west bank
 

9,000 israeli's out of gaza. this year alone 9,000 more into the west bank. Many are saying that the gaza withdrawl was a ruse to deflect attention from farther incroachment into the west bank. Israel and the palestinian authority seem to have a wide rift in their view fo the future of the west bank. What exactly is Israel's plan for the W.B. How is this going to play out?

Re: west bank
 

[ QUOTE ]
9,000 israeli's out of gaza. this year alone 9,000 more into the west bank. Many are saying that the gaza withdrawl was a ruse to deflect attention from farther incroachment into the west bank. Israel and the palestinian authority seem to have a wide rift in their view fo the future of the west bank. What exactly is Israel's plan for the W.B. How is this going to play out?

[/ QUOTE ]

As of now, there are no withdrawal plans for the WB, but I'd say that Gaza has set an interesting precedent, and it could honestly go either way, depending on future governments.

Re: west bank
 

I don't think the Gaza withdrawal was really intended to help the peace process. I think the real reason was that it was simply to costly to try to defend the outlying settlements. Sharon's plan is to disengage from the Palestinians, and draw the boundaries between Israel and Palestine unilaterally: Not an unreasonable policy, considering that the previous Labor government bent over backwards to appease the Palestinians, only to have the Palestinians reject the deal and embark on a campaing of suicide bombings. Now Israel is going to take the territory they want and give the Palestinians the leftovers. The Palestinians can thank Arafat and Hamas. Their leaders served them poorly.

Re: west bank
 

That's basically it, in a nutshell.

Nice analysis.

Re: west bank
 

[ QUOTE ]
the previous Labor government bent over backwards to appease the Palestinians, only to have the Palestinians reject the deal and embark on a campaing of suicide bombings.

[/ QUOTE ]
The previous Labor government never made any formal offer of anything to the Palestinians. The best terms it indicated it would accept amounted to permanent control over Jerusalem (traditionally, the cultural and political center of Palestinian life), permanent settlements on the West Bank, the Jordan River Valley and another quarter of the West Bank. The best deal either party came close to was Clinton's, fairly similar to the above, and Arafat accepted that, only to be rebuffed by Sharon. As for the suicide bombings, which Arafat condemned, Israel had killed some 300 Palestinian civilians before they started.

I appreciate that there are a dozen pundits that you can cite for your version of events, but it simply isn't true. The Palestinians and Israel were negotiating until the very last days of BArak's administration. Sharon refused negotiations altogether, well before the suicide bombings began, and continued to refuse them whenever they stopped.

Israel Moves One Square to the East
 

Your juxtaposition is one that the media tend to ignore. As soon as the Gaza withdrawal was done, Sharon announced that there will be more settlers and more building in the West Bank. This week, Israel expropriated additional Palestinian land in order to facilitate these settlement expansions, which grossly violate the Quartet's Roadmap. The Gaza "withdrawal" therefore amounts to redeployment about 1-3% of the settlers (depending on how one defines them) from Gaza to the West Bank. Israel is continuing with its strategy of several decades of roping off the Paletinians into enclaves and stealing the best land and water at gunpoint for itself. This is the style of "democracy" the U.S. has helped bring to the Middle East and the reason the U.S. is hated for it.

Re: Israel Moves One Square to the East
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is the style of "democracy" the U.S. has facilitated in the Middle East and the reason the U.S. is hated for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Key point.

Re: west bank
 

Jerusalem has at times been a part of Palestinian life, as well as since the beginning of recorded history the centre of the Jewish heart and soul. While Israel holds Jerusalem, it allows Palestinians, Israeli Arabs (both Christian, who are far more civilized and less apt to violence, and Muslim, for whom violence seems to be a first resort), and visitors from around the world to visit.

I shudder to think what would happen if an Arab government ever held Jerusalem. Oops, wait, they did up until 1967, and until then Jerusalem was a run-down shanty town. Now that there's tourism and money to be made, the Arabs want it back. Big surprise.

The Palestinians and Israel were negotiating until the very last days of BArak's administration. Sharon refused negotiations altogether, well before the suicide bombings began, and continued to refuse them whenever they stopped

This is a lie. Arafat and Barghouti announced the intifada and suicide bombings became commonplace before the election that put Sharon in power. How do we know this? Because it was the bombings that put a right wing government in power.

The public became disenfranchised with the concessions (however large or small) like Oslo, that gave us the divisions of the West Bank (i.e. Areas A and B) that allowed Palestinian terrorist groups to arm themselves without Israeli supervision. They demanded security and a hard reaction to the Arabs' terrorism and put Sharon in power.

