Number of times when Israel has stopped settlements - none
How about the times when they dismantled all of the settlements in an area?
How about when they've frozen settlements, and then later started again? I am NOT a fan of them restarting, but that is essentially EXACTLY the level of effort you are applauding Palestine for.
If you are going to completely ignore the Sinai and Gaza dismantlements, then you are too far removed from reality to have a rational discussion.
Israel does not get any credit for dismantling the Gaza settlements for a number of reasons.
1. Because Israel simply made new settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
2. Because as soon as the settlements were gone, the siege of Gaza began under the guise of penalizing the Gazans for voting in Hamas.
3. Who cares that they dismantled those settlements? What all difference does it make? The Pals don't have any settlements to dismantle in return. The Pals have nothing to offer, but the Israelis have a lot to give back.
Let's review:
Israel disengages 8,500 settlers from Gaza and the northern West Bank in 2005.
That same year, over 30,000 settlers move into the West Bank, particularly in and around the environs of East Jerusalem.
For point of reference, between 2003-2004 the settlement population in East Jerusalem increased by about 15,000. Between 2004-2005, it increased by another 15,000. Between 2005-2006, it increased by 17,000. Between 2006-2007, it increased by 32,000.
Now the West Bank: between 2003-2004, 12,000. Between 2004-2005, 12,000. Between 2005-2006, 14,000. Between 2006-2007, 14,000. (These statistics are all per Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, by the bye.)
Gee whiz I sure do wonder where all those 8000 settlers from Gaza could have gone
It's not really that I'm ignoring the Gaza settlements or anything, it's just that it's easy to be cynical about Israel's motives given the statistics.
I will happily agree that Israel has done less than it should have.
But when you claim that they have done NOTHING you show an inability to perceive reality.
ITT: Palestinian crimes are "understandable", and nothing Israel does is ever good enough.
You wonder why Israel doesn't care what the global community thinks of them? Read the line above this one again.
So they've done weak, ineffectual shit while ramping up their activities elsewhere. Better?
And the reason Israel doesn't care what the international community thinks is because their AIPAC buddies make sure to keep the US's thumb on the scales, even though it's been fucking us over royally. And when the President said "hmm, maybe the next time you want us to cover for your ass, the answer will be 'no'", that scared the living shit out of them and got AIPAC into a frenzy.
I will happily agree that Israel has done less than it should have.
But when you claim that they have done NOTHING you show an inability to perceive reality.
ITT: Palestinian crimes are "understandable", and nothing Israel does is ever good enough.
You wonder why Israel doesn't care what the global community thinks of them? Read the line above this one again.
Yeah, I can't believe no one is giving Israel credit for slowing down their stealing of land ever so slightly.
It's like I got caught embezzling $1 million a year from my boss, then reduce it the next year to only $800,000, but he's still pissed off at me. It just doesn't make any sense.
I will happily agree that Israel has done less than it should have.
But when you claim that they have done NOTHING you show an inability to perceive reality.
ITT: Palestinian crimes are "understandable", and nothing Israel does is ever good enough.
You wonder why Israel doesn't care what the global community thinks of them? Read the line above this one again.
So they've done weak, ineffectual shit while ramping up their activities elsewhere. Better?
And the reason Israel doesn't care what the international community thinks is because their AIPAC buddies make sure to keep the US's thumb on the scales, even though it's been fucking us over royally. And when the President said "hmm, maybe the next time you want us to cover for your ass, the answer will be 'no'", that scared the living shit out of them and got AIPAC into a frenzy.
I have zero love for AIPAC, but I think you vastly overestimate their influence.
Jews are a tiny minority of this country. We may have disproportionate power and wealth, but it is STILL a minority of the power and wealth. Jewish conspiracy theories are absurd for just this reason. The richest and most powerful men still aren't Jewish.
And even so, as I am an example of, many of us have no love for AIPAC.
And Israel has made lasting peace agreements with other neighbors in the past. I know it is convenient to ignore this when claiming that Israel wants to take land at any cost, but if that were the case, why would they have given back the Sinai and the East Bank? It is willfully ignorant to claim that Israel has no history of working towards peace.
I will happily agree that Israel has done less than it should have.
But when you claim that they have done NOTHING you show an inability to perceive reality.
ITT: Palestinian crimes are "understandable", and nothing Israel does is ever good enough.
You wonder why Israel doesn't care what the global community thinks of them? Read the line above this one again.
Yeah, I can't believe no one is giving Israel credit for slowing down their stealing of land ever so slightly.
It's like I got caught embezzling $1 million a year from my boss, then reduce it the next year to only $800,000, but he's still pissed off at me. It just doesn't make any sense.
Do you have that citation yet, on Arab parties being systematically barred from elections?
If you still stand by that claim, I really want to see some evidence, especially in the light of the link I showed you saying that the Israeli supreme court knocked down the one single attempt I could find in recent memory.
And the reason Israel doesn't care what the international community thinks is because their AIPAC buddies make sure to keep the US's thumb on the scales, even though it's been fucking us over royally. And when the President said "hmm, maybe the next time you want us to cover for your ass, the answer will be 'no'", that scared the living shit out of them and got AIPAC into a frenzy.
I have zero love for AIPAC, but I think you vastly overestimate their influence.
Jews are a tiny minority of this country. We may have disproportionate power and wealth, but it is STILL a minority of the power and wealth. Jewish conspiracy theories are absurd for just this reason. The richest and most powerful men still aren't Jewish.
And even so, as I am an example of, many of us have no love for AIPAC.
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
And Israel has made lasting peace agreements with other neighbors in the past. I know it is convenient to ignore this when claiming that Israel wants to take land at any cost, but if that were the case, why would they have given back the Sinai and the East Bank? It is willfully ignorant to claim that Israel has no history of working towards peace.
