This could revive Languish all by itself! :lol:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/israel-west-bank-annexation_n_841851.html
Quote
Israel West Bank Annexations Considered
JERUSALEM — Israel is considering annexing major West Bank settlement blocs if the Palestinians unilaterally seek world recognition of a state, an Israeli official said Tuesday – moves that would deal a grave blow to prospects for negotiating a peace deal between the two sides.
Israel has refrained from taking such a diplomatically explosive step for four decades. The fact that it is considering doing so reflects how seriously it is concerned by the Palestinian campaign to win international recognition of a state in the absence of peacemaking.
The Palestinians launched that campaign after peace talks foundered over Israeli construction in West Bank settlements. On Tuesday, the Israeli Interior Ministry said it would decide next month whether to give final approval to build 1,500 apartments in two Jewish enclaves in east Jerusalem. Israel captured both east Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan in 1967.
Israel annexed east Jerusalem, home to shrines sacred to Judaism, Islam and Christianity, immediately after seizing it. But it carefully avoided annexing the West Bank, where 300,000 settlers now live among 2.5 million Palestinians.
Although it is widely assumed that under any peace deal, Israel would hold onto major settlements it has built in the past 44 years, any decision to formally annex West Bank territory would be a precedent-setting move that could increase Israel's already considerable international isolation. The Palestinians claim all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem, in addition to the Gaza Strip, for a future state.
The government official who disclosed the possible annexation said he did not know how seriously authorities were considering the option. He said that "adopting unilateral measures is not a one-way street" and added that other options were also being considered.
These could include limiting water supplies beyond agreed-upon amounts and restricting Palestinian use of Israeli ports for business purposes, he said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was aware of the moves being discussed, he added, speaking on condition of anonymity because no final decisions have been made.
Netanyahu's office had no comment. Nimr Hamad, an aide to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, said "these threats are not new. ... But we are continuing (our campaign) and are convinced our position is right."
In a related development, the Israeli Transportation Ministry is working on a plan to build an island off the coast of Gaza, where an Palestinian-run airport and seaport would be located. Ministry spokesman Ilan Leizerovich said this would allow Israel to cut all ties with Hamas-ruled Gaza.
Story continues below
Advertisement
At present most goods and people enter and exit Gaza through Israeli land crossings.
Leizerovich said the island would be built about three miles (4.5 kilometers) off the Gaza coast and would be connected by a bridge. He said it would take about six years and cost more than $5 billion to build. The grandiose scheme would need additional government approval, Palestinian acceptance and funding.
Although peace negotiations have taken place since Netanyahu came to power two years ago, they have been sporadic and largely mediated by the U.S. Three weeks of direct talks broke down in September over Palestinian objections to continued Israeli settlement construction.
Palestinians say they won't talk peace with Israel unless Israel freezes all construction in both the West Bank and east Jerusalem, lands they claim along with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip for their hoped-for state. Israeli officials fault Palestinians for the peacemaking impasse, saying a construction moratorium should not be a condition for peacemaking, because it never was in the past.
Israeli building in east Jerusalem is especially contentious because the Palestinians want to create their future capital there. Because of the annexation, Israel does not consider the Jewish enclaves housing 200,000 Jews there to be settlements, but the rest of the international community does.
Roi Lachmanovich, a spokesman for Interior Minister Eli Yishai, said officials would decide the fate of the 1,500 new apartments on April 14. The homes would be built in two existing Jewish enclaves in east Jerusalem.
Major Western powers have not given up on the concept of a negotiated solution. But with talks deadlocked, Palestinian leaders plan on seeking international recognition of a state, with or without an agreement with Israel, at the United Nations in September.
Their campaign has received a boost from Latin American countries that have lined up in recent months to offer recognition. It hasn't received crucial U.S. or Western European support.
Although international recognition wouldn't immediately change the situation on the ground, it would isolate Israel and put additional pressure on it to withdraw from occupied territories.
___Additional reporting by Associated Press writer Ian Deitch in Jerusalem.
I suppose they're going to claim that if there's a Palestinian state then there are no longer any occupied territories and, as such, annexing part of them isn't a violation of article 47 of the fourth geneva convention, to which Israel is a signatory. ;)
Maybe I'm not well-attuned to the complexities of international diplomacy, but I would think that annexations would be a better deal long-term. Right now the occupation and settlements are a festering problem that persistently create PR disasters for Israel. Annexing some West Bank lands might have a bad boy penalty in the short term, but sooner or later the world would have to get used to status quo and move on.
