In case you had any doubts.
For those marking the #Naksa today: please remember that colonialism didn’t start in 1967, it started in 1948!
— Abir Kopty(@AbirKopty) June 5, 2013
It’s the settlements, stupid.
Happy #Naksa day.
Menu
More results...
More results...
Menu
Israellycool, one of Israel’s largest English-language blogs, is a project of Israellycool Israel Advocacy, a registered Israeli non-profit.
Daily Updates
Delivered straight to your mailbox
- Copyright © 2024 Israellycool
- Built & Designed by Netmii
I agree with him
1948 was when Egypt colonised Gaza, and Jordan colonised the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem. Then liberated from colonial occupation in 1967 by Israel.
Indeed there are consequences for launching multiple wars against Israel and losing every one of them. But if you don’t think settlements are part of the problem, then you might not be seeing things all that clearly, either.
Settlements are part of the problem, but not the way you think they are.They’re part of the INTERNAL Israeli problem. Israel has shown on several occasions that it is willing to uproot settlements when making territorial concessions, so the only people that should be concerned are the people living on those settlements since there is a good chance they will one day be ethnically cleansed for the sake of “peace”.
Successive Israeli governments over the past two decades have been complicit in the settlement problem. What is the high moral ground to allow your citizens to build on land which you yourself call “disputed” and subject to disposition as a result of a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians? This is your government allowing these facts on the ground to become a reality. If your government finally pulls the rug out from under them, a substantial number of the settlers should be compensated (will probably come in some form of U.S. aid).
Jim, even if you wake up tomorrow morning and find that Israel had removed every single Jewish locality in Judea and Samaria, gave 75% of Jerusalem, including old city away, that above tweet by a former Nazareth city council member and current anti-Israel advocate, should be enough of a wake up call for what is the REAL problem.
The “settlements” are just an excuse. It’s the Arab objection to the state of Israel.
Actually, the colonialism started when Muhammed and his horde of rapists/murderers/robbers overran the whole of the Middle East (and much more besides).
Judge Dan, settlements ARE a problem. But I do agree the major obstacle to peace over all these decades is the Arabs’ objection to the acceptance of the Jewish state of Israel.
I’m sorry Jim but this comment of your seems difficult to follow. If the real root problem is Israel’s very existence, then this leads to two related conclusions:
1) How can Israelis accept the claim that the settlements are the problem in the first place?
2) Even if they could, why would Israelis even want to withdraw to the 1948 borders and bring their enemies even closer to their major population centers?
I’ll take a crack at Question No. 1. Question No. 2 really should be addressed to the Israeli government since they have been willing in the past to accept borders which they now deem as “indefensible.”
I see as quite problematic taking the position that all of the West Bank is disputed while encouraging your citizens to settle large parts of this land. Granted you’ve got a pretty crumby peace partner in Abbas, but then you don’t get to pick their leaders for them. A two-state solution is the only solution that makes any practical sense to me.
The fundamental inconsistency of what you express is amazing. Must be tough.
Thanks for your keen insight. It’s opened so many doors for me.
Jim, when Sec. Kerry made his last visit, he made two startling statements. First, he said that Israelis may be too happy a people to accept the standard peace formulas, since facts on the ground have decisively changed in their favor. This gives the lie to decades of dire warnings that time is against Israel. Second, he said that the peace formula pushed on Israel all this time has approached its “sell-by” date and if nothing happens, new approaches will be required.
Meanwhile, Abbas has replaced Fayyad as prime minister with an esteemed professor who has absolutely no experience in public administration, effectively giving Abbas and his cronies a license to steal the billions in aid money that Kerry and the EU want to lavish on the PA, which Fayyad would have checked.
I would suspend current diplomatic activities until these matters, both within and nearby, sort themselves out.
Norman, I’m actually with Kerry and Netanyahu on this one. Proceed on a course of an American-facilitated peace process without any preconditions. If the Palestinians were smart they’d call Netanyahu’s bluff.
What measures could any international body employ to ensure that the Palestinians would not act corruptly? You’re happy with the status quo. I think things could be better.
The status quo is the best we can do until the Arabs get their act together.
If you believe settlements are a major problem, you are buying into idealism but rejecting reality. It’s clear you support Israel and would like to see it continue to prosper in peace. It seems logical to press Israel to show they have the moral ground as the Palestenians have demonstrated they are unwilling or incapable of behaving in a morally equivalent way. If I understand, you’re saying that the Palestenians are not capable of stopping the acts of violence, but Israel is capable of removing settlements which incense the Palestenians even more, so it should at least do what it can.