Your lack of real knowledge of the situation is appalling.

Re: west bank
 

[ QUOTE ]
both Christian, who are far more civilized and less apt to violence,

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious if you've studied the Classics, Roman History, etc.?

-And it's not to imply that Christians then were violent, (although they were) but rather that Christianity, alongside luxuries like bathing and such, was used specifically to "civilize" people into conformity & submission. They aren't "civilized" because they are Christians, they are Christians because they were "civilized." Just FYI.

Re: west bank
 

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate that there are a dozen pundits that you can cite for your version of events, but it simply isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is great. A dozen people who follow and write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a living, but you -- a knucklehead that posts on a poker forum -- know better than all of them. Priceless.

Clarification
 

i dont know much about the history of Christianity past the part my people played in it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

What I do know is that at the current moment, in Israel, the values and ethics of Christian Arabs are much closer to the Jews than the Muslims. Generally, the Muslim Arabs are much more crass, and hold the monopoly on violence against Jews (minus a few Bedouin and Druze incidents).

Re: Clarification
 

[ QUOTE ]
i dont know much about the history of Christianity past the part my people played in it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

What I do know is that at the current moment, in Israel, the values and ethics of Christian Arabs are much closer to the Jews than the Muslims. Generally, the Muslim Arabs are much more crass, and hold the monopoly on violence against Jews (minus a few Bedouin and Druze incidents).

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally, Muslim Arabs are more crass? Instead of responding to every inane post of yours, maybe I'll just start asking for sources. Source, please. I'd really like to see when that study was done.

Book clearance
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate that there are a dozen pundits that you can cite for your version of events, but it simply isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is great. A dozen people who follow and write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a living, but you ... know better than all of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that it is necessary to complete Alger's warning, since you seem to misunderstand it :

"There are a dozen pundits that you can cite for your version of events, and there are a dozen more for my version of events".



Now, I have read those offering the version of events that claims, in a nutshell, that "Israel is and has always been right" and that "Islam is the Devil". (Books such as Horowitz's on Islam and the Left, for instance, or Dershowitz's The Case for Israel).

But have you read any of these books ? They too were written by "people who follow and write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Who are, moreover, mostly Jewish scholars.

Re: west bank
 

[ QUOTE ]
A dozen people who follow and write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a living

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a simple test for this: find the offer that Barak supposedly made and that Arafat rejected. (At Camp DAvid, Arafat did reject Israel's insistence on sovereignty over the entire Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount area, but had no proposal dealing with the whole range of issues before him. The Israelis made no binding or written offer at Camp David at all). I haven't looked there recently, but the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website has exhaustive documentation on Israel's diplomatic history. Then try to figure out why, if Arafat walked away from an offer at Camp David, were the Palestinians and Israelis still negotiating at Taba six months later when the intifada was in full swing and there purportedly was nothing to negotiate. Moreover, this is a matter of public record and has been extensively documented (including on film, no less) by several key participants.

The pundits I referred to don't "follow and write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a living," they broadcast the pro-Israel line for a living. They usually know a lot more about the issue than I do, but they don't report it honestly because the money and power are greater when you say things that money and power want to hear.

Re: west bank
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sharon refused negotiations altogether, well before the suicide bombings began, and continued to refuse them whenever they stopped

This is a lie. Arafat and Barghouti announced the intifada and suicide bombings became commonplace before the election that put Sharon in power. How do we know this? Because it was the bombings that put a right wing government in power.


[/ QUOTE ]
The first suicide bombing in Israel occurred in 1994, but it didn't become commonplace until the summer of 2001. The intifada began in September 2000. During it's first three weeks, the Israeli army fired a million rounds at Palestinians throughout the occupied territories (700,000 in the W. Bank; 300,000 in Gaza, according to Ma'ariv, citing official Israeli sources). By the end of the month, the death ratio of Palestinians to Israelis was ten to one.

Sharon was elected on February 6, 2001. The first fatal suicide bombing in Israel since the beginning of the intifada occurred on May 18, 2001, according to this BBC chronology.

The last-minute attempts to obtain a deal with Barak government and Sharon's outright refusal to negotiate or offer any plan for peace are matters of public record.

[ QUOTE ]
"concessions (however large or small) like Oslo . . . allowed Palestinian terrorist groups to arm themselves without Israeli supervision"

[/ QUOTE ]
Palestinian suicide bombers "armed themselves" with items found in any hardware store. You're probably referring to the excuses offered for Isreal's practice of gunning down PA policemen, like the five killed "by mistake" a few days before the first suicide bomb went off.