The problem is that if the Israelis annexed all of their settlements then Palestine would look like this (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobaleducationproject.org%2Fmideast%2Finfo%2Fmaps%2Fwest-bank-2003-map.jpg&hash=f9b2aa133d7cf12d99b48cec2c66b14c48063e3d)
and wouldn't exactly be a viable state. And of course annexing some would only encourage more settlement activity.
Does Jordan have some spare room? :unsure:
West Bank on the C64 was great. Especially since you could get a peek under 8 bit skirts.
Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2011, 12:07:04 AM
Does Jordan have some spare room? :unsure:
It was all Jordan at one point. They're more than happy to be rid of it though. :P
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on March 29, 2011, 11:55:24 PM
The problem is that if the Israelis annexed all of their settlements then Palestine would look like this
and wouldn't exactly be a viable state. And of course annexing some would only encourage more settlement activity.
No it would not.
This was Israels last proposal at negotiations.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faustraliansforpalestine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2FOlmerts-peace-plan.jpg&hash=3172f99e59b848fc62eafe94dadbfa65030da5fd)
The map you referenced was the present Oslo Agreement (A, B and C areas) where the IDF has all of the deserts, the PA has the cities and the land between the cities is jointly patrolled. Suggesting that israel will annex the Oslo A and B areas and leaving the palestinian state in the C areas is without foundation.
I like how the Palestinians are compensated with land in the Judean desert. Believe me, it's not the most productive terrain down there.
I cant see how peace could work here. the whole outline of future Palestine is just an insult: here, have the lands we dont need. Ackward position strategically, and I imagine economically.
But if they form a single state, there would be civil war, and/or the eventual demographic defeat of the jews.
I say we nuke it from orbit.
I think that the Israelis know full well that nations that result from unilaterally seeking world recognition of a state lack legitimacy.
Fair enough for Israel annexing the settlements near the borders. Palestine should really be given more land in return though, that looks uneven there, giving them desert isn't great either.
Quote from: Warspite on March 30, 2011, 04:00:06 AM
I like how the Palestinians are compensated with land in the Judean desert. Believe me, it's not the most productive terrain down there.
Maybe the Israelis no longer believe their own progaganda and recognise other nations can also make the desert bloom ?
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2011, 05:11:00 AM
I think that the Israelis know full well that nations that result from unilaterally seeking world recognition of a state lack legitimacy.
don't the palestinians have a seat in the UN already?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 30, 2011, 09:24:07 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2011, 05:11:00 AM
I think that the Israelis know full well that nations that result from unilaterally seeking world recognition of a state lack legitimacy.
don't the palestinians have a seat in the UN already?
Yes; unfortunately, it's in the staff room.
That's a crazy patchwork of settlements that Israel has created, snaking into the West Bank, etc. Makes it very messy to come to agreement, and with the settlements there it leaves them isolated, as well as Palestinian areas cut off from each other. Very messy. <_<
Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2011, 05:43:53 AM
giving them desert isn't great either.
Well, when we gave desert to the Mafia they turned it into Las Vegas. Why can't the Palestinians achieve something similar? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2011, 10:13:02 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2011, 05:43:53 AM
giving them desert isn't great either.
Well, when we gave desert to the Mafia they turned it into Las Vegas. Why can't the Palestinians achieve something similar? :hmm:
They lack a sense of over-the-top style and glamour.
Quote from: Tamas on March 30, 2011, 04:08:23 AM
But if they form a single state, there would be civil war, and/or the eventual demographic defeat of the jews.
The Jews have a 2.90 birth rate. That is fucking enormous, the Pals are higher but still....at that rate the place will run out of water and land far before the Pals make enough baby Pals to to outnumber them. The Demographic bomb is a ridiculous canard based on the assumption Israel-Palestine has infinite land and resources...but it is a tiny country already struggling to support its population.
Quote from: KRonn on March 30, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
That's a crazy patchwork of settlements that Israel has created, snaking into the West Bank, etc. Makes it very messy to come to agreement, and with the settlements there it leaves them isolated, as well as Palestinian areas cut off from each other. Very messy. <_<
Well yes that was what the Settlers had in mind.
Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2011, 05:43:53 AM
Fair enough for Israel annexing the settlements near the borders. Palestine should really be given more land in return though, that looks uneven there, giving them desert isn't great either.
Probably true but it is pointless. There will never be an agreement and this will not end well. All it takes to destroy an agreement is a small group of people who do not want it....and consider that there are, in fact, large groups of people who want either victory or death on both sides.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 10:50:18 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 30, 2011, 04:08:23 AM
But if they form a single state, there would be civil war, and/or the eventual demographic defeat of the jews.
The Jews have a 2.90 birth rate. That is fucking enormous, the Pals are higher but still....at that rate the place will run out of water and land far before the Pals make enough baby Pals to to outnumber them. The Demographic bomb is a ridiculous canard based on the assumption Israel-Palestine has infinite land and resources...but it is a tiny country already struggling to support its population.
Heh, didn't you notice that the Third World is busy crushing the West under the inextorable might of its huge population? :D
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 10:51:03 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 30, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
That's a crazy patchwork of settlements that Israel has created, snaking into the West Bank, etc. Makes it very messy to come to agreement, and with the settlements there it leaves them isolated, as well as Palestinian areas cut off from each other. Very messy. <_<
Well yes that was what the Settlers had in mind.
Basically they built settlements on any hillside where enplaced artillery could hit downtown tel aviv or mortars could hit downtown jerusalem.
But then again the Israelis have removed settlement both as part of agreements and unilaterally. The problem is that there was no palestinian counter proposal, the arab league offer is merely a guarantee for another war. Meanwhile the Palestinians are refusing to talk unless certain pre-conditions are met by the Israelis (stop all building, rather than just suspend which is what the Israelis have offered/done). Meanwhile HAMAS is trying to provoke a fight of some sort in Gaza either for Internal Medicinal reasons or to scupper the peace talks.
The Palestinian Megaphone diplomacy of today can be a convenient excuse to avoid addressing the really hard issues they face (national reconciliation, unifying the monopoly of force, dealing with corruption, building legitimacy for the government, convincing their people that A) there will have to be a negotiated border with a permanent israel on the other side, B) that the refugees will not return to Israel and C) that there will have to be Israeli military control over Palestinian borders for at least one generation) etc.etc.
I can't help but keep thinking that Palestinian behavior post Oslo and Israeli behavior in 1948 are so completely different and that those different behaviors are the original sin/virtue of the two societies. Effectively Israel disarmed HAMAS and the other groups immediately and arrested the leaders advocating violence and then held elections that gave the government legitimacy. The PA gave weapons to the Irgun and Stern Gang and when Extremist actions provided the legitimacy the PA lacked they got the Haganah to copy the Irgun, they then split up the armed forces into 20 different organizations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY&feature=related) playing one up against the other to avoid getting couped or having put their regime to the test of a fair and free election.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 10:50:18 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 30, 2011, 04:08:23 AM
But if they form a single state, there would be civil war, and/or the eventual demographic defeat of the jews.
The Jews have a 2.90 birth rate. That is fucking enormous, the Pals are higher but still....at that rate the place will run out of water and land far before the Pals make enough baby Pals to to outnumber them. The Demographic bomb is a ridiculous canard based on the assumption Israel-Palestine has infinite land and resources...but it is a tiny country already struggling to support its population.
TFR (which is the 2.9 number) isn't a very meaningful measure of fertility, since it is an instantaneous snapshot transferred to a lifetime stat. The population growth rate of Israel is high, but not "fucking enormous."
If there was a single state in Palestine, it would have about 6.3 million non-Jewish and 5.7 million Jewish inhabitants, as near as i can tell. Unless the CIA fact book is also a "ridiculous canard." :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2011, 12:16:39 PM
TFR (which is the 2.9 number) isn't a very meaningful measure of fertility, since it is an instantaneous snapshot transferred to a lifetime stat. The population growth rate of Israel is high, but not "fucking enormous."
If there was a single state in Palestine, it would have about 6.3 million non-Jewish and 5.7 million Jewish inhabitants, as near as i can tell. Unless the CIA fact book is also a "ridiculous canard." :cool:
That being the case then there would not be an eventual demographic defeat of the Jews. In any case the point still stands: Israel-Palestine cannot continue to support such high birth rates from both Muslims and Jews so long term thoughts based on long term population explosions is rather pointless. :cool:
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 10:51:03 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 30, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
That's a crazy patchwork of settlements that Israel has created, snaking into the West Bank, etc. Makes it very messy to come to agreement, and with the settlements there it leaves them isolated, as well as Palestinian areas cut off from each other. Very messy. <_<
Well yes that was what the Settlers had in mind.