Here are the problems:
as you say, Israel don’t get to pick their leaders for them. Abbas is negotiating (pretending to) for a state which includes Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem. But the leadership in Gaza is Hamas. Israel doesn’t get to choose their leaders. It is possible that West Bank plays out exactly as Gaza did. When that happens, who is going to defend Israel? The reason Israel previously accepted boarders it now calls indefensible, is because it is capable of learning from the past and Gaza is a clear lesson. As much as you would wish the reality to be different, Hamas are sitting just adjacent, lobbing rockets into Israel’s civilian population (rejoicing if they get as far as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem including Al Aqsa mosque). Their charter is crystal clear. Where in this are settlements a problem? Unless you use the Hamas definition (unofficially ascribed to by many PA) of settlements – ie all of Israel.
If settlements are simply defined as Jewish Israelis living in areas over the 1967 lines, then Golan Heights, a larger area by far than parts of West Bank where there are “settlements”, would clearly be considered settlements. Certainly the Palestenians and most Arab states view Golan as occupied land. Problem is, this “occupied land” is not being claimed by Palestenians for their future state, it’s claimed by Syria. So then is it only some settlements (ie those defined by Abbas) that are a problem?
Abbas (the moderate) has actually been quite clear – he will not back down on Right of Return, or on Jerusalem or on continuing to subject Israel to terror and violence (how else to interpret his precondition that Israel release terrorist prisoners). The only reason settlements are a problem in this scenario is because the Palestenians have presented them as part of their narrative. The trouble is, that this is the same narrative that tells of the colonialist European Jews with no roots in Israel, whom unfortunately Hitler didn’t finish off (but at the same time who actually colluded with Hitler to kill themselves so the ones who didn’t kill themselves would “occupy” Palestine), who displaced the native population of noble Palestenians. This is the same narrative that has rewritten history unashamedly to create a Palestenian state prior to 1967, and the same narrative which clearly defines Israel’s very existence as Naqba. Israel wants peace and security. The Palestenians (represented by no longer elected Abbas and elected Hamas) are offering neither and clearly say that more violence will follow. That is, even if you accept their version of the problem as being settlements, look at their version of the solution – much the same as another “Final Solution”.
Abbas is only a “moderate” because he finds it useful to be the wolf in sheep’s clothing who is acceptable to the West as a “peace partner.” In reality, Abbas is a terrorist who, as Arafat’s hand-picked successor, is carrying on the original aim of the PLO, namely the destruction of Israel! That is what is written in their charter as well as the PA’s charter. When Arafat was named the leader of the PLO at the Rabat Summit Conference in 1974, the destruction of Israel was the reason for his selection. He stated that he would use both terror tactics and “negotiations” to achieve his goal. All of his speeches in Arabic only reiterate that this is his goal. Not once, in Arabic, has the goal of living in peace with Israel ever been spoken by any Palestinian leader and that definitely includes Abbas.
If the Palestinians wanted two states, they could have had it already, but they do not! They don’t want Israel to exist in reality instead of just in their rhetoric. Israel’s only hope for peace is to forget about the totally unrealistic, oxymoronic “two-state solution” and build a strong, united Israel which includes Judea, Samaria, and all of Jerusalem!
Sounds like you’re pretty well set on a one-state solution of your own. Why is it when the Palestinians seek a one-state solution it is conniving, evil, duplicitous and when you do it it’s justified, God-given and highly moral?
When the Palestinians speak of one state, they are talking of eradicating Israel completely and “driving all Jews into the sea”! When Israelis speak of one state, they are speaking of one country where all its citizens would be equal under the law and all residents would be treated justly. Arabs don’t even treat Muslims fairly, and Christians are second-class citizens, so why anyone would expect Palestinians to have a democratic state, even if Israel is gone, is simply beyond me!
I hate to break it to you, Dafna, but all Israelis don’t think alike. Certainly Moshe Feiglin sees no future for Arabs living in a Jewish state including the annexation of what he identifies as Judea and Samaria. And Rabbi Ovadia Yosef sees all non-Jews (whether living in Israel or not) as being placed on this earth in order to serve the interests of Jews. And do you think any future Israeli government would tolerate a majority non-Jewish population deciding the leadership, laws, character and culture of what has been traditionally a Jewish state of Israel? Dhimi status can work both ways, you know.
Actually, colonialism started more like in 637, with the siege of Jerusalem.
