Actually, it doesn't say ALL territories and has always been understood to not mean all (I think America fought for that when it was drafted). 1) Israel objects to it now because it doesn't believe that there's a real desire for peace on the other side. When Barak was PM he offered almost all of it back and was rejected. If there was a desire for peace I'm sure that same offer or something close to it will be back on the table. 2) why accept it as part of a peace plan? Because Israel actually wants peace. Peace is worth a lot more than war all around. When Israel has peace, they rule the world of science. They have the best desert agriculture going on, a ton of the software we know and love today came from Israel or Israeli startups (ICQ off the top of my head), their biotech is years ahead of most others, and I can just go on and on. If there was no fear of war or terrorists then a lot of the budget can go back to education and growth. When that happens, the world is a better place and I say that with full honesty.
> Michael, again, I'm just trying to get more perspective here ... The way I > read UN resolution 242, "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories > occupied in the recent conflict ...", it sounds to me like to comply with > that resolution, means to entirely withdraw from the "occupied territories," > and Israel agreed to abide by 242 in Camp David and Oslo. I mean, > withdrawing the armed forces is pretty much the same as removing the > settlements, isn't it? I mean, what Israeli would want to live in the > settlements without military protection? > > I guess one of the things I'm questioning is 1) How can Israel object to > that now when offered as part of a peace plan; 2) Why accept that as part of > a peace plan when it hasn't worked in the past? Yes, contradictory > questions, but if there weren't contradictory questions, this issue would be > easier to resolve, wouldn't it? > > H. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 2:06 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Israeli Settlements > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