I realize that, and I can understand Israel's desire to expand their land. Such a small nation overall, surrounded by enemies, many of them radical, hateful and irrational by democracy minded people.
Quote from: Tamas on March 30, 2011, 04:08:23 AM
I cant see how peace could work here. the whole outline of future Palestine is just an insult: here, have the lands we dont need. Ackward position strategically, and I imagine economically.
But if they form a single state, there would be civil war, and/or the eventual demographic defeat of the jews.
This is why you need a two state solution. If not you either have a situation where Israel ceases to be democratic or she ceases to be Jewish, either would be a failure of Zionism. The sad thing is I think some of the Israeli far-right, including government figures, are kind of okay with an Israel that's no longer democratic.
QuoteI realize that, and I can understand Israel's desire to expand their land. Such a small nation overall, surrounded by enemies, many of them radical, hateful and irrational by democracy minded people.
I don't think it's a rational Israeli desire to expand their land, I think it's a broadly irrational and pretty hateful settler movement that's moved into areas and then has to be protected by the Israeli state. And, of course, those radical, hateful and irrational people in the West Bank are still people.
Nationalising banks? Have the Jews gone mad? :hmm:
If the failure of Zionism isn't the result of ethnic cleansing (but perhaps demographic defeat), I don't see why that is a problem. I mean I can understand that it would be an issue for those wishing to continue an ethno-religious state but I don't see why the rest of the world would be invested in that.
*fixed "ethnically" bit. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2011, 12:51:25 PM
If the failure of Zionism isn't the result of ethnically cleansing (but perhaps demographic defeat), I don't see why that is a problem. I mean I can understand that it would be an issue for those wishing to continue an ethno-religious state but I don't see why the rest of the world would be invested in that.
I am puzzled. The problems with Israel-Palestine have to do with Arabs being angry and an entire region be destabilized and said region being already unstable and being of vital importance to word energy production. The continuation or not continuation of any ethno-religious states is not of particular importance unless you personally have a horse in that race.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2011, 12:47:20 PM
This is why you need a two state solution. If not you either have a situation where Israel ceases to be democratic or she ceases to be Jewish, either would be a failure of Zionism. The sad thing is I think some of the Israeli far-right, including government figures, are kind of okay with an Israel that's no longer democratic.
You are of course ignoring the "third" option to apartheid or a single Arab majority state. That option is ethnic cleansing. Referred to as "Transfer" in Israel, though it is constantly repeated that using force is not an option. Using force is of course the only way to achieve this. Nobody remembers the Armenians, and after 20 years, people in the ROTW might start to treat the borders of the Palestine Mandate as the borders of Israel, just like they started treating the 1949 Green Line as a border.
The idea that Israel has to give citizenship to hostile aliens is just ludicrous. Israel was basically faced with this choice back on the 12th of june 1967. Either stop being jewish and annex the west bank, gaza, golan and sinai giving citizenship to the arabs living there or give the land back to the arabs (on the condition that the arabs stop their pathetic attempt at genocide); they chose to give the land back, the Arabs chose to continue trying for genocide. So the dilemma you keep trying to present has been resolved decades ago, the issue now, for the israelis, is what land do the israelis need to keep to ensure that the the attempt at genocide remains pathetic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2011, 12:47:20 PM
I don't think it's a rational Israeli desire to expand their land, I think it's a broadly irrational and pretty hateful settler movement that's moved into areas and then has to be protected by the Israeli state. And, of course, those radical, hateful and irrational people in the West Bank are still people.
If you are a religious jew who thinks that god gave the jews the land then you are rational in wanting all of the land and irrational in conceding any inch of it.
If you are a security focussed israeli jew then wanting to keep strategic plots of land which strengthen israel's security is being rational.
If you are a Mizrahi jew who's land in yemen or egypt was stolen by arabs you might be completely rational in wanting to be compensated for that loss not just as an individual but also as a society.
