I'm not going to go all the way to the beginning but will instead focus on the reasons for the settlements and on. Basically, after the 67 war Israel got a lot of 'Arab' land when it was over. A huge (and I mean huge) chunk was given to Egypt in return for peace but all of the other countries were still officially at war with Israel (real war, not just words). The settlements were created as a buffer and first line of defense against attacks from Jordan, Iran/Iraq, etc. in the area known as the west bank. In the Golan the same was done as a buffer against Syria (who's still at war with Israel, ownes Lebanon and finances a number of groups that attack Israel even today). As time went on, the settlements became less defensive and more 'room' for people to grow into. Despite what people want to believe, the Oslo agreement said nothing about stopping the settlements. Of course, many of them were stopped and there were a number of nasty arguments when new settlements were dismantled by the military. New settlements were a common response to the killing of Israelis. "Kill a kid, lose a plot of land". A number of pre-existing settlements also grew due to new births and such but again, despite what the media says most of them have not. Now as to how they can be removed? Many of them can but some of them can not. The 1967 borders of Israel was not a border that could be defended. Israel has offered most of the land back (Wye) as well as some land swap to keep a defensible border. The Palestinians rejected it out of hand with no counter offer. If Arafat died and someone took his place that wanted true peace, I know that Israel would make sure that many of the settlements would be removed. They did it before in Sinai. The problem is, beyond the lack of a desire for peace in the PA, an issue of middle eastern culture. If you give in, your weak and should be taken advantage of. Remove the settlements first and more is wanted. On the other hand, if Sharon says (and he did) that no talk about the settlements being removed until 2003 will take place, then you've got a bargaining position to work from. It's all a game there. Who can get more. The fact that Israel won the war means nothing. Its treated like it lost and MUST give in on all counts. Israel has rejected that perception with operation defensive shield. It put its position forward and stuck to it. Then it backed down (like the US/Britain deal today) to get things back on track. It's all a pissing contest where the 'tools' of the participants are being measured as well. Each is jockeying for position. For those who have ever watched suddenly susan on TV, think of the episode where one of the characters was buying halava in Israel. character-how much is it? vender-how much you got? character-how much you want? vender-name me a price? character-$10. vender-Go away, I don't like you anymore. -person goes away- vender-where are you going, I'm negotiating. I like you again.
> I'm hoping either Michael or Judith can give me some historical perspective > here. > > I've just been reading over many of the documents related to the founding of > Israel and the various UN Resolutions, Camp David, Oslo, etc. > > It seems to me that everything that could be done to establish a free and > independent Palestinian state has been done, including agreement by Israel > to withdraw to the pre-1962 "borders," which Israel agreed to with Camp > David and Oslo. > > I know Arafat's strategy has been to always find another fly in the ointment > after signing an agreement, and the Hammas will agree to nothing that > doesn't include the destruction of Israel, but I'm wondering about Israel's > side. Please don't take this question wrong -- I just am sincerely > curious -- Has Israel continued to move settlers into the West Bank and Gaza > (even though all agreements and UN resolutions say this land belongs to > Palestine)? And if the answer is yes, why? What is the thinking? Is it > abstinence, a desire to inflame Palestinians, a belief that there will never > be peace anyway, a belief that Israel can push the Palestinians into Jordan > or elsewhere? > > I ask, frankly, because in all my studies recently on this issue, this seems > to be a big sticking point to peace (I mean, outside of the fact that > elements in Palestine don't want peace) -- the settlements. And I have to > wonder, if Israel really wants peace, why continue with the settlements? Why > not reverse them? I think if Israel removed all the settlements from the > West Bank and Gaza, it might be a great first step toward a real peace (if > peace is possible at all). I'm really curious what you think and know, and > any related links you could share would be great. > > H. > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