I know it's hard for you with all the cognitive dissonance, but would you please keep up with the thread? It's been explained why Israel was more willing to give up those bits of land, and not others they seized illegally (like, say, the Golan Heights.)
I know it's hard for you with all the cognitive dissonance, but would you please keep up with the thread? It's been explained why Israel was more willing to give up those bits of land, and not others they seized illegally (like, say, the Golan Heights.)
The Golan Heights were kept because of how incredibly vulnerable Israel is with that land in tenemy hands.
The Sinai has oil. If Israel has only keeping beneficial lands, and giving away things they didn't need, don't you think they would have kept the oil?
The slope of the population is pretty much constant.
According to wikipedia, the sum total of Gaza settlers was about 9000, less than 1 years increase in the West Bank settlers; 2005 added 14000.
So, he reduced the net settler increase by about 2/3 for one year?
Wonderful spin doctoring.
Yes, settle numbers have gone up, and that is bad.
But the territories in which settlement is permitted was permenantly reduced.
There was ALSO a reduction of Israeli military outposts situated within Palestinian lands.
When Hamas stops MOST (but not all) rocket attacks for a few months, this is considered to be a huge sacrifice on their part, but whenever Israel does anything, all that anyone says is "well, they still haven't done X." There is a CLEAR perception of the Palestinians as being innocent victims here that comes accross in the narrative that is being pushed, even if you all deny it. Not all accusations are explicit.
None of you seem to want to have a real discussion about the conflict. You just want to yell "murderers" at the top of your lungs, and punish one party in a two-party war.
I will happily agree that Israel has done less than it should have.
But when you claim that they have done NOTHING you show an inability to perceive reality.
ITT: Palestinian crimes are "understandable", and nothing Israel does is ever good enough.
You wonder why Israel doesn't care what the global community thinks of them? Read the line above this one again.
Yeah, I can't believe no one is giving Israel credit for slowing down their stealing of land ever so slightly.
It's like I got caught embezzling $1 million a year from my boss, then reduce it the next year to only $800,000, but he's still pissed off at me. It just doesn't make any sense.
Do you have that citation yet, on Arab parties being systematically barred from elections?
If you still stand by that claim, I really want to see some evidence, especially in the light of the link I showed you saying that the Israeli supreme court knocked down the one single attempt I could find in recent memory.
Right, after being banned from campaigning for several days. And I think the complete lack of any real Arab representation in any Israeli government ever is pretty goddamn great evidence.
I'm astonished that anyone would dare to claim that any aspect of the historical record of settlement operations, even permanent reductions in "the territories in which settlement is permitted," represents evidence that Israel is willing to make meaningful concessions. On the contrary, if we limit our consideration to the subject of settlement, the only reasonable conclusion is that Israel actually desires land (though perhaps not in the specific territories in which settlement has been restricted) more than peace. To claim that these limited reductions in hostile activity are in fact benevolent actions, representing the conciliatory behavior of a peace-seeking nation, is pretty insulting to me, a westerner with no real horse in this race. I can't even imagine the vitriolic response you'd get out of a nationalistic Palestinian.
Really, it's outright lying to say Israel is doing nothing
Indeed, if Israel had been doing nothing then there would be no "concessions" to make by freezing settlement. The point I'm trying to make here, which shouldn't really be controversial, is that cessation of hostile activities from both sides is not a concession, but simply an obvious prerequisite for any hope of peace. By the same token, when Hamas orders a "freeze" on shooting fertilizer rockets, they have not made a "concession," they have ceased hostilities.
I guess I could point to the many times that Hamas has stopped blowing people up for a while and say, "hey, look at all them concessions!" But that would be idiotic and insulting to everyone involved.
EDIT: Just had a thought about a really really unpleasant way in which this argument could be read, and I want to make sure nobody is interpreting it this way. While I don't think that individual examples wherein settlement has been partially curbed represent a praiseworthy history of efforts by the State of Israel to achieve peace, I do think that the efforts by Israelis to reduce settlement are praiseworthy and represent evidence that some Israelis are willing to take the necessary steps to promote peace. So while I'm unimpressed with the country in aggregate on the subject of settlement, the last thing I want to do is minimize the importance of the Israelis who speak against it; their efforts are noble and worthy of recognition, but even more importantly I'm actually holding out hope that they will work. This is the sort of issue where opposition from within the community is ten times as important as opposition from foreigners. Particularly foreigners who write long, awkward, impolitic forum posts like this one.
A settlement freeze in one area while still letting settlers in another area in increased numbers is like saying that Hamas stopped rocket attacks because instead of launching all the rockets at town 1 they launched them at town 2.
Number of times when Israel has stopped settlements - none
How about the times when they dismantled all of the settlements in an area?
How about when they've frozen settlements, and then later started again? I am NOT a fan of them restarting, but that is essentially EXACTLY the level of effort you are applauding Palestine for.
If you are going to completely ignore the Sinai and Gaza dismantlements, then you are too far removed from reality to have a rational discussion.
If you are going to completely ignore the fact that at the same time they dismantled Sinai and Gaza settlements (a whooping 2%) they encouraged MORE settlement building at the West Bank, then your denial here is pretty astouding. I've said this before, haven't I? You can't treat Palestinian territories as a single entity when it comes to terrorism but do the complete opposite when it comes to settlements.
I've said that before too...honestly, it's hard to have a rational discussion when you keep actively ignoring half the stuff I post.
Israel has done absolutely nothing to stop settlement building. Settlements have always grown.
Number of times when Israel has stopped settlements - none
How about the times when they dismantled all of the settlements in an area?
How about when they've frozen settlements, and then later started again? I am NOT a fan of them restarting, but that is essentially EXACTLY the level of effort you are applauding Palestine for.
If you are going to completely ignore the Sinai and Gaza dismantlements, then you are too far removed from reality to have a rational discussion.
