The West Bank

[Allison]

I'd like to hear some opinions on President Bush's recent endorsement of Sharon's plan for a full pullout of Gaza, but only limited pullout of the West Bank.

It was my belief that Bush's "Road Map" supported the end of Israel's occupation in territories it obtained in the wars of 1967. That would include the West Bank. Has Bush changed his position on the West Bank, or am I misinformed?

It seems to me that there are 3 major areas of dispute to be resolved: 1. Both parties want to own Jerusalem; no concessions are being made here. 2. The international Right of Return for Palestinian refugees; no concessions are being made here. 3. Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank; Sharon has said he will pull out of the hotbed that is Gaza, and will remove 4 of 120 settlements from the West Bank.

This obviously won't fly, and has enraged the Islamic world. Personally, I think the primary goal of yesterday's press conference was a mutual, political back-scratching event for Bush and Sharon to try and drum up political support for each other. It seems a dangerous move considering our current standing in the Islamic world and seems likely to cause more violence and renewed hatred.

I know a lot of people think of Palestinians as nothing more than terrorists who don't deserve their homeland returned. But I don't think that anyone can dispute the fact that this has gone on too long, and that it's in the world's best interests for it to be resolved.

Any thoughts?

[spyder913]

I think they need to come to some kind of comprimise, because it's not going to get any better without one.

[Eiru]

I'll be honest: I'm confused over the whole pullout issue. I read about it earlier this month and was reading that many Palastinians are up in arms because the pullout 'subverts the peace process'. Quite frankly, I'm still not sure how a unilateral Israeli pullout of the Gaza Strip negatively affects the Palastinians unless the pullout signifies that the Israelis aren't budging on any other consessions. There is also the security issue. With the pullout of Israeli troops, Is the PA able to police the Strip effectively.

Other than that, the whole place gives me a headache.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Well it's a step in the right direction. Unfortuantly Israel has some pretty significant settlements in the west bank, more than just a trailer on the hill.

Sharon faces turmoil at home, if he did a full blown pullout from the west bank, than Israel might wind up with a totally radical PM what won't budge on anything. Hell some settlers fought tooth and nail to keep a few trialers on a hillside, imagine the fight when it's a full blown settlement with homes.

The Palestinians are very poor at diplomancy. Their refusal to try and comprimise isn't helping their cause. Instead of being steadfast on their removal, they should ask for some territory in exchange for it.

Swifty

[Hammer]

I think it's a big ole cluster fuck and there's nothing we can do about it. Personally, I think GWB's initial policy was correct. Stay the hell out of it and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe after Arafat is dead there will be Palestinian that you can actually negotiate with in good faith. I have no love for Bill Clinton but it's my opinion that he did every thing you possibly could do to solve the problem and Arafat wouldn't take the deal. I can't imagine how bad it must suck to be on either side at this point.

[]LoL[Harm]

In my more "militant, extremist darker days" I had nothing but love for the Palestinians. A people without an army, without power who have no say in their own destiny found a way to gather a voice. If you were in a situation where your people were being oppressed, what would you do? Would you kill those oppressing you? Would you destroy their food supply? Would you stay quiet and watch as they settle into your land, as your neighbors “move away” suddenly and the week after an Israeli family moves in?

No normally you would attack the enemies army. But they have weapons that make yours seem as effective as throwing stones at a mountain; and security that defies conventional warfare. What do you do? Back then I believed you fought anyway you could. You poison their water supply, you poison their food supply, you bomb their populace, you put fear into their hearts and make them regret oppressing you, regret the hardships they have inflicted on you. Make them pay.

But I was a heartless fuck, and shortsighted. Those tactics do not work. They only enrage those you attack and corrupt generations of people with hate and fear.

The real key to defeating a greater power in this age is to gain international sympathy. And you do not do that by killing innocents; that silences the voice you need. This image will show you a much louder voice, one that is heard for decades and beyond.


http://www.soliloquist.net/cgi-bin/archives/viet.jpg

Not that I am suggesting this action literally, I'm just indicating there are better ways.

[Tammarion]

My take on GWB's support is that he figures that 1) a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, and 2) that Palestinian attacks on Israel will end when hell freezes over or the last one is dead.

Sharon's problems in doing anything is that recent history is showing that anytime they pull out of an area, the arabs claim it as a victory on the road to a Israel-less world - and move up the goal markers. Take Lebadon: Israel pulls back to the UN-recognized 1967 border, Hezbolla throws a party, and says that the some farms in the Golan Heights belongs to them, and starts lobbing bombs again.

The Western fallacy in supporting Palistinians is in assuming they are willing to recognize Israels right to exist. So far, they don't.

Keep in mind that "Whats mine is mine, and whats your's is negotiable" has only one logical conclusion.

[Rooster]

I agree with you Tamm.

I have a feeling that both sides should duke it out while the rest of the world covers their eyes - cause it won't be pretty :(

[Tammarion]

But we know thats not gonna happen - I figure another decade or so of this low level bloodshed before another chance approaching a permanent solution comes up. The last one being when the Israel PM got killed, and the looney factions in the Knesset took a beating.

If the palestinians grabbed the chance, we probably would be on a road to peace. But these chances only come once per generation - now we just have to wait for the next time :(

Compared the bodycounts being racked up in Africa, there really isn't the kind of deaths that would encourage anything permanent.

[Boom]

This will only end when one side is dead. Its aweful. I was able to come up with a solution to the gay marriage thing and the gun control thing but I don't have an answer for this one.

[Eiru]

AhHA! THIS explains the issue. My confusion over this has evaporated now.

"The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so central to U.S. diplomacy in the region that it cannot help affecting every other policy imperative, including Iraq. Many Arabs, including Iraqis, initially looked upon the U.S. as an honest broker, but its reputation has gradually been sullied. The U.S., for instance, had long opposed the aggressive Israeli colonization of the West Bank and Gaza as an obstacle to a full and fair settlement with the Palestinians. On April 14, however, Bush met with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Washington and, breaking with longstanding U.S. policy, acquiesced in the permanent annexation by Israel of large swathes of the West Bank. In other words, as of this week, the Bush administration has endorsed the seizure of the land of one party by another in an international dispute."

From: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/16/israel/index.html

But once again, it just points out that the place is still a freakin mess.

[Hammer]

I'm afraid boom is correct.

[Eiru]

See, that's why I answered strongly disagree with the 'eye for an eye' question.

[Jammer]

See, that's why I answered strongly disagree with the 'eye for an eye' question.

Wait until I'm done poking you in the eye before you answer that one. ;)

Jammer

[Eiru]

Haha! Well it would be different if it was you, Jamm!

:D

[Allison]

Nyuk nyuk nyuk ...

[Badger]

Im still trying to figure out why everyone says Israel is "occupying" land taken during the 1967 war. You cant occupy land taken as spoils of war.

Israel was attacked and whooped some Arab ass. The international community gave Israel that land and the damn Arabs refuse to let them alone.

Fair game if you ask me. Israel should unload a can of whoop-ass on them terrorists and anyone helping them, AKA Egypt and Syria.

[Allison]

Im still trying to figure out why everyone says Israel is "occupying" land taken during the 1967 war. ... The international community gave Israel that land and the damn Arabs refuse to let them alone.


Lol, when did the international community give Israel The West Bank? I must have missed that one.

[Eiru]

A slightly depressing analysis of the Sharon "Peace" plan, why Bush's approval was so important for Sharon, and what this might mean for peace in the region:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/17/palestine/index.html