Seen from london with a detached view being rational is easy since getting it wrong does not mean that you and all your friends, family and neighbors get murdered.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 12:20:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2011, 12:16:39 PM
TFR (which is the 2.9 number) isn't a very meaningful measure of fertility, since it is an instantaneous snapshot transferred to a lifetime stat. The population growth rate of Israel is high, but not "fucking enormous."
If there was a single state in Palestine, it would have about 6.3 million non-Jewish and 5.7 million Jewish inhabitants, as near as i can tell. Unless the CIA fact book is also a "ridiculous canard." :cool:
That being the case then there would not be an eventual demographic defeat of the Jews.
Yeah, 'cause if there was one unified state, the demographic defeat of the Jews would be immediate, not eventual.
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2011, 02:22:28 PM
Yeah, 'cause if there was one unified state, the demographic defeat of the Jews would be immediate, not eventual.
Was I too subtle?
Quote from: Viking on March 30, 2011, 01:09:41 PMSo the dilemma you keep trying to present has been resolved decades ago, the issue now, for the israelis, is what land do the israelis need to keep to ensure that the the attempt at genocide remains pathetic.
I don't consider ethnic cleansing a serious option for a state that has the history and the moral tradition of the Jewish people.
I also think you're conflating an extreme section of the Israeli population with 'Israelis' in general. I think the dilemma I've presented of the imperative to establish two-states with all of the difficulties that presents or facing a situation in which you have either an Arab sub-class or a non-Jewish state is one that's being grappled with by Labour, the Israeli left in general, by Kadima, generally by Barak's new party and even by a reasonable number of Likudniks. The dilemma you pose, throwing in ethnic cleansing, is something that I don't think even Lieberman's considering.
QuoteIf you are a religious jew who thinks that god gave the jews the land then you are rational in wanting all of the land and irrational in conceding any inch of it.
If you are a security focussed israeli jew then wanting to keep strategic plots of land which strengthen israel's security is being rational.
If you are a Mizrahi jew who's land in yemen or egypt was stolen by arabs you might be completely rational in wanting to be compensated for that loss not just as an individual but also as a society.
Which of these arguments doesn't apply to a similar Palestinian?
QuoteSeen from london with a detached view being rational is easy since getting it wrong does not mean that you and all your friends, family and neighbors get murdered.
The settler movement aren't representative of Israel. But to clarify, I meant that I don't think what's happened with settlements was a rational decision by Israel it's happened and Israel's had to deal with it - I can see how saying it's not a rational 'Israeli decision' could be ambiguous.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 12:20:23 PM
That being the case then there would not be an eventual demographic defeat of the Jews.
In the sense that "demographic defeat of the Jews" is a pretty meaningless concept, you are correct.
QuoteIn any case the point still stands: Israel-Palestine cannot continue to support such high birth rates from both Muslims and Jews so long term thoughts based on long term population explosions is rather pointless.
Don't feel bad that this statement doesn't persuade, because argument by assertion has
never been persuasive. :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2011, 03:40:46 PM
Don't feel bad that this statement doesn't persuade, because argument by assertion has never been persuasive. :cool:
I do not understand. Are you denying there is an issue with space and water resources and so forth in that region? Are you demanding some sort of evidence? Are you even arguing the contrary?
QuoteIn the sense that "demographic defeat of the Jews" is a pretty meaningless concept, you are correct.
Again..was I too subtle?
Maybe Gentile Ben heard all the rest of the world were nationalizing their banks and he got the wrong idea.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 02:23:42 PM
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2011, 02:22:28 PM
Yeah, 'cause if there was one unified state, the demographic defeat of the Jews would be immediate, not eventual.
Was I too subtle?
Sorry, didn't realize that your stupidity was intended to be obfucating.
My understanding is that a very small percentage of the Israeli residents in the West Bank are Greater Israel zealots. The great majority are there for the cheap housing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2011, 06:14:01 PM
My understanding is that a very small percentage of the Israeli residents in the West Bank are Greater Israel zealots. The great majority are there for the cheap housing.
These days in the long established settlements yeah, I think its so.
They were founded by zealots however and the newer settlements are also inhabited by the crazies. Its a rolling wave of Israeliness.
Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2011, 07:03:28 PM
These days in the long established settlements yeah, I think its so.
They were founded by zealots however and the newer settlements are also inhabited by the crazies. Its a rolling wave of Israeliness.