If you are going to completely ignore the fact that at the same time they dismantled Sinai and Gaza settlements (a whooping 2%) they encouraged MORE settlement building at the West Bank, then your denial here is pretty astouding. I've said this before, haven't I? You can't treat Palestinian territories as a single entity when it comes to terrorism but do the complete opposite when it comes to settlements.
I've said that before too...honestly, it's hard to have a rational discussion when you keep actively ignoring half the stuff I post.
Israel has done absolutely nothing to stop settlement building. Settlements have always grown.
So, basically, you think any effort that isn't a total effort is no effort at all. Got it.
And Israel has made lasting peace agreements with other neighbors in the past. I know it is convenient to ignore this when claiming that Israel wants to take land at any cost, but if that were the case, why would they have given back the Sinai and the East Bank? It is willfully ignorant to claim that Israel has no history of working towards peace.
The Arab/Israeli conflict is a separate conflict from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. On the other conflict both sides are countries, on the other conflict one is a country and another is a collection of refugees that Israel can do whatever it wants to.
Jesus, I've said this before too. Do you cover your eyes when my avatar shows up or something?
You're also conveniently ignoring that Israel has a HISTORY of trading land for peace. Ariel Sharon was actually the man behind dismantling the settlements in the Sinai before trading it to Egypt for peace. Likewise, the East Bank was given back to Jordan.
Acting as though there is ZERO reason to think Israel would give up land is absurd. They have a history of doing just that
Both nations with their own armies, with lands whose keeping would have caused more trouble then it was worth. Remember the whole war of attrition thing and how Israel wants to avoid that? It was also the land of those countries with people of those countries inside the borders, which would have been far harder to control. Israel's peace deal with Egypt also meant that it allows Israel to use Suez Canal and Egypt recognized Israel.
We see again that it refuses to give up Golan Heights even though that would most likely get it a peace deal with Syria - it doesn't take Israel any particular military power or effort to control a tiny stretch of land and it gives it full access to the Sea of Galilee.
And Israel has a history of trading land to peace to actual countries, but when it comes to the refugee group that it has absolute and total control over, it has no history of doing the same.
Israel doesn't do anything for peace unless the benefits for the peace are greater then the losses coming from war. In both the case of Syria and Palestine there are virtually no losses in sight that would compare to the backlash coming from it's own people should it try and give away the massive amounts of land and money it would require to create a functionable Palestinian state. It's absurd to believe otherwise when you look at Israel's history. For the love of Christ, they haven't even been able to stop settlement expansion.
No, let me scratch that. They haven't even been able to stop encouraging settlement expansion. The same Ariel Sharon who you seem to think is some proponent of peace was supporting settlements in West Bank the same time he retreated from Gaza or Sinai. Sinai had at best few hundred Israelis. Gaza at best a few thousand. You really think either of those cases show that Israel somehow has shown any sort of will to stop settlements?
Israel is not a valid partner for peace to Palestinians, Palestinians are not valid partner for peace to Israelis. The difference between the two is that Palestine has shown greater will to become a valid partner for peace. Even Hamas, a terrorist organization, has shown greater will for peace then the entire fucking nation of Israel has ever shown. They have actually done a tangible cessation of all violence, Israel has done nothing.
It has done plenty of things in the Israel-Arab conflict to move towards peace, but in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it has never given any concessions. I'd say it's because it knows it can't do anything it wants to the first party, but to the second one it can.
So, basically, you think any effort that isn't a total effort is no effort at all. Got it.
Any effort that actually INCREASES the number of settlements isn't an effort at all.
According to your flimsy argument Israel could dismantle five settlements while building five hundred more and that would count as an "effort" and "history of moving towards peace". Got it.
So, basically, you think any effort that isn't a total effort is no effort at all. Got it.
Any effort that actually INCREASES the number of settlements isn't an effort at all.
According to your flimsy argument Israel could dismantle five settlements while building five hundred more and that would count as an "effort" and "history of moving towards peace". Got it.
Yeaaaah, when Israel removed 8000 settlers from Gaza in 2005, and the next year settlement populations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem jumped by over 46,000 (when in previous years the population increase held at a steady 30,000 -- that's over a 150% increase in settlement activity in one year)... you really ought to raise an eyebrow. Those displaced Gaza settlers had to go somewhere, and it's pretty obvious to me where that "somewhere" is.
I'm cynical, but I don't think Israel withdrew from Gaza out of benevolence to the Palestinians or good will. I'm pretty sure it did so almost purely because Gaza was becoming a lawless shithole and a moneysink, and the Israeli government didn't want to spend its resources policing and de facto governing a territory for the benefit of a paltry 8,000 settlers (2% of the total settler population). Withdrawing was a win-win: Israel still controls the territory, but it doesn't have to spend any money on its maintenence, and now the IDF can sit on the border and make the occasional bombing run at a Hamas target and then let Hamas deal with rebuilding afterwards.
Of course, I don't think the Israelis were unaware of the fact that a unilateral withdrawel from Gaza would allow all the Evanders in the world to go LOOK LOOK ISRAEL UNILATERALLY WITHDREW FROM GAZA, WHAT A SELFLESS OVERTURE TOWARDS PEACE AND LOVE AND RAINBOWS AND NOT IN ANY WAY CYNICAL REALPOLITIK
Number of times when Israel has stopped settlements - none
How about the times when they dismantled all of the settlements in an area?
How about when they've frozen settlements, and then later started again? I am NOT a fan of them restarting, but that is essentially EXACTLY the level of effort you are applauding Palestine for.
If you are going to completely ignore the Sinai and Gaza dismantlements, then you are too far removed from reality to have a rational discussion.
If you are going to completely ignore the fact that at the same time they dismantled Sinai and Gaza settlements (a whooping 2%) they encouraged MORE settlement building at the West Bank, then your denial here is pretty astouding. I've said this before, haven't I? You can't treat Palestinian territories as a single entity when it comes to terrorism but do the complete opposite when it comes to settlements.
