Israel 'to make more withdrawals'

[IndianaGreen]

Last Updated: Sunday, 5 March 2006, 16:46 GMT

Israel 'to make more withdrawals'

Israel's acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert plans more unilateral West Bank withdrawals if his party wins the general election, a key aide has said.

Former security chief Avi Dichter said settlers will be relocated to major settlement blocs and Israel will define its final borders within four years.

<snip>

Speaking on Israel radio, Mr Dichter said while Israel will remove settlers, "it will be only a civilian disengagement, not a military disengagement".

He said in the light of militant group Hamas winning the Palestinian election in January, Israel had no alternative but to go it alone.

"In the absence of a Palestinian partner, Israel will have to determine its final borders by itself, and that will involve the consolidation of smaller settlements into settlement blocs," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4776548.stm

[Tom Joad]

1. ...From small portions of illegally occupied land.

The rest it plans to illegally annex or control.
This will not bring peace.

[pelsar]

2. neither will committing national sucide

or does some one here not believe Hamas....

[IndianaGreen]

3. I believe in Hamas!

Hamas has told the truth on many occassions. Because I believe in Hamas, I have no doubt that they mean it when they say they want Israel to cease to exist. Yet, there are those that continue to see Hamas as some version of a radical literary club. I remind them of the mistake many Germans made when they saw Hitler in a business suit, they thought he wasn't as crazy as the Brownshirts.

[barb162]

12. When you read some of their speeches it is very clear

they intend to destroy Israel. I started a thread on one of their speeches a few weeks back. I see Hamas as you do.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Indy, do you think Hamas can change?

And if they then say that they do recognise Israel, will you have no doubt that they mean what they say?

Violet...

[tatertop]

4. This is too funny and it leaves me with two questions:

1. How many billions do they want from the US for
their 'sacrifice.'
2. Which territories do they plan to steal
for these criminals to re-'settle'?
They are simply moving on to greener pastures, further
dislocating Israel's Palestinian citizens already
living in those regions.

Trans-par-ent

[Englander]

5. Haaretz editorial;

>snip

With the elections approaching, Kadima has remembered what it was founded for, and its leaders are promising, albeit somewhat weakly, that they intend to carry out an additional unilateral withdrawal in the West Bank after the elections, while canceling Israel's commitment to the road map. While the disengagement from Gaza involved withdrawing to the recognized international border, a kind of declaration that the era of settlement had ended, the withdrawal from the West Bank is much more than a political declaration. Its role is to enable the establishment of two states, which may in the future be led by reality to live in harmony and mutual affinity.

The number of seats that Kadima is receiving in the polls, combined with those received by other parties that favor leaving the territories, indicate that there is broad public support for another move, and a major one. The obstacle on the path to carrying out another withdrawal is not Hamas, because ending the occupation is a necessity that does not depend on the nature of the occupied party's leadership. Rather, it is the abstract term "settlement blocs," which has gained too much weight in Israeli discourse and appears to reflect a new mistaken idee fixe. The number of "blocs," as well as their size, changes constantly, and the appetite for annexing territory has not waned for a moment.

Avi Dichter, one of Kadima's senior members, talks of the Hebron-Kiryat Arba bloc, the Karnei Shomron-Kedumim bloc, the Ofra-Beit El bloc and three other blocs that would not be evacuated. This is not a withdrawal and it is not even worth discussing: It is merely talk about ending the occupation without ending it.

Simple fairness requires presenting a withdrawal plan that does not remove people from their houses in dribs and drabs, but rather makes the 1967 borders its basis, along with those adjustments required by genuine necessity - not by "facts on the ground" established in error. There is no reason to postpone dividing Jerusalem, when every year that passes makes it an even harder demographic mixture to separate. There is no reason to annex the Jordan Valley, which is a vital land reserve for the Palestinian Authority. There is no reason to annex the entire Ma'aleh Adumim bloc, which cuts the West Bank into pieces and makes the division into two states a stingy pretense.

The claim that Kadima has no platform and no plan, and is no more than a random collection of people seeking a safe Knesset seat, is unfair. Ehud Olmert is apparently determined to carry out another withdrawal. His proposal to exchange the road map for a unilateral plan with international backing is encouraging, and makes more sense than plans that aspire to topple Hamas. But so far, the plan he has proposed is insufficient.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/690437.html

[Behind the Aegis]

6. They shouldn't.

What's the point?

