NEWS: No Mourning for Greater Israel

POLITICS: No Mourning for Greater Israel

I briefly felt sympathy for the Israeli settlers forced to evacuate Gaza and some of the northern West Bank settlements. But it didn’t last long. They should never, ever, have moved there in the first place. Anyone with sense should have known the Palestinians who lived there already would need to be made citizens of equal standing in a new larger Israel if Israelis would not eventually withdraw from the territories acquired in the war of ’67.

The Greater Israel movement in no way excuses the Greater Palestine movement to abolish the state of Israel “from the river to the sea.” Likewise, the Greater Palestine movement can not excuse Greater Israel. I am not playing a moral equivalency game here. Far better to build a house where it does not belong than blow up a cafe or a bus. But it is not necessary for the Israeli settler movement to be as morally bad as Hamas or Islamic Jihad for the movement to still be morally bad.

In a perfect world, both “greater” movement would be defeated simultaneously. But the world is far from perfect, as it always has been, and Palestinian society is more dysfunctional and corrupt than Israeli society. So the Greater Israel movement is being defeated before the Greater Palestine movement, if only because the intifada has been largely walled off from Israel proper. (Critics of Israel’s security fence should acknowledge that it is the very thing that makes Israeli withdrawal even possible.)

Leon Weiseltier in the New Republic says those who support Israel’s right to exist and its right to defend itself should not shed any tears.

Let the calm, polite, reasoned debate commence...

this thread should be interesting with my breakfast in a few hours...

The Palestinians should move to Jordan. They lost "their" land fair and square.

[Edited on Aug 26, 2005 2:55PM]

Didn't they already try that once?

Michael_J_Totten how many times are you going to post the same discussion in diffrent forms.

from wikipedia

[Edited on Aug 26, 2005 by hadees]

Whatever. The Israeli's gave the land back. They took it at spoils of war when they kicked the holy living shit out of their neighbors who thought it would be a good idea to fuck with them.

Here's a tip to the friends of of the Palestinians who put them in this fscked position to begin with.... find something better to worry about than what is going on in Isreal. You've got the Great Satan there in the West... focus on them instead. Oh wait....

Why is "their" in quotes? Is that meant to imply sarcasm? Because I don't understand where sarcasm applies. It belonged to them. The were involved in a conflict, and then occupied.

Regardless of your opinion on the whom has the moral high ground in this affair, the land at one point belonged to them. Not even the government of Isreal denies this. Yet you apparently seem to. Why?

Yea take that Palestine! Although I'm pretty sure it was their land long ago, at least before we created Israel. And I didn't think the whole "spoils of war" argument existed anymore, what with the obviously bad implications of any occupation, ever. Glad to see some elightened souls though.

I once again wish to remind every one of the enduring legacy of 20th English Diplomacy, courtesy of Churchill and David Lloyd George:

1. Northern Ireland and Ireland
2. India and Pakistran
3. Israel and Palestain.

Thank you for the wonderful partitions, Cocksucker.s

They gave Gaza back. They haven't returned Golan Heights, or the West bank.

Do you even understand the nature of the 1967 war? There was a build up of activity in along the borders of Isreal in the weeks to the war. It is still disputed over whether the Arab alliance attacked first or Isreal attacked pre-emptively. So no, nobody just "decided" to fuck with anybody.

What exactly are you talking about here? Isreal was a state created by Britian and then supported by the US during the cold war, partially as a means of keeping a presence in the middle east.

By focusing on Isreal they are focusing on western policy and interference in the middle east.

I don't think you really have an concept about the history or the present factors involved in this conflict at all.

the comments you have made are asinine and partially incoherent. You'd probably want to even remotely educate yourself on the matter before speaking. Just some friendly advice.

Exactly, thats who i blame for this mess the British and Arab nations who invaded.

[Edited on Aug 26, 2005 by hadees]

Michael, why do you continue to make veiled apologies for the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1967?

[Edited on Aug 26, 2005 5:37PM]

Ah right. Let me go read a book or 20 on the subject. Ok. Done.

