Monday, May 10, 2010

Israeli settlements in an Eventual Soveriegn Palestine

Victor has been having a discussion withHussein Ibish about Israeli settlers remaining in Palestine once there is such a state. (If there is, might be more accurate, though I'm certainly in favor if it can be done). Surprisingly, or perhaps not, Ibish and Victor both seem to agree that leaving settlers to be citizens of the Palestinians state would be a fine thing.

I'm theoretically agnostic, but practically against. Were there ever to be a free and democratic Palestine that operated along, say, Belgian lines, or Danish ones: fine, let there be some Jews there, too. But there's no chance of there being such a state anytime this century, as far as I can see, so it's not relevant. Bar that possibility, what's much more likely is just another Arab state. Can anyone imagine Jews living freely in an Arab state, as they can in the UK, or even post-junta Argentina? No? I didn't think so.


Anonymous said...

I think in an ideal world it would be a precondition for any negotiations for the Palestinians to guarantee unequivocally the same status and protection Arab Israelis have for Jews in the West-Bank plus doing something about the indoctrination of their children and their TV-shows - to prove they mean it they could re-name those streets and football fields.
- I know they are entitled to free speech but what about hate speech and outright lies.

and before talks with Hamas they have as a minimum to let the Red Cross visit Gilad Shalit REGULARLY

whatever doesn't meet those criteria is measuring Israel by different standards.

I know I'm being unrealistic but somehow I feel it's alright to remember what would everywhere else be considered "normal"

as to settlements I recommend again this guy i.e. when the IDF says it's OK then and only then ...

last but not least I guess Obama is steering towards an either/or thumb screw for Israel i.e. atomic weapons or settlements - not both

4infidels said...

The discussion you mentioned gives Hussein Ibish a chance to look magnanimous and more reasonable than he likely deserves. That Ibish is one of the more responsible pro-Palestinian activist leaders says far more about how hateful that movement is than about the good-faith in which Ibish engages those on the opposite side.

Ibish is either dishonest or clueless if he thinks that Jews could remain in an Arab Palestinian state and have any reasonable chance of staying alive. There would be many amoung both the Islamic masses and the committed terrorist groups that would slit the throat of any Jew they could get there hands on, and plenty of police and security force members who would happily stand aside and let that happen, or even partake in the killing and the spoils.

I find that watching Ibish disengenously debate on TV is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard. I can't really explain his technique, but if you watch any of his appearance, you'll know what I mean.

He's an articulate, polished, poised and media savvy anti-Israel advocate, who avoids some of the more spewing some of the more anti-Semitic rhetoric of his fellow travelers. At the end of the day, that still makes him an anti-Israel advocate.

Hussein Ibish? More like Hussein Nebbish!

Anonymous said...

here's a podcast where Hussein Ibish seems to show up quite regularly i.e. 8 times during the last year
Jeffrey Goldberg had him also twice just now.
Anyway I will trust him only if I think he is honest about what I call misbehaviour when I feel like being polite
- he doesn't have to and shouldn't sneer at his people but he also shouldn't do the "it is all due to their being victimized" stance

NormanF said...

Its time to redraw the border and put the Jew-hating Arabs of the Little Triangle on the other side. Let them live with their fellow Palestinians. Israel will take in exchange the Jews and equivalent land in Yesha as compensation.

Call it a 1-1 population exchange. Its just and fair.

Victor said...

Silke, 4Infidel, NormanF, check my site in a day or so. I'm going to be addressing many of the issues you and Yaacov raise, some of which I've already raised with him publicly.

The only point I'd like you to consider for now is this: if Jews won't be allowed to peacefully live IN a Palestinian state, how could we expect that they would be allowed to peacefully live NEXT to a Palestinian state?

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir, as none of you are great 2-staters anyway, though you seem to default to this non-solution solution.

Anyway, stay tuned.

Victor said...

...raised with him privately, not publicly.

Anonymous said...