[Wordie]

7. I'm just curious, bta...

This is a hypothetical. Imagine you were the one in control in Israel - you had the power to make all the decisions by yourself - and you could decide which of four paths Israel could take at this time. (For the purposes of this hypothetical, let's just leave the Right of Return out of it for now. And you have to choose one and only one of the options below.) Here are the four choices:

1. Withdrawal to pre-'67 borders and dismantling of ALL settlements on the Palestinian side of the border, with a division of Jerusalem.

2. The Kadima plan, in which settlements are "consolodated," still taking land from the Palestinians and dividing their territory into an unworkable configuration, so that a functioning state would never be a possiblity.

3. A continuation of the current state of things, with ever-increasing settlements and displacement of Palestinians from their homes, land and livelihoods.

4. Creation of a bi-national state, with all the parties sharing one country.

If you had to choose only one option above, and keeping in mind that your job is to increase the chances for an ultimate peace to the greatest extent possible, which one would you choose and why? Although I'm asking you to choose only one, it would be interesting if you might speculate (compare and contrast) regarding the probable Palestinian response to each of these options.

I'd be interested in the responses of other Israel partisans also.

[meti57b]

8. Why shouldn't the Arab world take in and absorb some of these "refugees".

Shouldn't that be on the list of options?

[not systems]

9. Sounds like option #3 with a little more...

"ethnic cleansing".

Is that your favorite option?

[Wordie]

11. um...isn't that ordinarily called "ethnic cleansing"??? eom

[meti57b]

13. No, that isn't ethnic cleansing.

I am speaking of Muslim nations offering opportunity and accommodation to those who might want it or be in need of it and choose it.

If Arab nations offering incentive to Palestinians to relocate to their nations can be called "ethnic cleansing" ... then so can the forced relocation of Jews out of Gaza and out of the West Bank also be called "ethnic cleansing".

[Englander]

14. It is, do you realise why, it would be ethnic cleansing?

Aren't there Israeli political parties that have that policy as part of their
platform, they label it "transfer", don't they?

Nice abuse of logic/language in yer 2nd para.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. First things first...

There's no dispute about them being refugees, despite what those who insist on putting dit-dits round the word refugees think.

And how many are 'some'?

Violet...

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

15. That was well done, Wordie.

You can't say you didn't try, it's a shame that the response was less than overwhelming!

[Behind the Aegis]

16. It wasn't well done.

It was completely partisan and filled with false choice.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Here's a Create An Option opportunity...

So what path do you think Israel should take? And what's so horrendous about option #1 anyway?

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

20. bta?

[Behind the Aegis]

22. vc?

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Here I go...

First, let me answer your second question, because if I don't, anything else I type will be moot and nothing more will come from this, IMO, than "why didn't you answer my question?"

And what's so horrendous about option #1 anyway?

As to question two, I didn't say there was anything "horrendous about option #1." My response to Wordie's post was that all the 'choices' were "...one-sided, two are written as such."

So what path do you think Israel should take?

1. Israel should maintain her current "holdings," until Hamas recognizes Israel as a world body and explains what they mean by "Palestinian land."
   
2. In a show of 'good faith,' Israel should dismantle 5% of the settlements, with the expectation that the rocket attacks from Gaza cease or, in the very least, are prevented or perpetrators are arrested BY the PA.
   
3. International mediators are brought in, and PUBLIC discussions are held about the negotiations.
   
4. In six months, the West Bank and West Jerusalem are going to be GIVEN to the PA. However, Jewish settlements are allowed to stay, with the understanding they will no longer be under Israeli "rule."

See, the "choices" that Wordie gave were bogus and one-sided.

1. Withdrawal to pre-'67 borders and dismantling of ALL settlements on the Palestinian side of the border, with a division of Jerusalem.

This requires NO negotiations on the part of the Palestinians. The PA (Hamas controlled) can keep their odious charter.

2. The Kadima plan, in which settlements are "consolodated," still taking land from the Palestinians and dividing their territory into an unworkable configuration, so that a functioning state would never be a possibility.

This is a "the Palestinians" still lose land to the "bad Zionists," and they (the Palestinians) won't have a contiguous homeland. Would it better for Israel to be "split?"

