The proponents of the settlement enterprise often argue for a need of the settlements as a geopolitical security measure, and indeed was this once a legitimate reason. However, in present time, when Israel has agreed upon a two-state solution, there is no morally acceptable reason to keep on building in Jewish settlements until we know which settlements will be evacuated or not. Especially not for the reason of "natural growth". If my children one day want a house, they cannot demand that there automatically will be a house for them in Kiryat Tivon, so why on earth would it be so for people living on land that is not even Israeli yet - if it will ever be.
Then the settlers claim the unfairness in not halting constructions for the Palestinians, but as I see it there is one fundamental difference. There are no Arab cities or villages in the West Bank that risk being evacuated in order to be annexed by Israel, whereas all the Jewish settlements in the West Bank are disputed until the day the final border has been drawn. Every inch that does not contain Jewish settlements (plus of course the settlements that will be evacuated), will become Palestinian territory in their future state - so why can the Palestinians not build on that land?
7 comments:
What an absurd argument.There are a large number of Arabs currently living in Israel. There are whole towns entirely populated by Arabs. Why then must the West Bank become entirely Arab. The reason the Palestinians do not have their own state is that they decided to not accept the Peace Treaty of 1948 and instead started a war. Let them settle for less now so they will understand that there consequences to their aggression.
Where should border be drawn? Abbas is asking for the 1967 borders which means that the old city of Jerusalem would no longer belong to Israel - an impossible thought.
A-K, it is OK with me if the settlers in the West Bank would like to stay and live in a Palestinian state, just like Arabs live in Israel, but that is not really what they request, right? They simply want to make Swiss cheese out of the territory to disable the formation of a Palestinian state. Then it does not matter whether the Palestinians would accept them, or not, but nevertheless, considering how many of the settlers are behaving, I can definitely understand that they are not welcome to stay in a Palestinian state. My image is not as simple as yours, "They said no, now deal with it". The kids that grow up today had nothing to do with the 1948 deal and they deserve a life without occupation. I would be angry too if I lived under their conditions.
SC, if you ask me, I think that they should get as much land as possible beyond the green line, and I believe that East Jerusalem have to be handed over to the Palestinians, and that the Old City needs some special arrangements. If the settlers want to be the salt of the earth - move to the Negev...
A one-state solution is not an option I will even consider, since it would be the last nail in the coffin of the Jewish majority. Then what? Isn't two states side by side better than a new Diaspora?
A two state solution- definately, almost everyone agrees on that. The question is where to draw the border. The settlers probably wouldn't care to live in Palestine since many of them have their own kind of law-system...
I don't think that the PA would use silk gloves on the settler bullies if they were under their rule... ;)
Jojo, can you check somehow (compare IP addresses if possible; I can check with my computer savvy son too) if there is another A-K Roth who commented? Same initials or using mine? I do not recall making that comment at all. It is not in my style; I wouldn't call your argument absurd. However, I also believe that the West Bank should not by definition be made judenrein. I don't agree with the settlement policy, bosättningspolitiken, men hävdar judars liksom andras rätt att skaffa mark lagligt och bo där de vill.
What I usually also argue is that avväpning av terrorgrupperna (deweaponizing - can't find the right word just now - the terror groups) must be a demand to PA for peace talks in good faith to progress.
A-K, I was a bit surprised by your language to be honest. I remember you as more well-spoken than that. ;)
However, it is written from your profile, and that is all that I can see, so maybe someone else has intruded.
Post a Comment