I was talking about all the new stuff in the Jerusalem burbs.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 03:57:32 PM
I do not understand. Are you denying there is an issue with space and water resources and so forth in that region? Are you demanding some sort of evidence? Are you even arguing the contrary?
I do not understand. Why are you throwing up these strawmen? Your argument is
not that " there is an issue with space and water resources and so forth in that region," but that "Israel-Palestine
cannot continue to support such high birth rates," which is obviously an unsupported assertion and hence unconvincing. Hell, Malthus made the assertion that the anticipated late-1800s population levels could not be sustained, and population levels are some ten times what he said wouldn't be sustainable!
I am willing to bet that Israel-Palestine will continue to support something very much like the current high birth rates for at least the next decade, and maybe even the next two... your assertions notwithstanding. The population density of Israel and the Palestinian territories is not that high by global standards. Lebanon, right next door, has a higher population density.
QuoteQuoteIn the sense that "demographic defeat of the Jews" is a pretty meaningless concept, you are correct.
Again..was I too subtle?
"Incoherent" is the word you are looking for, not "subtle." And the answer is, "yes." One could hardly help but be incoherent when throwing around phrases like "demographic defeat of the Jews."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2011, 07:10:17 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2011, 07:03:28 PM
These days in the long established settlements yeah, I think its so.
They were founded by zealots however and the newer settlements are also inhabited by the crazies. Its a rolling wave of Israeliness.
I was talking about all the new stuff in the Jerusalem burbs.
Your understanding is the same as mine; there are the Israeli-government-planned settlements, mainly around Jerusalem and intended to provide cheaper housing than that in Israel proper (and maybe also to make it harder for future governments to give up eastern Jerusalem), and the settlement by the pioneer types that want to reclaim all of Eretz Israel (or something like that).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2011, 07:10:17 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2011, 07:03:28 PM
These days in the long established settlements yeah, I think its so.
They were founded by zealots however and the newer settlements are also inhabited by the crazies. Its a rolling wave of Israeliness.
I was talking about all the new stuff in the Jerusalem burbs.
Yeah, part of this kerfuffel is caused by a definitional two-step: various bits and burbs of Jerusalem are being, at least notionally, classified in the same way as isolated outposts of armed religious/nationalist zealots ploped deep inside traditional Palestinian lands. The people involved are quite different, as are the issues - it is difficult to run a city as if it were (again, notionally) divvied up into portions which are alternatively one's capital city and "occupied territory" which will eventually be given back. It is highly unlikely that Israel will ever agree to a peace treaty which hands over chunks of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, and equally it is highly unlikely that the Palestinians will ever agree to a treaty that allows the "settlements" to continue; the consensus is that an eventual peace will require Israel to remove the "settlements" and allow Israel to annex the bits of Jerusalem defined as "occupied".
This was the issue over which the US and Israel recently squabbled.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2011, 08:20:29 AM
Hell, Malthus made the assertion that the anticipated late-1800s population levels could not be sustained, and population levels are some ten times what he said wouldn't be sustainable!
I said nothing of the sort. :P
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2011, 08:20:29 AM
I do not understand. Why are you throwing up these strawmen? Your argument is not that " there is an issue with space and water resources and so forth in that region," but that "Israel-Palestine cannot continue to support such high birth rates," which is obviously an unsupported assertion and hence unconvincing. Hell, Malthus made the assertion that the anticipated late-1800s population levels could not be sustained, and population levels are some ten times what he said wouldn't be sustainable!
The Strawmen? Because I am trying to get at what your issue is. Anyway Malthus was based on technology of the time and without things he could not have forseen what came to pass. Perhaps some huge game breaker will allow us to cram more people into Israel-Palestine as well. Topics like overcrowding in Palestinian areas and the big political fight over the water in the Jordan River Basin are well known so I am unsure how you are 100% sure it is unsupportable there could not be problems sustaining the current population growth rates. It may not be a correct statement to say they cannot support a larger population but it seems increasing problematic from what I understand.
Quote"Incoherent" is the word you are looking for, not "subtle." And the answer is, "yes." One could hardly help but be incoherent when throwing around phrases like "demographic defeat of the Jews."
