Reserve Generals (Israeli) Back Unilateral Withdrawal

To be fair, it wasn't like the Israelite poulation decided one day, "Hey, lets move all across Europe looking for a home and finding persecution and hatred everywhere we go", it was more along the lines of ,"Hey, our house is on fire and the neighbors are dead, we should leave now".

Also, you can place blame anywhere, here I go.

Isreal is wrong for continuing to destroy Palestinian settlements and indiscriminate killing of Palestinians.

The Palestinians are wrong for continuing to suicide bomb crowded areas.

Both sides are very wrong, both sides suck. Both sides have committed war crimes.

I am now of the opinion the US should just back away, back far away, let these two knuckleheads drive each other into dust with their mindless cycle of violence.

 

Puedlfor,

I wasn't just blaming one side. I was trying to show that no one could be solely blamed. I also know that they just did not get up and leave.

The fighting is wrong, yes. But both sides believe they are fighting for the right side.

In fact, both sides are correct in that they both have equal claim. And people from both sides, older people mostly who have been there since before 1948, know and have recognized that neither side is wrong.

 

The two sides have diametrically opposite positions. One, or both sides, must be wrong. It can't be any other way. If it was, the universe would end, and my head would explode, not necesarily in that order.


The only way that both sides can have an equal claim to the land is if you look at it from a strictly Marxist perspective. Are you a Marxist?

 

Another relevant Haaretz article:

Separation: plan leaders can't live with, but which Israelis may be unable to live without
By Bradley Burston, Ha'aretz

Correspondent Construction of a fence to wall Palestinians off from Israel - an unsinkable proposal that never seems to set sail because of the political dynamite in its hold - has received an unexpected push from the head of the Shin Bet secret service, an endorsement quickly seconded by a former key general.

The "separation fence" concept has been bandied about for years, spurred by the inability of tens of thousands of Israel Defense Force troops, policemen and Shin Bet agents to keep Palestinian militants from crossing the tortuous West Bank border to carry out suicide bombings and shootings in the Jewish state.

But Israeli hard-liners have fought "separation" tooth and nail, fearing that any physical delineation of the unmarked frontier between Israel and the West Bank would be translated in future peace talks into a permanent border closely akin to the lines in force prior to the 1967 Six-Day War.

Speaking before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter noted that the great majority of the 52 Palestinians who mounted suicide attacks within Israel in the last six months entered from the West Bank. He called the erection of physical barriers around Jerusalem, and along the West Bank's Green Line border with Israel, essential to reducing terror.

"I don't see any method other than a physical barrier that can prevent attacks," Dichter told the committee Tuesday.

Dichter's statements re-ignited the debate over separation, raising hackles among rightist settlers, for whom separation may be the most threatening of all non-military initiatives at a time when the peace process seems to have breathed its last.

Gaza settler leader Avi Farhan, a vocal member of the central committee of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Likud, blasted the separation concept Wednesday, calling it aimed at camouflaging a de facto Israeli withdrawal from the territories, along with eviction of Jewish residents of the West Bank and Gaza.

"It is time to expose the truth - or the scam - behind the various separation plans. The goal of most of these plans is to uproot us from Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza," Farhan said. "The driving forces behind these plans are the same people who gave us the Oslo accords and who gave the Palestinians guns."

Leftists countered that the price of political opposition to border barriers would be paid in blood.

If Yasser Arafat continues to hold hard-line positions and resist reining in militants, said senior lawmaker Ran Cohen of the dovish Meretz party, Israel will have no alternative but to put up a fence.

"To my great dismay, there is political opposition on the part of the settlers and the prime minister, who don't want a separation fence even at the price that we're paying in blood. It's a fact, that all the terrorist attackers - every one - who entered the state of Israel and blew themselves up wherever it was that they exploded, they all came from the West Bank and not from the Gaza Strip, where there is a separation fence that protects Israel."

Shoring up the Shin Bet director's call for physical barriers, Major-General (res.) Gideon Sheffer, formerly a member of the IDF General Staff and ex-deputy chairman of the National Security Council (NSC), said Wednesday that separation between Israel and Palestinians was a foregone conclusion, and that "the sooner we begin, the better. It is possible to create separation that is, of course, not hermetic sealing-off, but which will be much better, much more controlled than the situation that exists today.