I agree that both dreams of a "Greater" should die.

There are no innocent hands in that situation.

I'm extremely hopeful that the current Intifada will come to an end in the next year or so.

In reality, I have pretty strong doubts of the ability of the Palestinian 'state' to be able to function in any way/shape/form.

In exchange for what, from Palestine?

The jews have been treated terribly in history and lets not forget it was their land until the Romans began relocating them so they were in smaller groups and cause less problems. The pala's lost their land fair and square..... who u gonna side with, their both under-dogs.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone here but I think that the only reason the US is even involved is to sell weapons and not just in that area of the world either.

Its easier said than done, but I think the only proper solution is for Israel to admit what happened in the past, and for the palesinians to accept and move on.

wow. Then maybe Greece should invade turkey.

That analogy doesn't work.

In 1948, Israel fought a war against several Arab countries. As a result of the war, Egypt took control of previously ownerless Gaza, where both Jews and Arabs had been living. All the Jews left (forcibly). Then in 1967, Israel won a war against the same Arab countries and took Gaza. However, they did not annex it and make it part of Israel. Rather, it remained a disputed territory administered by israel. The population was all Arab, because it had been ruled by non-Jew friendly egyptians. So Israel allowed people to move to parts of Gaza where no Palestinians were living. Keep in mind, Palestinians have never had a country called Palestine, there is no palestinian currency or palestinian olympic team or UN representative. But, it's convenient to refer to the Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank as Palestinians. So Israelis start moving in and building "settlements." That term makes it sound like they set up a few tents or something, but they built homes and businesses. A lot of Israel's cattle, wild flowers, and most of its dairy products come from the farms in the Israeli settlements in Gaza. There were about 8000 Israelis living there.
So last year Sharon gets the brilliant idea to ethnically cleanse Gaza and make Jews who'd been living there for 40 years leave. Why? As part of a peace treaty? If it were, I would support it fully. But Sharon expects nothing in return. He did not even negotiate for a quiet border or anything. He did not make an agreement that if there is violence from Gaza, he can go back in. Nothing. He just got out. It's a horrible plan. All troops are leaving. Troops there round up palestinians and gather intelligence, can't do that anymore. And the philadelphi route, which connects Egypt to Gaza and through which Egyptians smuggle weapons into Gaza, was heavily guarded by Israelis. No longer able to do that. Sharon, I think, has two ideas. One is that this will help him gain favor with Europe and the US. Everyone is applauding this move. Two weeks ago he became the first Israeli PM to be invited to France. Europe loves a nice meaningless appeasement. And second, he thinks if he gives up these settlements now, he'll be able to hold onto more West Bank settlements if peace is ever made. But that's bass-ackwards, because now he has fewer chips to bargain with. I mean, imagine you're going to negotiate a deal. You tell the guy before you sit down that you'll give him $100 up front, before any negotiations begin. Then you sit down to negotiate. You say, "I don't have to give you anything else, I gave you $100 already." Since it wasn't part of any deal, he'll just laugh at you. It's a bad move, not to mention how horrible it looks on tv to see Jews beating up other Jews.
That is Gaza 101

I don't think you appreciate the long-term gains Israel will gain from this comparitively smallish stategic loss. If this doesn't work out, how hard do you think it would be for Israel to re-take the area?

It's not nearly as simple as you make it sound. This isn't about chips for negotiation. This is about putting your best face on and setting yourself up for the position of moral high ground. If Abbas and the PLA fail to bring Hamas/etc. to heel, Sharon (or whoever succeeds him) will be able to say that it was all in their court.

In exchange for not having millions of Palestinians inside their borders anymore?

Don't anyone read too much into this analogy, but if you somehow end up getting awarded your neighbor's pit bull as a court settlement, sure it's yours by right. But if the damn thing won't stop mauling your kids, maybe you'd rather give it back even if your neighbor doesn't pay a cent for its return.

That's pretty much what the news is. Facts, and then the writer's opinion of those facts.

Read the FAQ.