Colonialism started with the Hyskos invasion of Egypt in about 1500BCE.
Jim,
Just where do you get your information from that you are so positive that the Palestinian “cause” is what you think it is? You don’t even bother to check out what the pro-Israeli side actually says!
Dafna, what do you think I’m doing here? Dave and the other contributors to IsraellyCool aren’t exactly championing either the Palestinian cause or the two-state solution.
That’s because they are being realistic about dealing with the Arabs, while you see the entire situation through propaganda-colored glasses, THE PALESTINIANS “CAUSE” IS NOW AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL!! Their “cause” has NEVER been about land or “settlements,” they are just convenient excuses!!! Read their goddamned charter and their own speeches to other Arabs if you want to know why Dave, I, and some other contributors aren’t championing either the “Palestinian cause” or the oxymoronic farce known as the “two-state solution”!!
As to what I think you are doing here, either you are extremely naive and see yourself as a champion of a mythical “cause” or you are someone who likes to play the devil’s advocate and set the fox among the chickens and then see what happens while you sit back and watch with “scientific” interest.
I express what my heart and head tell me is the best approach for my Israeli friends to take. I may be more of a cut-up than you (massive understatement), but I don’t have any hidden agenda behind my participation in the IsraellyCool Comments Section.
Let’s be clear about this – there is NO SUCH THING as a “Palestinian People” therefore, it is ridiculous to talk about “the Palestinian cause.”
Jim
Please answer this one question
If the settlements are the root cause of the conflict and are an impediment to Palestinian statehood , then what prevented the Palestinians from declaring statehood at any time between 1948 and 1967 when there was no occupation and no settlements ?
I said settlements are an impediment to the peace process, not the root cause of the conflict. Why are those so many commentors here eager to paint me as an advocate for the Palestinians? I am certainly not that. I’m only interested in the Palestinians to the extent that they intersect with the lives of Israelis, who I do care about.
Jim
I Notice you’ve been playing Devils Advocate for a while . No harm in that but I’d still genuinely like to hear your opinion as to why the Palestinians failed to declare statehood between 48 and 67 on the same piece of land they are demanding now .
. To be honest , I’ve asked the same question of Arabs and their support networks for many years and have never received a worthy response .
Care to have a stab at it ?
OK, Harvey, I will take a crack at your provocative question. But first, I don’t see anything I’ve been saying here as representative of a devil’s advocate position. I favor a two-state solution coming into existence through an American-facilitated negotiated peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Most of the rest of the world wants the same thing. The existence of Israeli settlements on the disputed land of the West Bank is an impediment to starting that process.
Now to your question. My best judgment is that the reason the Palestinians failed to declare their own state between the time of the founding of Israel and the Six-Day War would be that the Palestinians can’t get their act together. They seem perpetually disunited and unable to coalesce into a functioning society with a national identity. Also, they seem more focused on destroying Israel than building a state of Palestine. Am I close?
Since you admit that the Palestinians can’t get their act together and that they are more focused on destroying Israel than building their own state, then how can you believe that the proposed “two-state solution” can possibly have a chance to work? Also, the biggest impediment to a genuine peace is stopping the Palestinians’ acts of terror against Israel’s civilians. The next biggest is having the Palestinians actually want peace enough to actually negotiate without preconditions like freeing Palestinian terrorists and allowing millions of Arabs into Israel on their fictitious “right of return!” The Israelis have already tried giving land without an guarantees of peace when they forced 8000 Jewish families to leave their homes and what they ended up with is Hamas firing thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians! The third impediment to any true peace agreement is that the Palestinians themselves do not have a single person that represents all of them. The forth impediment to the Palestinians having their own state is that neither Hamas nor the PA has an independent working infrastructure. Therefore, even if having Israelis living in Judea and Samaria was an impediment to peace talks (and I’m not saying they are), that issue is way down on the list.
Jim, your heart is in the right place, and your reasoning is like most Israelis’ maybe 25 years ago. A two state solution would seem practical to people who are logical and sensible. The problem is that even if most Palestenians wanted this most practical solution (which is an if – we assume this because we judge them from our own logical point of view), their leaders would need to get their act together and put aside the things that would make a two state solution impossible (pre-conditions – right of return, releasing terrorists, de-militerising, banning Normalisation). They are further away from this than ever. Believing that settlements are an impediment to starting negotiations is a falsehood – that has been presented by the Palestenians, and bought into by the US and everyone else. Believing that you’re right because “most of the rest of the world agrees”, is a similar falsehood – most of the rest of the world has voted for Palestine to declare themselves a non-member state, and you only need to look at UN as representative of most of the world to see what a fallacy that can be. The US could just as easily be stern with the PA and threaten to withdraw funds (as opposed to offering another 4 Billion dollars) unless they drop their preconditions.