3. A continuation of the current state of things, with ever-increasing settlements and displacement of Palestinians from their homes, land and livelihoods.

Perhaps this could be written, "A continuation of the current state of things, with ever-increasing terrorist attacks and destruction of Israeli homes, land and livelihoods." I am guessing that would be seen as "pro-Israeli partisanship!"

4. Creation of a bi-national state, with all the parties sharing one country.

This is just laughable, but not in the good way! You (the general "you") think that a country, currently run by Jews and declared an apartheid state (by its detractors), would become anything less by such a creation of such a configuration? List the number of Arab countries with Jewish populations over 10%. List the number of Muslim countries boasting the same. Oh wait....you won't be able to do that! If anyone thinks that a 'bi-national' state will work, they are 'covertly' calling for an end to Israel, IMO. There is not ONE Muslim or Arab nation that sustains a sizable Jewish population. To call for a 'bi-national' state, is to call for "civil war" and a repeat of where we are now! If one nation would be created, the population would be almost %50 Jewish. How long do you honestly think that would last!?

This is why Wordie's "choices" were poor, at best.

So, in the words of Wordie..."If you had to choose only one option above, and keeping in mind that your job is to increase the chances for an ultimate peace to the greatest extent possible, which one would you choose and why?" Because, "I'd be interested in the responses of other (Palestinian) partisans also."

[Violet_Crumble]

23. That's a good answer....

1. Israel should maintain her current "holdings," until Hamas recognizes Israel as a world body and explains what they mean by "Palestinian land."

2. In a show of 'good faith,' Israel should dismantle 5% of the settlements, with the expectation that the rocket attacks from Gaza cease or, in the very least, are prevented or perpetrators are arrested BY the PA.

3. International mediators are brought in, and PUBLIC discussions are held about the negotiations.

4. In six months, the West Bank and West Jerusalem are going to be GIVEN to the PA. However, Jewish settlements are allowed to stay, with the understanding they will no longer be under Israeli "rule."

Unfortunately it'd come to a grinding halt right at the start, coz I think it's unlikely that Hamas is going to change its hardline stance any time soon. I used to think things couldn't get any worse than back in the days of Arafat vs Sharon when it came to there being little chance of negotiations happening, but Hamas proved me wrong on that. I might end up having to eat my words at some point, but right now Israel doesn't have a partner to negotiate with, and the irony of it is that with Olmert (who to me appears infinately better than Sharon) at the reins in Israel, now could have been the best chance in a long time for genuine negotiations to have happened....

About the binational state thing. I'm aware that a binational state wouldn't work, but I don't think a two-state solution on the lines it's heading is going to work much better. I initially supported a two-state solution, and on a pragmatic level still do, but my support was always of two viable and independent states, and I don't think Sharon wanted any Palestinian state to be particularly viable or independent. I think a binational state which is secular and protects and respects the rights of everyone while still retaining its Jewish character is the fairest solution, though I know it's unrealistic as most Israelis and Palestinians don't want that. I think what'll eventually happen when the timing's right and there are Israeli and Palestinian leaders who will negotiate as equals is that a two states will emerge, and over the following generations as the mutual distrust and fear fades will possibly end up merging into one state...

Violet...

[Lithos]

24. What are your practical options?

?

[pelsar]

25. wait.....

at this point there is nothing to do.....whereas with the PA both israel and the PA were playing a game of "give and take" on the political level (and on the ground)...hamas is a different animal.

actually my fear of having the Hamas in power is not for israel but for the secular palestenains (most of their society and the Christians). If Hamas goes "iranian"...then the palestenians havent even begun to know what oppression is. Worse, it will be considered an internal matter and all the intls there to help will find themselves "out of a job.

and the conflict?..well that will continue unfortunatly, with the israeli right attempting to take advantage of the situation of a hostile neighbor....a lot will depend upon the strength and will of the Israeli PM....

[pelsar]

26. I'd go for one BUT

as long as the palestenains are disarmed....there are mines placed all along the borders (multiple types) a huge energy field that prevents mortors and rockets from being shot from the palestenain areas into israel....

they can have an underground non stopping train between gaza and the westbank also enveloped in an energy field that `zaps" anybody who makes the train stop in the middle and attempts to get off....


than i will trust them to be my neighbors.....