The US just recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital

[Bengalzona]

(12-08-2017, 12:17 AM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for the response, B-zona. Don't have much time to respond to people today, but I can offer a brief comment on the above.

Clearing Gaza meant that Israel could not effectively protect Israelis in Gaza, but it could effectively contain Gaza from without. The place is now the largest outdoor prison in the world.  Though many Palestinians were initially for disengagement, it was wholly unilateral, on Israeli terms and undertaken in what Sharon determined to be Israeli interests.

Also, there were barely 8,000 Israelis there. Imagine the blowback if Netanyahu tried the same thing on the West bank, where he would be dealing with almost 10 times that number, if you throw in East Jerusalem.  That would be civil war. But it would never come to that as no government could ever get Knesset support for the action unless the existence of Israel itself were at stake. So, I don't think the Israeli government will adopt any policy leading to Gaza-style "eviction" on the West Bank.

I should add that the Israeli settlements in Gaza were architecturally miniscule compared to the walled fortress complexes dominating the hills in the Greater Jerusalem area. Givat Yael alone has 13,500 housing units.

Consider, though, containing Gaza was not solely an Israeli venture. Egypt also deemed this necessary and assisted from the south. This was due to the level of violence and militarism coming from Hamas in the strip. The noose that has been tightening around Gaza didn't just develop overnight. It was something that started in response to attacks and has become progressively stricter due to continued attacks. I sympathize greatly for the civilians in the strip who have to bear the burdens of counterattacks and a siege-like state, and yet are not able to eject Hamas and choose different leaders. That said, if radicals took over the Navajo Nation and started hurling missiles at the Albuquerque, you know what our response would be. If the Vatican started encouraging bus bombings in Rome, you know what Italy's response would be. People don't like being attacked.

You know the history of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They were originally areas set aside by the U.N. Charter for the establishment of a Palestinian state in 1948. The Palestinians rejected the charter and opted for warfare, as we know. What is less commonly known is what happened to the territories after the 1948 war. The Palestinians 'buddies', Jordan and Egypt, claimed the territories after the war. Some 'friends', eh. The territories were captured from Jordan and Egypt by Israel during the 1967 war. True, a small number of Israeli settlers (several thousand) attempted to settle into the territories afterwards. But the territories overwhelming remained vacant and unoccupied. In the 1990's, when Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians were ready to sit down and talk peace, those territories were offered to the Palestinian Authority as the basis land for a Palestinian nation. So the Arab "kill-the-Jews" buddies took the Palestinians land while the "Evil" Israelis offered tto give it back after sacrificing lives to take it.

Quote:The central problem when speaking of "negotiations" is that such talk often assumes a power equivalence which simply isn't there.  Palestinians are effectively under the gun at all times. The West Bank is crisscrossed with check points and barriers turning what was formerly a 10 minute commute into a half day trip for workers and farmers. They cannot move in, around or out of the West Bank without Israeli permission. Their goods can be impounded and their houses bulldozed on the slightest pretext.

Once again, this is not a situation that started over-night. And it was in response to continued attacks. People don't like being attacked. They tend to over-react when attacked. We were attacked on 9/11. We've had two wars (one of which is our longest ever) and now we have Trump as an end result. The roots of fear, paranoia and mistrust lead back to the attacks. I can hardly imagine what our country would be like if we had the type of suicide bombings Israel endured, but I would imagine it would be some kind of cross between the worst facets of Nazi Germany and Stalinist U.S.S.R.

It is interesting that you mention power. The Palestinians only legitimate empowerment comes from two sources: the 1948 U.N. charter and (believe it or not) the Israelis. By offering the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians as a homeland, the Israelis have empowered the Palestinians. All that they have asked for in return is peace. The Palestinians have, at points, rejected both sources. Unfortunately, some factions within the Palestinians feel that they gain legitimacy through violence. Who int the world supports violence as a legitimate means of empowerment?

Quote:In theory Palestinians have much to gain, but in practice little to bargain with.  The map included in my post above illustrates this point eloquently enough. That's why I don't describe Palestinian negotiators as "entrenched" unless refusing to give up their last bit of land, security and dignity makes them somehow "hard line" unreasonable.    The PLO recognized Israel's right to exist; then Israel moved the goal posts, Netanyahu demanding they recognize the "Jewish character" of the state. They agreed to dividing the West Bank into areas in return for ceding control of Bethlehem, Nablus, Ramalla and Jericho to the Palestinian Authority control, then found themselves fenced away from their own properties and watched as new settlements fill the cleared areas.  Every concession seems to increase Israeli control. Luring Palestinians to the negotiating table and then making it plain they'll get less than they already have produces "walkaways" and claims Palestinians are intransigent and don't really want peace. Under these conditions, I don't have trouble understanding political fragmentation, as some want to fight back the only way they can. I also understand why asking them, not the Israelis, to "end the violence" produces such anger.

Israelis have to do nothing but what they are already doing and in a decade or two they will have the whole West Bank, blaming the Palestinians for refusing to negotiate.  Clinton, Bush Obama--all pressured Israel one way another to stop the illegal settlements. Now Trump has in effect opened the floodgates to further settlement. Some Americans, who will soon be watching demonstrations and perhaps violence on the ground there, will wonder if it is religion which makes them crazy or what. The rest of the world, as noted in my post above, will condemn both Israel and Trump.

The Israelis have asked for one basic thing repeatedly: peace. Factions within the Palestinians have been unwilling to comply. Therefore, in the Israeli view, they cannot discuss anything else until that is agreed upon. Why is that so hard for the Palestinians to accept and work with?

You mention the map you posted earlier and how the areas are being shaded in with Israeli settlements. I ask you to consider this: Why have the Israelis not just occupied all of the West Bank and Gaza and declared it as their own, if that is what they intend to do anyway? What are they waiting for? Why is this going in such a slow, deliberate, painstaking way? If they face world criticism for doing it, why not just get that over with in one fell swoop? Why even pretend to go through any process? That makes no sense.

Unless... maybe just grabbing all of that land isn't their goal. Maybe they are waiting for the Palestinians to decide that they have had enough of Hamas and violence and are ready to build their own nation.

Quote:Your point about Palestinian fragmentation deserves a more detailed response, but I have to run!  Hopefully I'll get a few more words in tomorrow before the weekend curfew!

It is always good to talk with you, my knowledgeable friend!