I took the demographic defeat thing from Tamas but demographic defeats of whomever gets thrown around from time to time these days. and I do admit that sometimes I do not phrase things well. In any case people talk about this sort of demographic determinism all the time as a scare tactic and the results of these concerns has, I believe, been driving increased birth rates in Israel. I think this is pretty irresponsible given the space and resource problems already there. Is that an incoherent view? Maybe in the way I phrased it. But perhaps you are correct and many more millions of people can live in Israel-Palestine in the future.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2011, 08:33:06 AM
I took the demographic defeat thing from Tamas but demographic defeats of whomever gets thrown around from time to time these days. and I do admit that sometimes I do not phrase things well. In any case people talk about this sort of demographic determinism all the time as a scare tactic and the results of these concerns has, I believe, been driving increased birth rates in Israel. I think this is pretty irresponsible given the space and resource problems already there. Is that an incoherent view? Maybe in the way I phrased it. But perhaps you are correct and many more millions of people can live in Israel-Palestine in the future.
I think you are quite correct that various forms of demographic determinism get tossed about, generally by those wishing for whatever reason to make doomsday predictions about the eventual fate of Israel.
I don't think such fears actually play much role in Israeli decisions to have kids.
The notion of doomsday scenarios based on demographics has never been particularly convincing to me - for one, in the modern world huge populations are not necessarily associated with power; more like with poverty and weakness, if they are in third-world conditions.
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2011, 04:24:09 PM
Sorry, didn't realize that your stupidity was intended to be obfucating.
My stupidity is come by quite honestly and is not intended to obfucate in any way.
we need a "beware, Grumbler!" smiley
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2011, 04:24:09 PM
Sorry, didn't realize that your stupidity was intended to be obfucating.
My stupidity is come by quite honestly and is not intended to obfucate in any way.
:lol: Awesome line
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2011, 08:33:06 AM
The Strawmen? Because I am trying to get at what your issue is.
I said what my issue was: that talk about "Israel-Palestine cannot continue to support such high birth rates," is unsupported assertion. I have stated that several times, and each time you ignore it and pretend that i haven't explicitly stated my point. You say Israel and Palestine
can no longer physically support their current birth rates, and I say there is no evidence to that effect - that those birth rates can probably be continued for at least a decade.
QuoteIt may not be a correct statement to say they cannot support a larger population
So you agree with me, and the discussion is ended. :hug:
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2011, 08:38:04 AM
The notion of doomsday scenarios based on demographics has never been particularly convincing to me - for one, in the modern world huge populations are not necessarily associated with power; more like with poverty and weakness, if they are in third-world conditions.
Exactly. The idea that group B becoming larger than group A represents a 'defeat" for A is silly, IMO. Too much depends on context, and ideas like "demographic defeat" frankly make some rather dangerous assumptions about a biological basis for politics.
Quote from: Tamas on March 31, 2011, 08:43:00 AM
we need a "beware, Grumbler!" smiley
I'll have to find the one FB put together.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: Viking on March 30, 2011, 01:09:41 PMSo the dilemma you keep trying to present has been resolved decades ago, the issue now, for the israelis, is what land do the israelis need to keep to ensure that the the attempt at genocide remains pathetic.
I don't consider ethnic cleansing a serious option for a state that has the history and the moral tradition of the Jewish people.
Insert the word you consider most relevant
"I don't consider ethnic cleansing a serious option for a state that has the history and the moral tradition of the _________ people."
A. German
B. Yugoslav
C. Rwandan
In all of these cases the history of the people suggested otherwise. If the Jews did cleanse the West Bank of Arabs it would be the second time in my lifetime that a people that had been subjected to a brutal genocide in the 20th century ethnically cleansed a land of people unrelated to the perpetrators of the Genocide. How many Azeri's live in Nagorno-Karabakh (and Armenian occupied environs?)
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
I also think you're conflating an extreme section of the Israeli population with 'Israelis' in general. I think the dilemma I've presented of the imperative to establish two-states with all of the difficulties that presents or facing a situation in which you have either an Arab sub-class or a non-Jewish state is one that's being grappled with by Labour, the Israeli left in general, by Kadima, generally by Barak's new party and even by a reasonable number of Likudniks. The dilemma you pose, throwing in ethnic cleansing, is something that I don't think even Lieberman's considering.
Word of the day: Trilemma, it's like Dilemma, but with three bad options.