"Amazingly, it is clear today where the line should run," said Sheffer, a party to detailed past NSC discussions of the possible geography of a separation fence. "If one asks if that will be the final line, the answer is no, but there are areas that doubtless will be the final line - areas where Israeli and Palestinian areas are situated back-to-back, where there is no space between them."

At present, Sheffer said, diplomatic complexities render it impossible to put up a fence in Jerusalem, for example, "but you don't need a fence in every area. There are other solutions, which cost money but could save lives." What is needed is a separation "space," which in some places could be a Great Wall of China, in some places a fence, in others a stretch of land in which entry is barred in other ways, or an observation post with no fence at all.

He cited the Qalqilyah-Kfar Sava interface as an example of an area where the proximity of the two populated areas allowed little room for negotiation. "Other locations are much more amorphous," he said, citing the Gilboa and southern Judea regions, where there are few populated areas dictating a line.

At the same time, pressure for separation has been undermined by the firing of Kassam-2 rockets capable of being launched from behind the 1967 lines and still hitting targets more than eight miles into Israel proper - effectively placing much of Israel's urban majority at peril.

According to Ha'aretz commentator Amir Oren, "Arafat's openly declared platform - one can only harbor suspicions about his secret one - seeks to bring Israel back to the Green Line, by means of combined political and military activity." By contrast, "for Hamas, this line has no significance, and they are erasing it with rockets, which fly over the previous and future border."

But as for suicide terrorists on ground-based missions of death, Israel's challenge remains "the unbearable ease of uncontrolled entry into Israeli territory," Sheffer said. As for Israeli politicians who have found it easier to decided not to decide, "whoever waits for a solution to the arguments between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in order to institute separation will have to wait for many years to come, and one day, when he finally goes ahead with it, will be asked, 'Where were you all this time?'

"If, in the future, a leader waits until the number of casualties is such that he says, 'Gentlemen, I have no alternative but to institute [the separation]," Sheffer asked, "will the people, in the end, find themselves able to forgive that man?"

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...=129628&displayTypeCd=1&sideCd=1&contrassID=2

I actually don’t think that this would be a bad idea. Of course, the Israelis would still have to go in and knock out the terrorist groups – or at least those who are firing rockets over the walls at them – and tens of thousands of Palestinians would lose their jobs (and the Palestinian economy smashed to pieces), but… It would fix that nasty suicide bomber problem Israel’s been having lately. And the Palestinians couldn’t b**** at the Israelis about occupation or settlements… They’d have to revert to their root hatred – and just flat out say they wanted to destroy Israel. Well, most already do…

But the wall isn’t a half-bad idea.

 

They do have equal claim and they both want the land for very similar reasons. The situation is pretty simple but very complex.

That's part of why this is so hard to solve, because neither side is without claim. If one or both were wrong, we could get rid of the wrong one (or both if that were the case) and be done with it. Since both are right and both have similar reasons and both have support from various sides, what is anyone suppoesed to do?

How do you see they are different, specifically?

 

Equality of claim can only exist from a Marxist perspective. Otherwise, there's always a superiority of claim, even though such may be difficult to determine.

 

Both can't be right.

Its not possible, because both sides claim a total sovereignty over the land and the exclusion of the other. One sides claim MUST trump the other, or else you are saying that they both are right in that they both own the land, and the other has no place on it.

It would be similar to saying, "This man is currently married, and a bachelor." That statement cannot be true, because the two parts of it are directly contradictory.

 

Okay, let me rephrase. Both groups have legitmate claims to the land. Both of the groups claim the land for similar reasons. It cannot be determined fairly who has the more real claim because it depends on who you ask.

Is that better.

I think a better analogy would be if a man was married and his wife died so he was single, but then it turns out she was only missing for a few months/years. Is he married or single? (Don't ask, it happens in soap operas)

 

my 2 cents:

The Palestinians have the stronger claim because they live there now. I know the history doesn't really support their claims that strongly, but they're there now, and unless the Israelis ethnically cleanse them, they're not going anywhere.

They must eventually have their state for two simple reasons: 1) if they don't get one, then they will eventually be ethnically cleansed (the current situation will not go on forever, I guarantee that), and 2) although wanting a Palestinian state is a recent phenomena for them, the desire is now there, and they have a right to self-determination. And, of course, they live there...