"if Jews won't be allowed to peacefully live IN a Palestinian state, how could we expect that they would be allowed to peacefully live NEXT to a Palestinian state?"
I think that's a great way to put it - so as far as I'm concerned you'll be preaching to the convinced albeit probably for different reasons - but nonetheless I'll be watching you ;-)
but shouldn't you concentrate on that beautiful heart throb of yours? ;-)

4infidels said...


One of the most brilliant and incisive lines ever regarding the conflict:

"...if Jews won't be allowed to peacefully live IN a Palestinian state, how could we expect that they would be allowed to peacefully live NEXT to a Palestinian state?"

And there you have it in a nutshell. There is no solution to the conflict, i.e. the Arab/Muslim jihad against Israel. The only answer for Israel is to maintain overwhelming military superiority over its enemies, and not give up any further concessions to those that have no intention of living in peace with the Jews. If there is no solution, then it doesn't make sense to weaken your defenses by giving up land to an enemy bent on your destruction.


I also wonder why Israel, when asked to make confidence building gestures (like releasing terrorist murders from prison or freezing building in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, doesn't respond that Israel will only do so if there is no incitement in Palestinian media, mosques and schools. The Palestinians would never go for that and then Israel has called the world on its peace-processing B.S. If the Palestinians did go for it, that would be the only condition under which I would even consider moving forward with the "peace-process." If the Arabs actually did such a thing, it would over time change the attitudes in their society and might even ultimately open the way for peaceful coexistence. It is time that Bibi demands reciprocity. If Obama can't stop the Palestinians from preaching hatred daily, then they have no intention of making peace and Obama has no influence to bring about "change" in the Middle East.

Of course this is all a dream as the jihad against Israel is as essential to Palestinian identity as blue is to the sky. But at least the Jews would regain some self-respect and show the emperor Obama has no clothes by demanding that the Arabs do the one thing in their control that would signal an interest in moving toward peace.

Anonymous said...

I personally think that the most worrying thing about Ibish'es post is his response to the question about Palestinian Arab towns that are located in Israel, but adjacent to the green line, to be incorporated into a future Palestinian state.
I think that's the single most important topic, and I was disappointed that this point wasn't challenged.

I'm a typical centralist moderate Israeli. As most Israelis, for years now I was more than willing to go with the two state solution. I was willing to go back to nearly all of pre-67 lines, and live peacefully with an independent Palestinian state.
However, as most Israelis, I believe that the problem is that while WE are willing to go with this solution, the other side doesn't really seek out this solution, but rather uses it as a stage in its "final solution" strategy.

And this question touches this very issue. Any reasonable person in his right mind would assume that the Palestinians would have been thrilled at the idea of Israel willingly giving up '48 lines in order for Palestine to get territories that have as many of their Arab brethren as possible. That's the whole point of the 2-state solution, isn't it?
Israeli Arabs are considered Palestinians by themselves and the PA. They strive to create an independent Palestine. Why the hell wouldn't they want their villages to be part of Palestine?
They don't have to give up a single thing. They get their own land to be part of Palestine. Any reasonable person would think so, right? Can someone please explain to me how is that against their interests?

Ibishe's answer is very very worrying. He doesn't even try to explain why he's against that. He just calls it an "extremely dangerous idea". WHY? He doesn't explain why he thinks this idea is so dangerous.
Isn't that the whole idea of the 2 state solution? An independent Jewish state living peacefully side-by-side next to an independent Palestine?
He continues to note that this idea is "dear to the heart of the current Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman". So? That's his pretext? If Lieberman think it's a good idea than it's probably bad?
Where's the rationale here?!

He even goes on to say that this problems will emerge if "the Israelis try to offload some significantly populated areas, in which case I think the Palestinians would do well to insist that this is not acceptable".
WHY?! He doesn't explain, and that worries me.
And it worries me because the only reasonable conclusion from that is that it's yet one more proof that the Palestinians want a Palestinian state next to Israel as phase 1 AND a large Palestinian minority inside Israel that within a few short years will again lead to Jewish-Arab problem that will lead to the destruction of Israel as the final solution.

I think this question is the single most important one to be answered. PLEASE try and get a reasonable straight answer to this question.
Thank you.