I've said that before too...honestly, it's hard to have a rational discussion when you keep actively ignoring half the stuff I post.
Israel has done absolutely nothing to stop settlement building. Settlements have always grown.
So, basically, you think any effort that isn't a total effort is no effort at all. Got it.
Efforts that are completely ineffectual aren't applauded anywhere except Little League sports. Do you really think they should be lauded for failing to actually make a positive difference?
Number of times when Israel has stopped settlements - none
How about the times when they dismantled all of the settlements in an area?
How about when they've frozen settlements, and then later started again? I am NOT a fan of them restarting, but that is essentially EXACTLY the level of effort you are applauding Palestine for.
If you are going to completely ignore the Sinai and Gaza dismantlements, then you are too far removed from reality to have a rational discussion.
If you are going to completely ignore the fact that at the same time they dismantled Sinai and Gaza settlements (a whooping 2%) they encouraged MORE settlement building at the West Bank, then your denial here is pretty astouding. I've said this before, haven't I? You can't treat Palestinian territories as a single entity when it comes to terrorism but do the complete opposite when it comes to settlements.
I've said that before too...honestly, it's hard to have a rational discussion when you keep actively ignoring half the stuff I post.
Israel has done absolutely nothing to stop settlement building. Settlements have always grown.
So, basically, you think any effort that isn't a total effort is no effort at all. Got it.
Efforts that are completely ineffectual aren't applauded anywhere except Little League sports. Do you really think they should be lauded for failing to actually make a positive difference?
They shouldn't be slandered with claims of not showing up.
Hell, settlements are currently limited to parts of Jerusalem. That's an effort.
They shouldn't be slandered with claims of not showing up.
Hell, settlements are currently limited to parts of Jerusalem. That's an effort.
So to you Israel could build five hundred settlements at some place while restricting them somewhere else, and it would still count as an effort to stop settlement building, even if the number of settlements and settlers actually increases. Yet Hamas's continual ceasefires don't count because...again, you are simply creating special rules for Israel that don't apply to others. If Hamas stopped violence towards 2% of Israel and focused all it's forces on the remaining 98%, would that count as effort or a move towards peace to you?
Israel has done absolutely nothing to stop the increasing growth of settlements and the number of settlers, neither has it made any tangible effort towards peace with the Palestinians. I'm still waiting on you or Evander to somehow disprove these facts.
Holy shit, look at their amazing move towards peace! A smashing 99.5% reduction of suicide attacks in just seven years!
The sad thing is that even that counts as more of an effort then Israel's effort on settlements, because at the least the number of suicide attacks didn't increase.
Holy shit, look at their amazing move towards peace! A smashing 99.5% reduction of suicide attacks in just seven years!
The sad thing is that even that counts as more of an effort then Israel's effort on settlements, because at the least the number of suicide attacks didn't increase.
I just wanted to chime in and say this is wholly disingenuous. The reason suicide attacks are down isn't that the Palestinians aren't trying. It's that Israel built the security fence/wall/whatever you want to call it, put up much more extensive north/south checkpoints in the West Bank, and developed effective counter-strategies.
I do agree that Israel really hasn't done anything meaningful to slow settlement growth and it's a major roadblock to peace. However, doing so would be a major concession and would require something similarly major in return (recognition, for example).
Holy shit, look at their amazing move towards peace! A smashing 99.5% reduction of suicide attacks in just seven years!
The sad thing is that even that counts as more of an effort then Israel's effort on settlements, because at the least the number of suicide attacks didn't increase.
I just wanted to chime in and say this is wholly disingenuous. The reason suicide attacks are down isn't that the Palestinians aren't trying. It's that Israel built the security fence/wall/whatever you want to call it, put up much more extensive north/south checkpoints in the West Bank, and developed effective counter-strategies.
I do agree that Israel really hasn't done anything meaningful to slow settlement growth and it's a major roadblock to peace. However, doing so would be a major concession and would require something similarly major in return (recognition, for example).
Of course it's disingenuous, that's the whole point. The reason Gaza or Sinai settlements are down aren't because Israel is inclined to stop settlement growth, but because other factors made it far more profitable it for them to stop them at those specific places and increase it elsewhere.
The slope of the population is pretty much constant.
According to wikipedia, the sum total of Gaza settlers was about 9000, less than 1 years increase in the West Bank settlers; 2005 added 14000.
So, he reduced the net settler increase by about 2/3 for one year?
Wonderful spin doctoring.
Yes, settle numbers have gone up, and that is bad.
But the territories in which settlement is permitted was permenantly reduced.
There was ALSO a reduction of Israeli military outposts situated within Palestinian lands.
When Hamas stops MOST (but not all) rocket attacks for a few months, this is considered to be a huge sacrifice on their part, but whenever Israel does anything, all that anyone says is "well, they still haven't done X." There is a CLEAR perception of the Palestinians as being innocent victims here that comes accross in the narrative that is being pushed, even if you all deny it. Not all accusations are explicit.
None of you seem to want to have a real discussion about the conflict. You just want to yell "murderers" at the top of your lungs, and punish one party in a two-party war.
Occupiers have obligations.
Occupied have rights.
They are being held to different standards because they are in different positions relative to each other. The Israelis are a nuclear nation state imposing state-lessness on the Pals. The Pals are refugees whose identity was forged from Israeli occupation and expulsion. The Pals are divided and largely government-less. The Pals are being held to a lower standard than Israel and justifiably so.
Holy shit, look at their amazing move towards peace! A smashing 99.5% reduction of suicide attacks in just seven years!
The sad thing is that even that counts as more of an effort then Israel's effort on settlements, because at the least the number of suicide attacks didn't increase.