But they need to understand that they're not going to get their state with these tactics. I am actually convinced that they need an entirely new leadership - Arafat isn't cutting it. Hell, he's making the situation even worse... But the Palestinians have got to realize that until they cease the violence, they will not get their state, they will not get water rights, they will not get an unconditional Israeli withdrawal, they will not get rid of the settlements... They will get nothing as long as the violence continues. The sooner they realize that the better.

But in principle... The land belongs to the Palestinians.

 

I have to disagree with you treeman. If anything, the Jewish people were there first. That holds more for me than what you said. The land was never divided until the British named it the Israeli state. Since there never was a Palestinian state, they're technically fighting for nothing.

It would be like the Native Americans fighting against US colonials. We didn't take them into consideration, but the British gave us land, so we thought it was ours. The Natives were fighting for land they didn't have claim to in Europe's eyes.

I still maintain that both sides have equal claim and both deserve it.

I hope this doesn't come to eradication. I would rather say that the land belongs to both of them and they can share the government or have a democracy, but I think they've passed the point where that could have been done. These were such peaceful people, both sides. I have the hardest time knowing what it has come to and the horrible things that they are doing to each other. Friends are fighting against former friends. It is so sad. And nothing will convince me that one side deserves it over the other. I know eventually one will have to get it (either by forfit or eradication or something) and I think that will be a very sad day, but hopefully it will bring peace and toleration.

 

Regarding 'Genetic Stock':

The real big deal is that the Islamic Arabs claim to be the 'chosen ones' in the same sense that Jews are the 'chosen ones' by claiming that they are the descendents of Abraham by way of Ishmael, as the Jews see their legitimacy as being descendants of Isaac, Abraham's other, more 'blessed' son of Abraham, with whom god made his covenant. Here's a quote from somewhere or other:

Of course, this is irrelevant if you buy into the whole Christian thing, as the concept of 'chosen people' was abolished, as with the rest of Judaism’s legalism. In this sense, Islam is more a strict descendent of Judaism, despite mentions of Christianity, as opposed to a linear progression from Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam.


Regarding Arab claims to Jerusalem:

Given the historical context in which the Crusades are portrayed, there are very few Muslims who are even well versed in one of the seminal moments of Islam in Europe.

Almost 100 years after his death in 632, Mohammed's religion was in a much more healthy state than when he left it. According to Mohammed, the two holy cities of Islam were Mecca and Medina, both on the Arabian Peninsula.

Following Mohammed's death, Islam went through a period not unlike the transition of Christianity from being the lunch for Lions to being the official religion of the re-christened Holy Roman Empire.

As a newfound politicized force, the Muslims embarked on a campaign to conquer the world. In the east, they made it all the way to India, and in the west, up around the top of Africa, across the straight of Gibraltar, through Spain and into France, where they were repelled at Tours in 732.

Here is another random quote:

Inroads were also made into Constantinople and, later on into Sicily. (As an aside, historically, the peoples of Spain and Southern Italy were of the same genetic makeup as those of Northern Italy and Spain respectively: blond hair and blue eyes. The darker complexions, which are currently found in the area, are a result of the addition of Arab genes to the mix, a point which was made in the movie True Romance in a somewhat less delicate fashion.)

Why the history lesson? The creation of Jerusalem as an Islamic holy city can be seen in the context of the aforementioned crusades to Europe. As a major city, Jerusalem was about as good a staging point for entry into Europe and North Africa as you could possibly find at the time. Given this, as well as the fact that after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, in 70 A.D. which effectively symbolized the end of a cohesive Jewish state in the area, Jerusalem was turned into a religious city in order to:

1) Make the invasion of Europe easier.

2) Because it's significance to Judaism would add legitimacy to the
new religion by building ties back through the history of Judaism.

3) It was relatively free for the taking, since the Romans destroyed the Jewish state that was there.

In short, it's religious significance to Islam is a matter of convenience.

 

Princess:

I just happen to think that who is there now is more important, since they're the ones who would have to be ethnically cleansed...

And don't forget that there wasn't an American nation until we kicked the Brits out. People have a right to self determination. The people who live in an area have more of that right in that area than someone who doesn't live there, if that makes sense...

And sharing... is not going to happen. They are way past that. There are only two end results here: 1) a Palestinian state is formed out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or 2) The Israelis ethnically cleanse all of the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and annex the territories; the Palestinians are forever forced into Egypt, Jordan, and scattered even more abroad.