It's not an option for today. It's an option for the day when the generation growing up today that only knows arabs as violent hostile perpetrators of suicide bombs and missiles and mortars thrown at civilians take power. The tendency is there, there is an article in today's Haaretz about how young israelis are much more rightist than their older countrymen. You referring to Kadima sort of makes my point. Israel has reached near Portugese conditions in politics. While Portugal has the Socialists (Left) vs. the Social Democrats (Right), Israel has a political situation where both main political parties trace their heritage back to Menachim Begin.
I did make it clear that every proposal for transfer so far has been voluntary. It is an option, it is an option that is not being proposed, but the criticism of the Lieberman Plan (Land in the Galilee populated by arabs to be given to a Palestinian state as part of a peace deal) suggests that serious people think that other serious people are thinking about it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
QuoteIf you are a religious jew who thinks that god gave the jews the land then you are rational in wanting all of the land and irrational in conceding any inch of it.
If you are a security focussed israeli jew then wanting to keep strategic plots of land which strengthen israel's security is being rational.
If you are a Mizrahi jew who's land in yemen or egypt was stolen by arabs you might be completely rational in wanting to be compensated for that loss not just as an individual but also as a society.
Which of these arguments doesn't apply to a similar Palestinian?
Yes, which is why I was dismissing your suggestion that people should just be reasonable. These people clearly are not reasonable. The Israelis obviously have more and better means of coopting or forcing their religious nutjobs to submit to the state while the Palestinians still lack something so prosaic as a functioning government capable of enforcing it's laws and providing services.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
QuoteSeen from london with a detached view being rational is easy since getting it wrong does not mean that you and all your friends, family and neighbors get murdered.
The settler movement aren't representative of Israel. But to clarify, I meant that I don't think what's happened with settlements was a rational decision by Israel it's happened and Israel's had to deal with it - I can see how saying it's not a rational 'Israeli decision' could be ambiguous.
The settler movement isn't representative of Israel. They are, however, represented in the Knesset and other Israeli decision making bodies. When considering Israel's broken parliamentary system, it's fractured politics and the immense challenges and dangers facing any Israeli government it makes eminent sense to build settlements since it
A) Placates the single issue religious nutjobs the PM needs to stay in power.
B) Establishes facts on the ground that continually shift land away from being perceived as clearly Palestinian.
C) Puts pressure on the PA to negotiate before the settlement blocs become too large and too established to be negotiated away.
D) Provides a fig leaf to the end-times Christian nutjobs that want the Jews to initiated end-times by settling the West Bank.
E) Provides a simple and easy Concession for Israel to make it if is to "work for peace" for the present peace plan which will last until the Palestinians succeed in killing somebody.
The link to the Haaretz "blog" i referenced above
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/as-israel-perpetuates-occupation-its-youth-sees-little-value-in-peace-and-freedom-1.353487
Quote from: Viking on April 01, 2011, 01:40:59 PM
The link to the Haaretz "blog" i referenced above
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/as-israel-perpetuates-occupation-its-youth-sees-little-value-in-peace-and-freedom-1.353487
Meh - Israel is a country of political differences. When I read that blog entry, I get the impression of someone on the left who is reaching for explainations as to why the left is losing -- and choosing that explaination which is most flattering to his own position.
For example:
QuoteA large proportion of those 21 to 24 years old have done part of their army service in the territories. The 15 to 18 year old know that they will soon be called to do the same. The impact of this service is rarely spoken about in Israeli public discourse, and the attempts of 'Shovrim Shtika' to have Israelis face the realities of the occupation are met with great hostility. Yariv Horowitz's poignant documentary 'Aftershock' shows why: the memories of these soldiers are difficult to live with since they are filled with guilt and shame.
In short, young folks do army service and see first-hand the realities of the occupation - and this makes them more right-wing ... not because they make an informed decision based on what they have seen and experienced, or because the camaraderie of service makes them more prone to nationalist 'us vs. them' thinking, but rather because it - drives them crazy with shame and guilt?
Does that not strike anyone as self-serving bullshit?
More like fear-fueled paranoia brought about by a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations of their political opponents.
I'm not talking about the exposition on why the change is happening, I referred to this "blog" to point out that the change is happening. I have no comment on why the change is happening. There is a change happening in Israel. Meretz is gone, completely to the best of my knowledge, Labour has been reduced to a minor party and Gush Shalom can't get more than a handful of people out for their demonstrations.