I just wanted to chime in and say this is wholly disingenuous. The reason suicide attacks are down isn't that the Palestinians aren't trying. It's that Israel built the security fence/wall/whatever you want to call it, put up much more extensive north/south checkpoints in the West Bank, and developed effective counter-strategies.
I do agree that Israel really hasn't done anything meaningful to slow settlement growth and it's a major roadblock to peace. However, doing so would be a major concession and would require something similarly major in return (recognition, for example).
Of course it's disingenuous, that's the whole point. The reason Gaza or Sinai settlements are down aren't because Israel is inclined to stop settlement growth, but because other factors made it far more profitable it for them to stop them at those specific places and increase it elsewhere.
Your spoilered point was the disingenuous part. They're not making any effort to stop suicide attacks at all so it doesn't count as effort.
Similarly, the withdrawal from Gaza and subsequent trade-off on settlements in the West Bank doesn't count either. Can't take with one hand and give with another and expect people to not notice. I think we agree on this point but your attitude makes it frustrating to even agree with you.
@Manchowder: I think it's everyone's obligation to not intentionally kill civilians, occupiers and occupied alike. Everyone should agree that shooting babies and video-taping executions fails any standard of conduct.
Your spoilered point was the disingenuous part. They're not making any effort to stop suicide attacks at all so it doesn't count as effort.
Similarly, the withdrawal from Gaza and subsequent trade-off on settlements in the West Bank doesn't count either. Can't take with one hand and give with another and expect people to not notice. I think we agree on this point but your attitude makes it frustrating to even agree with you.
@Manchowder: I think it's everyone's obligation to not intentionally kill civilians, occupiers and occupied alike. Everyone should agree that shooting babies and video-taping executions fails any standard of conduct.
Alright, you are right on that one, it wasn't intended as a serious argument.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that the ceasefires alone means that Palestinians have made more concessions then Israel. Only one side has ever been able to meet the demands for their part in the Road Map to Peace despite having a much harder situation in their hands.
The slope of the population is pretty much constant.
According to wikipedia, the sum total of Gaza settlers was about 9000, less than 1 years increase in the West Bank settlers; 2005 added 14000.
So, he reduced the net settler increase by about 2/3 for one year?
Wonderful spin doctoring.
Yes, settle numbers have gone up, and that is bad.
But the territories in which settlement is permitted was permenantly reduced.
There was ALSO a reduction of Israeli military outposts situated within Palestinian lands.
When Hamas stops MOST (but not all) rocket attacks for a few months, this is considered to be a huge sacrifice on their part, but whenever Israel does anything, all that anyone says is "well, they still haven't done X." There is a CLEAR perception of the Palestinians as being innocent victims here that comes accross in the narrative that is being pushed, even if you all deny it. Not all accusations are explicit.
None of you seem to want to have a real discussion about the conflict. You just want to yell "murderers" at the top of your lungs, and punish one party in a two-party war.
Hamas' problem is that it usually doesn't have the force to control the area. It did win a popular mandate, but in chaotic areas like Gaza you're going to have some Al-Qaeda implants who launch rockets with their own motives. Hamas has to gain complete military control over the area in order for the rocket attacks to stop, which will be difficult as long as Israel continues to shred their leadership and military forces apart, and Israel will continue to do this as long as Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, which it will always do because if it didn't want to destroy Israel it wouldn't be Hamas.
The situation has been fucked ever since Hamas took power. The only way this can end is when Hamas finally makes a move decisive enough for Israel to generate the political will necessary to lose the lives and take the bad publicity necessary to wipe Hamas out and turn Gaza into a gulag. That war will be small change compared to what has occurred.
Your spoilered point was the disingenuous part. They're not making any effort to stop suicide attacks at all so it doesn't count as effort.
Similarly, the withdrawal from Gaza and subsequent trade-off on settlements in the West Bank doesn't count either. Can't take with one hand and give with another and expect people to not notice. I think we agree on this point but your attitude makes it frustrating to even agree with you.
@Manchowder: I think it's everyone's obligation to not intentionally kill civilians, occupiers and occupied alike. Everyone should agree that shooting babies and video-taping executions fails any standard of conduct.
Alright, you are right on that one, it wasn't intended as a serious argument.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that the ceasefires alone means that Palestinians have made more concessions then Israel. Only one side has ever been able to meet the demands for their part in the Road Map to Peace despite having a much harder situation in their hands.
There's never been a real cease-fire. You know this. Hamas et al. have always continued to attempt suicide attacks, fire rockets, smuggle in weapons, etc. during these cease-fires.
Neither side has ever met their demands on the Road Map to Peace. I've heard people involved on both sides in past negotiations make fun of the entire idea. Even the Jordanians usually refuse to negotiate with the Palestinian groups because they break agreements before the ink is dry.
Hopefully, Hamas really is going to tone down the violence and give the Israeli left room to breathe. But I'll only believe it when I actually see it happen, and not simply be a ploy to buy time for them to get rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv.
It took a large expenditure of political will to remove the Israeli settlers from Gaza.
That political will was recouped by allowing increased numbers into the West Bank.
There's never been a real cease-fire. You know this. Hamas et al. have always continued to attempt suicide attacks, fire rockets, smuggle in weapons, etc. during these cease-fires.
Neither side has ever met their demands on the Road Map to Peace. I've heard people involved on both sides in past negotiations make fun of the entire idea. Even the Jordanians usually refuse to negotiate with the Palestinian groups because they break agreements before the ink is dry.
Hopefully, Hamas really is going to tone down the violence and give the Israeli left room to breathe. But I'll only believe it when I actually see it happen, and not simply be a ploy to buy time for them to get rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv.