Personally, I think that either way, the terrorism attacks will continue at a low rate under either outcome for possibly several hundred years (decades at minimum), because of either sheer hatred and desire to see Israel destroyed, or pure revenge. But the only way to significantly reduce the violence is for one of these outcomes to happen...

Hell, most Israelis believe that there should be a Palestinian state. That's the way to go... Unless the terrorists just never stop. Then the Israelis most certainly will obtain two completely Palestinian-free territories to add to their state... The Palestinians are really pushing it, and playing a very dangerous game. The Israelis are losing patience.

 

Ummm.. riiiiiiiight.. just like Arafat said he was born a Palestinian later proven that he was born and raised in Egypt. It is well documented(by the British) that Israel was basically empty till the end of the 19th century.

Care to prove me wrong.. go right ahead!

 

treeman,

I know it won't happen. And that makes me sad because it could have happened in the beginning, IMO.

I don't any outcome will be good or fair except that it will end the fighting. Both sides have claim. Both sides are victims. Neither side will ultimately win. Maybe neither of them will. Maybe Britian should take the whole thing away and say, forget it. The land is open and free, do with it as you please. They'll probably nearly eradicate each other, which they might do anyway.

I don't think they should keep fighting simply because they are both right. But I don't think either side should have to forfeit their claim. The situation is so bad on so many levels. I can't believe how much better I've understood this because of my class. Before, I was all about taking out the Palestinians because they didn't belong. There was no Palestine state. And, while I wasn't wrong, I wasn't correct either. I only knew half.

So sad

 

Palestinians hadn't been there for centuries. Everyone who wanted to live there had been there. It was not largely inhabited, but it was still open. It was under Ottoman control, I believe, and anyone was welcom. Tolerant regime.

 

Princess:

They're fighting now because they've been fighting for generations - it's what they know. They've really been fighting sporadically for about a century. Before that - before large numbers of Jews started arriving from Europe - they did get along fairly well (usually). But for the past century...

They have to be separated. They're like psychotic babies with machine guns (although I tend to think that if given a chance, the Israelis are capable of acting rationally). They have to be separated. I actually do like the wall idea...

 

Some have been fighting. In that documentary, they said the "war" did not begin until 1948.

Before that, most of the people in the film were Jews and Arabs who were friends with each other until this date.

Sporadic fighting, yes. I'll give you that. But the country was not polarized as it is now. It was still civil.

(I like debating with you. We're nice and get things done! )

 

The start of the modern problems in Israel are, I believe, generally attributed to the Balfour Declaration, in 1917. Here is a quote on the matter from 'The Jewish Virtual Library', so it probably is a bit favorable to the Jewish side.

Also, note that there were Arab riots in Israel/Palestine as far back as 1920.

The UN didn't implement the state of Israel until 1947. I believe the war started more or less the same day. I am also incredibly tickled by the fact that every time the Palestinians have attacked and tried to wipe out Israel because they feel it all is theirs, they end up with a smaller piece of the total pie. Every time. Almost makes me want to convert to Judiasm.

 

I know a nice Rabbi.. j/k .. I do agree with you though.. Also Ottomaton, Israel is the only country ever to give land back won in a DEFENSIVE war! It's a shame that the liberal media (I am a moderate democrat and I agree with the media on almost every aspect besides the Israeli/Palestinian conflict) is glorifying all the people who are attacking Israel. If the suicide bombings stopped, they would get a state.. what blows my mind is the Palestinian's lack of religious tolerance when it comes to Judaism... they wont stop the bombings until all Jews are out of Gaza and the West Bank... sounds like ethnic clensing to me.

 

Yeah Franchise2001 you are correct, Israel was empty before 1947

The Israeli's are there and they are not going anywhere, I think the Arab world realized that except for an extremist minority that have the same mindset of the Taliban thinking they could defeat the United States, and look how that worked out.

But in order for a peace without the Genocide of the Palestinian populace in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel needs to evacuate settlements there and allow a self-governing Palestinian state.

Self-determination is a principle that we as Americans should be able to understand their passion towards.

And Franchise2001,

I really can't ever IN MY LIFE recall the media glorifying a suicide bomber or anyone attacking Israel. Yet the titles whenever Israel bombs Palestine are usually including the words "retaliation or in response"

And I guess if you felt Palestine pre-1947 was EMPTY you also wouldn't know that Jews lived there under Islamic controlled governments for over a thousand years. Under the Ottoman's they were treated as equals and simply paid a very small extra tax.

Ignorance seems quite abundant....