict and the Suez Crisis, and Israel's occupation of Sinai set the stage for the Yom Kippur War. The uneasy resolution in 1976 after Yom Kippur and the new status quo lead to conflict with Syria and the battle over the Golan Heights, which in turn set the stage for the rise of Hezbollah.

It was the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that set the stage for the current situation. If Israel had not occupied them and left them in the hands of Jordan and Egypt, Palestinian rockets would be aimed south and east (towards Egypt and Jordan) instead of north and west, and their struggle for independence would have far better prospects since it turns out nobody actually wants to govern those people anyway.

You're now in the position of trying to argue that Palestinian independence would result in Egypt and Jordan (lol) trying to invade Israel again; I don't need to explain why that concept is completely asinine. You could MAYBE make the case that Iran would use Palestine as a base to invade Israel... but Iran isn't an Arab state, and the Palestinians for the most part aren't even shi'ite Muslims, so Iran's stake in the conflict is VERY limited.

Terrorism doesn't need borders.

Of course not. It just needs a cause. And you have not made a convincing case that the conquest of Israel is sufficient cause to motivate terrorism against Israel. I say this, because Palestinian militancy didn't exist when the territories WEREN'T occupied, and the belligerent powers at that time are no longer hostile. So you either have to make the laughable case that Palestinian terrorism is the same thing as Jordanian/Egyptian/Syrian aggression, perpetrated by the same people for the same reason and the same end goal, or you make the equally laughable claim that the Palestinians intend to expand outside the 1967 borders and reclaim territory they haven't controlled in over 70 years. Even Hamas isn't that stupid.

In other words, commit suicide.

I'm curious: why exactly do YOU think those settlers live there? They know good and damn well those settlements aren't part of Israel and aren't within Israel's internationally recognized borders. They also know that every one of those settlements is surrounded by Palestinians and depends on the permanent presence of the Israeli military to even exist.

So why, exactly, do you think they choose to live there?

 

[Jayjay]

What you are missing is that we are simply seeing multiple fronts in a single war.

Except we're not. We're seeing multiple wars that each, individually, lay the seeds of the NEXT war in their resolution. The War of Independence set the stage for the conflict over resources that took place in the Jordan River conflict and the Suez Crisis, and Israel's occupation of Sinai set the stage for the Yom Kippur War. The uneasy resolution in 1976 after Yom Kippur and the new status quo lead to conflict with Syria and the battle over the Golan Heights, which in turn set the stage for the rise of Hezbollah.

Very good point. But I think you skipped the entire Israeli-Lebanon conflict 1979-1982, which was more due to PLO and the aftermath of Black September in Jordan, between the Yom Kippur war and rise of Hezbollah.

It was the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that set the stage for the current situation. If Israel had not occupied them and left them in the hands of Jordan and Egypt, Palestinian rockets would be aimed south and east (towards Egypt and Jordan) instead of north and west, and their struggle for independence would have far better prospects since it turns out nobody actually wants to govern those people anyway.

I think this is unlikely. If Israel had not occupied West Bank and/or Gaza, their residents would likely be citizens of Jordan and Egypt respectively and would have had no particular desire to consider themselves as being occupied by anyone.
(Gaza maybe a little bit but West Bank, not at all.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Giving them up provides absolutely no benefit to Israel. All it would do is cause the terrorists to pick another objective to try to get the fools of the world to pressure Israel into.

Do you understand that the settlements should not even be there in the first place, and giving them up is not even a negotiation point?

Do you understand reality?

Giving them up is a huge bargaining chip. The left wants Israel to simply throw away the one real bargaining chip they have.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, commit suicide.

Uh, no. Actually not.

What's the life expectancy of a Jew in Palestine?

 

[Arctish]

Do you understand that the settlements should not even be there in the first place, and giving them up is not even a negotiation point?

Do you understand reality?

Giving them up is a huge bargaining chip. The left wants Israel to simply throw away the one real bargaining chip they have.

Israel's biggest bargaining chip is it's ability and willingness to kill thousands of civilians in a single night. The promise not to drop artillery shells, drones, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, and nuclear warheads on Palestinian communities is the only chip it needs in this bargain.

Promising not to sink Palestinian fishing boats in Palestinian territorial waters and to stop diverting Palestinian water supplies away from Palestinian farms are really good bargaining chips, too. And allowing the Palestinians to sell their natural gas on the open market instead of forcing them to bring all of it to Israel is another good one. Then there's the opening of borders with Egypt and Jordan, allowing Palestinians who marry abroad to bring their spouses into Palestine, removing the checkpoints that strangle commerce in Gaza and the West Bank, etc. The list goes on and on.

In other words, commit suicide.

Uh, no. Actually not.

What's the life expectancy of a Jew in Palestine?

You tell us.

If you're trying to make the claim that Jews can't survive among Palestinians you have thousands of years of history to draw upon as a source. Go for it.

Meanwhile, if you truly believe that Jews living in Palestinian areas are in deadly danger, why aren't you denouncing the movement of Jewish families into West Bank settlements? They're bringing children into what you say is deadly peril, and all you offer up is a meek little "I don't like it"?