Ceasefire is a ceasefire, it's not like Israel doesn't use the chance to arm up and increase it's military presence during the period. Hamas did not attempt suicide attacks or fire rockets during the latest six month ceasefire. Israel has always broken them. And Palestinians have been able to hold elections, achieve political progress and stop violence...though those attempts eventually have failed. But the fact remains, they attempted them and succeeded for a period of time until shit fell apart. Israel has yet to even attempt or even work towards attempting anything.
Palestine has done more for peace then Israel. Even if their steps are baby steps they are better then no steps whatsoever, or in Israel's case taking steps backwards. This does not mean that Palestine is now a working partner for peace, though. I don't think it can ever be with the current way the conflict is conducted and as long as it's situation is so shitty that islamic radicals are actually the least worse choice.
Your spoilered point was the disingenuous part. They're not making any effort to stop suicide attacks at all so it doesn't count as effort.
Similarly, the withdrawal from Gaza and subsequent trade-off on settlements in the West Bank doesn't count either. Can't take with one hand and give with another and expect people to not notice. I think we agree on this point but your attitude makes it frustrating to even agree with you.
@Manchowder: I think it's everyone's obligation to not intentionally kill civilians, occupiers and occupied alike. Everyone should agree that shooting babies and video-taping executions fails any standard of conduct.
Alright, you are right on that one, it wasn't intended as a serious argument.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that the ceasefires alone means that Palestinians have made more concessions then Israel. Only one side has ever been able to meet the demands for their part in the Road Map to Peace despite having a much harder situation in their hands.
There's never been a real cease-fire. You know this. Hamas et al. have always continued to attempt suicide attacks, fire rockets, smuggle in weapons, etc. during these cease-fires.
Neither side has ever met their demands on the Road Map to Peace. I've heard people involved on both sides in past negotiations make fun of the entire idea. Even the Jordanians usually refuse to negotiate with the Palestinian groups because they break agreements before the ink is dry.
Hopefully, Hamas really is going to tone down the violence and give the Israeli left room to breathe. But I'll only believe it when I actually see it happen, and not simply be a ploy to buy time for them to get rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv.
I mean, that's abut as close to a ceasefire as you are going to get. And note who drew first blood to break the ceasefire.
Oh, sorry, I always interpreted ceasefire as, well, when people stop firing weapons at each other. I now know the true definition is only a smaller number of attacks occur. Thanks. [/sarcasm]
@Darkcrawler: Yet rockets and mortars have been landing in Sderot during the latest ceasefire. Hell, I was there a couple days after a mortar attack about four months ago and got to see the hole myself.
Both sides constantly break the ceasefire agreements; if Hamas does, then Israel has to respond, and vice versa.
@Big l: it looks in those charts that both sides resumed normal hostilities in November. Also note that the Israeli side isn't a small number during August, September, and October, it's nothing. That's what a ceasefire is; no attacks, no casualties, a cessation of hostilities.
It's not a perfect ceasefire, but consider the situation in Gaza and consider whether Hamas could even enforce a perfect ceasefire if it wanted to. There are always going to be a few wackos out there who can build a fertilizer rocket. I believe that is as much of a reduction in violence as is reasonably possible to expect Hamas to be able to carry out, and that Hamas' effort should be considered legitimate because they were trying as hard as they could, in contrast to Israel, who has not done all that it reasonably could to stop settlement growth. 2 rockets in September and October combined is not exactly endangering the survival of Israel.
Oh, sorry, I always interpreted ceasefire as, well, when people stop firing weapons at each other. I now know the true definition is only a smaller number of attacks occur. Thanks. [/sarcasm]
And I thought stopping settlement construction was when people stopped constructing things in settlements. Now, I know that it's only saying you'll stop constructing things in settlements, then blaming the other side for not making genuine progress towards peace.
And I thought anti-semitism was when you made up things about Jews doing horrific things; now I know that it's when you report things that Israelis actually did.
Posts
Let's review:
Israel disengages 8,500 settlers from Gaza and the northern West Bank in 2005.
That same year, over 30,000 settlers move into the West Bank, particularly in and around the environs of East Jerusalem.
For point of reference, between 2003-2004 the settlement population in East Jerusalem increased by about 15,000. Between 2004-2005, it increased by another 15,000. Between 2005-2006, it increased by 17,000. Between 2006-2007, it increased by 32,000.
Now the West Bank: between 2003-2004, 12,000. Between 2004-2005, 12,000. Between 2005-2006, 14,000. Between 2006-2007, 14,000. (These statistics are all per Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, by the bye.)
Gee whiz I sure do wonder where all those 8000 settlers from Gaza could have gone
It's not really that I'm ignoring the Gaza settlements or anything, it's just that it's easy to be cynical about Israel's motives given the statistics.
You can't claim that Israel has done NOTHING.
I will happily agree that Israel has done less than it should have.
But when you claim that they have done NOTHING you show an inability to perceive reality.
ITT: Palestinian crimes are "understandable", and nothing Israel does is ever good enough.
You wonder why Israel doesn't care what the global community thinks of them? Read the line above this one again.
So they've done weak, ineffectual shit while ramping up their activities elsewhere. Better?
And the reason Israel doesn't care what the international community thinks is because their AIPAC buddies make sure to keep the US's thumb on the scales, even though it's been fucking us over royally. And when the President said "hmm, maybe the next time you want us to cover for your ass, the answer will be 'no'", that scared the living shit out of them and got AIPAC into a frenzy.
It's like I got caught embezzling $1 million a year from my boss, then reduce it the next year to only $800,000, but he's still pissed off at me. It just doesn't make any sense.
They moved the Gaza settlers from one Palestinian territory to another. That's not exactly changing the world.
I have zero love for AIPAC, but I think you vastly overestimate their influence.
Jews are a tiny minority of this country. We may have disproportionate power and wealth, but it is STILL a minority of the power and wealth. Jewish conspiracy theories are absurd for just this reason. The richest and most powerful men still aren't Jewish.
And even so, as I am an example of, many of us have no love for AIPAC.