Bibi got voted in due to a climate of utter frustration and hopelessness of any movement in a positive direction towards achieving a peace solution. The only reason he didn’t get Lapid’s votes is because of his policies affecting internal issues. He is seen to be squeezing the poor and middle class too much. My parents in law can’t afford to live on their pensions, having worked extremely hard for over 20 years. If you look carefully at Lapid’s policies, he too would not negotiate Jerusalem, he too would not agree to indefensible borders, and he too would never accept right of return. He promised people a better life, but no new solution to the peace process. As far as his policy on settlements, again, if you look carefully, he is opposed to settlements as defined by most Israelis (not Palestenians), the small outpost ones – not because he believes they are an impediment to the peace process, but because they actually pose a huge headache for Israel in terms of providing security for them.
In order to comprehend the magnitude of the Palestenians’ continuing violence, hate and destruction, the good people of the US need to constantly multiply all the casualties and victims, by forty, while keeping the distances involved the same. Only then would you have any idea of how much you would tolerate, while being told that the main issue is people building extensions to existing homes, on land which was completely empty until those homes were put on it.
I’ve heard a lot about what’s wrong with my proposed solution, but not what long-term solution you would suggest, Inessa. The status quo, grabbing land, sometimes sanctioned, sometimes not, daily incidents of conflict between Arabs and Jews, with no meaningful framework in place to effect any resolution. This cannot go on indefinitely. Time is not on the side of people like me who are pushing for a negotiated settlement. The one-staters like Danny Danon, Moshe Feiglin, and I think, really, Bibi Netanyahu will get their way. But it won’t be a one-state, Jewish state like we’ve had these past 60 plus years. It will some mixed up amalgam of a binational mess, not Jewish, certainly not Palestinian, not one-man-one-vote and not one that has any chance to resolve the Conflict.
With respect, your proposed solution is not a solution as the Palestenians haven’t agreed to it. The only thing they seem to agree to is taking more US dollars. The Status quo is not ideal but it’s better than the destruction of Israel, which happens to be the stated aim of Hamas, and also the behaviour of PA. For its faults, the status quo has Palestenians living in most of the land of their proposed state; Israelis are prohibited to enter; No one prevents them from holding elections; They are effectively under self rule, and if they didn’t constantly engage in violence, the Israeli army wouldn’t bother them. I would suggest a constant pressure by the US on the Palestenians, with a clear condition that they will be accountable for aid money they receive. I would increase pressure and monitoring of public speeches and education advocating violence, hate speech, antisemitism and punishing normalisation. Governments do sometimes bend to the will of the people, so the people should change the facts on the ground. Also, I would increase the Hasbara of the Israeli Arabs. The US should also apply pressure on Egypt and Jordan. We’ll have to agree to disagree on Bibi – he puts what’s good for Israel, and what’s wanted by most Israelis, ahead of personal opinion. Although, at the end of the day, it is not your or my solutions that matter. Israelis are the ones who put their lives on the line every minute. We, outside should not presume to know their situation or risks better than them. It is right that people who vote in Israel, risk their lives and serve in the army, and send their children at the prime of their youth to serve three years in the army, should have the most say in their future, ahead of the US or anyone else. Mr Kerry and Mr Obama could be key in changing the situation, but they need to listen long and carefully to Israel’s voice, and then assist, instead of lecturing and posturing.
Not sure why you believe my question to be provocative , but that aside , your answer is partly correct . The Arabs cannot accept the concept of a two state solution . That’s the only reason why they failed to declare an independent state of Palestine in 1948 and in the years leading up to the 67 war . Fedayeen were regularly crossing into pre 67 to commit acts of savagery on Israeli citizens well before Israels occupation of Gaza and the West Bank .
Nasser figured the time was right to attack and destroy Israel in the months leading up to the 6 Day war but instead his army and that of Jordan and Syria were destroyed instead .
History has been conveniently air brushed so that the aggressor becomes the disadvantaged and clamours to have his rights restored and all the while not accepting of Israels right to exist .
Like a blackjack punter ( card game 21 ) holding 18 and demanding another card . A 4 leaves him bust , he then demands the bank returns his stake – at gun point .
That sums up the Palestinians