Why doesn’t Israel just pull out of Palestine and leave them alone?
That is an easy one. Israel will leave when the Palestinian Authority disarms their terrorists. The Palestinian Authority will disarm their terrorists when Israel pulls out. Somewhere along the line somebody is going to have to compromise. So far Israel has made many concessions while Palestine has made none. Each time Israel gives away more land the response has been more violence.
Israel does not want to control Palestine. Palestine has been the bane of Israel’s existence for 60 years. By being “the occupier” Israel is obligated to provide electricity, food and water. Without Israel’s economic assistance Palestine would have starved decades ago. Their Arab neighbours are not interested.
Palestine was offered sovereignty in 1947 but the Arab League refused. Israel practically begged Jordan to take over Palestine in 1968 but they refused. Israel offered to leave Gaza and almost all of the West Bank in 2000 but Palestine refused. Arab countries seem to think that it is more advantageous for them to leave Palestine as an occupied state. And it is. There is a reason all those Palestinian refugees in camps have never been integrated into those countries’ societies. Since 1948 only Jordan has ever made any Palestinian refugees citizens of its country.
It is not a control issue. When Israel gave Sinai back to Egypt they were happy and there was peace. When Israel gave part of Golan back to Syria they were not happy but there was peace. Every time Israel gives some land to Palestine there is more violence. As soon as Israel pulled out of Gaza, Hamas took over and terrorism escalated. If history is any indication, pulling out of the entire West Bank would lead to a bloodbath.
Her Whole Darkness In Motion
Venom of Asps
Fortnight in the Philippines
IDF Operations after Typhoon Haiyan
Letters To Friends
You know you want to buy a few copies
9 comments:
Okay, I have a follow-up:
If, as you said in your previous post that it's not a question of Jew vs Muslim or Arab vs Israeli but Extremist vs Moderate, and if we accept that Israeli elections are more democratic than the Palestinians' (which I do just for the sake of argument at the moment), why then does Israel continue to elect leaders on the extreme side? Why are hardliners being elected to positions of, if not power in their own right, then positions where they can disproportionally influence government?
Bluster for a domestic audience should not be taken as policy on either side. If we accept that the Israelis who want Palestine wiped out once and for all are on the unrepresentative lunatic fringe, why does that not hold for the other side?
Of course, I'd be paranoid too if everyone hated me. But is the rationalisation of casualties the way to fight extremism on both sides? How can the Palestinians be winning the PR war when Israel has far more resources and both the US government and media on its side?
Back in the day when I was a university student studying literature, I took a course on the historical meaning of the bible.
Now, I had all sorts of logical arguments why this could have meant that and that could have meant this, but in the end I realized that sometimes there is no point in raising questions because the questions have been discussed for thousands of years and positions have taken over. Sort of like dogmas.
So if a Rabbi agrees with a black president, then the rabbi is an idolator. Well, let us just say he agrees with any president... but there are catholics around and there just happens to be this black president...
Like I said, it gets terribly complicated but in the end, that President (who might have been influenced a little bit by his muslim dad just as Netanyahu is influenced by his 98 year old father) will have a great deal of influence in what happens with gaza, hamas, etc. So I would call him sir I would but then I am not in gaza or cannot see its moon so the question is moot. But not really. See if Iran gets a nuclear bomb then somebody could end up bombing me. So I hope someone figures this thing out because I do not want to die.
"If we accept that the Israelis who want Palestine wiped out once and for all are on the unrepresentative lunatic fringe, why does that not hold for the other side?"
Israeli extremists don't strap on bombs and blow up Palestinian children.
Elections in Israel ARE more democratic than erections in Palestine. Israel's choices are made thru the ballot box. Palestine's choices are made thru the gun. Israel's hardliners are much softer than Palestine's hardliners.
Garry, I'm the opposite. I used to stay away from religious topics when I was younger. I felt that all the arguments had already been made and it was pointless to waste my time on somebody who's just as convinced that they're right as I am. Now I think it's better to talk to people who completely disagree with me. Maybe I can't help them understand my point of view but at least I might learn something about theirs.
Bill, I don't think Hamas is winning the PR war. Note that I said Hamas and not Palestine. My tirades against Hamas shouldn't be confused with having anything against Palestine. As you know, you can criticise Bush without hating America. But I'm surprised Hamas did as well on the PR front as they did, considering they're an international terrorist organisation.
I don't see how electing hardliners dispels democracy. Sometimes the hardliners are more popular.
I think the Palestinians who want Israel wiped out are the lunatic fringe.
Let me know if I missed anything.
Sasha, I think you meant "elections" but I shouldn't assume.
Thanks Mia.
I appreciate the clarification on Hamas/Palestine. My mistake.
To clarify a point of my own, I wasn't suggesting that electing hardliners negates democracy - quite the opposite. It's a risk of democracy that hardliners will be elected. And it appears to an outsider like me that that has been happening on both sides, although the moderate Palestinian voices have been far more marginalised than the Israelis.
As for PR, ask yourself why the IRA are considered folk heroes by many. Nelson Mandela was once a terrorist. And no, I'm not comparing Hamas to Mandela, or even suggesting there's an analogy. It all comes down to your point of view of the fight.
Thanks again.
A simple difference between the Hamas and the IRA is that the IRA didn't deny England's right to exist. They only wanted England out of their backyard, not off the map.
Moderate Palestinian voices are heard loud and clear around here. I'm not surprised if extremists are given more press time in "the west".
My point about the IRA was in terms of public sympathy. But as for denying rights to exist, we speak of Palestine only as a concept, not a country, because many not-so-extreme participants and observers have denied not only its right to exist, but indeed, its existence. And that gets back to the PR thing. People tend to sympathise with those who have been kicked out.
Regarding moderates being marginalised, I was referring to their influence at home.
I've always wondered why Palestine's refugees are never made citizens of their new homes. What you say makes sense.
Post a Comment