And Israel has made lasting peace agreements with other neighbors in the past. I know it is convenient to ignore this when claiming that Israel wants to take land at any cost, but if that were the case, why would they have given back the Sinai and the East Bank? It is willfully ignorant to claim that Israel has no history of working towards peace.
Do you have that citation yet, on Arab parties being systematically barred from elections?
If you still stand by that claim, I really want to see some evidence, especially in the light of the link I showed you saying that the Israeli supreme court knocked down the one single attempt I could find in recent memory.
Yeah...I think I'll go with the guys who actually researched this shit.
I know it's hard for you with all the cognitive dissonance, but would you please keep up with the thread? It's been explained why Israel was more willing to give up those bits of land, and not others they seized illegally (like, say, the Golan Heights.)
The Golan Heights were kept because of how incredibly vulnerable Israel is with that land in tenemy hands.
The Sinai has oil. If Israel has only keeping beneficial lands, and giving away things they didn't need, don't you think they would have kept the oil?
West bank settlers population numbers:
http://middleeast.about.com/od/israelandpalestine/a/me080826.htm
The slope of the population is pretty much constant.
According to wikipedia, the sum total of Gaza settlers was about 9000, less than 1 years increase in the West Bank settlers; 2005 added 14000.
So, he reduced the net settler increase by about 2/3 for one year?
Wonderful spin doctoring.
Yes, settle numbers have gone up, and that is bad.
But the territories in which settlement is permitted was permenantly reduced.
There was ALSO a reduction of Israeli military outposts situated within Palestinian lands.
When Hamas stops MOST (but not all) rocket attacks for a few months, this is considered to be a huge sacrifice on their part, but whenever Israel does anything, all that anyone says is "well, they still haven't done X." There is a CLEAR perception of the Palestinians as being innocent victims here that comes accross in the narrative that is being pushed, even if you all deny it. Not all accusations are explicit.
None of you seem to want to have a real discussion about the conflict. You just want to yell "murderers" at the top of your lungs, and punish one party in a two-party war.
Oh you're talking about the freeze that's going on right now? The one that when Biden visited they announced a huge settlement expansion? That one?
Indeed, if Israel had been doing nothing then there would be no "concessions" to make by freezing settlement. The point I'm trying to make here, which shouldn't really be controversial, is that cessation of hostile activities from both sides is not a concession, but simply an obvious prerequisite for any hope of peace. By the same token, when Hamas orders a "freeze" on shooting fertilizer rockets, they have not made a "concession," they have ceased hostilities.
I guess I could point to the many times that Hamas has stopped blowing people up for a while and say, "hey, look at all them concessions!" But that would be idiotic and insulting to everyone involved.
EDIT: Just had a thought about a really really unpleasant way in which this argument could be read, and I want to make sure nobody is interpreting it this way. While I don't think that individual examples wherein settlement has been partially curbed represent a praiseworthy history of efforts by the State of Israel to achieve peace, I do think that the efforts by Israelis to reduce settlement are praiseworthy and represent evidence that some Israelis are willing to take the necessary steps to promote peace. So while I'm unimpressed with the country in aggregate on the subject of settlement, the last thing I want to do is minimize the importance of the Israelis who speak against it; their efforts are noble and worthy of recognition, but even more importantly I'm actually holding out hope that they will work. This is the sort of issue where opposition from within the community is ten times as important as opposition from foreigners. Particularly foreigners who write long, awkward, impolitic forum posts like this one.
If you are going to completely ignore the fact that at the same time they dismantled Sinai and Gaza settlements (a whooping 2%) they encouraged MORE settlement building at the West Bank, then your denial here is pretty astouding. I've said this before, haven't I? You can't treat Palestinian territories as a single entity when it comes to terrorism but do the complete opposite when it comes to settlements.
I've said that before too...honestly, it's hard to have a rational discussion when you keep actively ignoring half the stuff I post.
Israel has done absolutely nothing to stop settlement building. Settlements have always grown.
So, basically, you think any effort that isn't a total effort is no effort at all. Got it.
The Arab/Israeli conflict is a separate conflict from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. On the other conflict both sides are countries, on the other conflict one is a country and another is a collection of refugees that Israel can do whatever it wants to.
Jesus, I've said this before too. Do you cover your eyes when my avatar shows up or something?
Any effort that actually INCREASES the number of settlements isn't an effort at all.
According to your flimsy argument Israel could dismantle five settlements while building five hundred more and that would count as an "effort" and "history of moving towards peace". Got it.
Yeaaaah, when Israel removed 8000 settlers from Gaza in 2005, and the next year settlement populations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem jumped by over 46,000 (when in previous years the population increase held at a steady 30,000 -- that's over a 150% increase in settlement activity in one year)... you really ought to raise an eyebrow. Those displaced Gaza settlers had to go somewhere, and it's pretty obvious to me where that "somewhere" is.
I'm cynical, but I don't think Israel withdrew from Gaza out of benevolence to the Palestinians or good will. I'm pretty sure it did so almost purely because Gaza was becoming a lawless shithole and a moneysink, and the Israeli government didn't want to spend its resources policing and de facto governing a territory for the benefit of a paltry 8,000 settlers (2% of the total settler population). Withdrawing was a win-win: Israel still controls the territory, but it doesn't have to spend any money on its maintenence, and now the IDF can sit on the border and make the occasional bombing run at a Hamas target and then let Hamas deal with rebuilding afterwards.
Of course, I don't think the Israelis were unaware of the fact that a unilateral withdrawel from Gaza would allow all the Evanders in the world to go LOOK LOOK ISRAEL UNILATERALLY WITHDREW FROM GAZA, WHAT A SELFLESS OVERTURE TOWARDS PEACE AND LOVE AND RAINBOWS AND NOT IN ANY WAY CYNICAL REALPOLITIK
They shouldn't be slandered with claims of not showing up.
Hell, settlements are currently limited to parts of Jerusalem. That's an effort.
You keep conflating "not happening" with "happening in another place."
So to you Israel could build five hundred settlements at some place while restricting them somewhere else, and it would still count as an effort to stop settlement building, even if the number of settlements and settlers actually increases. Yet Hamas's continual ceasefires don't count because...again, you are simply creating special rules for Israel that don't apply to others. If Hamas stopped violence towards 2% of Israel and focused all it's forces on the remaining 98%, would that count as effort or a move towards peace to you?
Israel has done absolutely nothing to stop the increasing growth of settlements and the number of settlers, neither has it made any tangible effort towards peace with the Palestinians. I'm still waiting on you or Evander to somehow disprove these facts.
Year Total
1993 1
1994 38
1995 39
1996 59
1997 24
1998 1
1999 0
2000 6
2001 94
2002 237
2003 144
2004 95
2005 32
2006 15
2007 3
2008 1
Holy shit, look at their amazing move towards peace! A smashing 99.5% reduction of suicide attacks in just seven years!
I just wanted to chime in and say this is wholly disingenuous. The reason suicide attacks are down isn't that the Palestinians aren't trying. It's that Israel built the security fence/wall/whatever you want to call it, put up much more extensive north/south checkpoints in the West Bank, and developed effective counter-strategies.
I do agree that Israel really hasn't done anything meaningful to slow settlement growth and it's a major roadblock to peace. However, doing so would be a major concession and would require something similarly major in return (recognition, for example).
Of course it's disingenuous, that's the whole point. The reason Gaza or Sinai settlements are down aren't because Israel is inclined to stop settlement growth, but because other factors made it far more profitable it for them to stop them at those specific places and increase it elsewhere.
Occupiers have obligations.
Occupied have rights.
They are being held to different standards because they are in different positions relative to each other. The Israelis are a nuclear nation state imposing state-lessness on the Pals. The Pals are refugees whose identity was forged from Israeli occupation and expulsion. The Pals are divided and largely government-less. The Pals are being held to a lower standard than Israel and justifiably so.
Your spoilered point was the disingenuous part. They're not making any effort to stop suicide attacks at all so it doesn't count as effort.
Similarly, the withdrawal from Gaza and subsequent trade-off on settlements in the West Bank doesn't count either. Can't take with one hand and give with another and expect people to not notice. I think we agree on this point but your attitude makes it frustrating to even agree with you.
@Manchowder: I think it's everyone's obligation to not intentionally kill civilians, occupiers and occupied alike. Everyone should agree that shooting babies and video-taping executions fails any standard of conduct.
Alright, you are right on that one, it wasn't intended as a serious argument.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that the ceasefires alone means that Palestinians have made more concessions then Israel. Only one side has ever been able to meet the demands for their part in the Road Map to Peace despite having a much harder situation in their hands.
Hamas' problem is that it usually doesn't have the force to control the area. It did win a popular mandate, but in chaotic areas like Gaza you're going to have some Al-Qaeda implants who launch rockets with their own motives. Hamas has to gain complete military control over the area in order for the rocket attacks to stop, which will be difficult as long as Israel continues to shred their leadership and military forces apart, and Israel will continue to do this as long as Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, which it will always do because if it didn't want to destroy Israel it wouldn't be Hamas.
The situation has been fucked ever since Hamas took power. The only way this can end is when Hamas finally makes a move decisive enough for Israel to generate the political will necessary to lose the lives and take the bad publicity necessary to wipe Hamas out and turn Gaza into a gulag. That war will be small change compared to what has occurred.
There's never been a real cease-fire. You know this. Hamas et al. have always continued to attempt suicide attacks, fire rockets, smuggle in weapons, etc. during these cease-fires.
Neither side has ever met their demands on the Road Map to Peace. I've heard people involved on both sides in past negotiations make fun of the entire idea. Even the Jordanians usually refuse to negotiate with the Palestinian groups because they break agreements before the ink is dry.
Hopefully, Hamas really is going to tone down the violence and give the Israeli left room to breathe. But I'll only believe it when I actually see it happen, and not simply be a ploy to buy time for them to get rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv.
It took a large expenditure of political will to remove the Israeli settlers from Gaza.
That political will was recouped by allowing increased numbers into the West Bank.
Total political will expended = 0.
Ceasefire is a ceasefire, it's not like Israel doesn't use the chance to arm up and increase it's military presence during the period. Hamas did not attempt suicide attacks or fire rockets during the latest six month ceasefire. Israel has always broken them. And Palestinians have been able to hold elections, achieve political progress and stop violence...though those attempts eventually have failed. But the fact remains, they attempted them and succeeded for a period of time until shit fell apart. Israel has yet to even attempt or even work towards attempting anything.
Palestine has done more for peace then Israel. Even if their steps are baby steps they are better then no steps whatsoever, or in Israel's case taking steps backwards. This does not mean that Palestine is now a working partner for peace, though. I don't think it can ever be with the current way the conflict is conducted and as long as it's situation is so shitty that islamic radicals are actually the least worse choice.
I mean, that's abut as close to a ceasefire as you are going to get. And note who drew first blood to break the ceasefire.
@Darkcrawler: Yet rockets and mortars have been landing in Sderot during the latest ceasefire. Hell, I was there a couple days after a mortar attack about four months ago and got to see the hole myself.
Both sides constantly break the ceasefire agreements; if Hamas does, then Israel has to respond, and vice versa.
@Big l: it looks in those charts that both sides resumed normal hostilities in November. Also note that the Israeli side isn't a small number during August, September, and October, it's nothing. That's what a ceasefire is; no attacks, no casualties, a cessation of hostilities.
And I thought anti-semitism was when you made up things about Jews doing horrific things; now I know that it's when you report things that Israelis actually did.