Land of Paradoxes

[Scorpio2000]

Land of paradoxes
By Aluf Benn

The first paradox: The Arabs' traditional position on the territories occupied in 1967 was that there was no need for negotiations, dialogue or diplomatic recognition. The Arabs demanded that Israel withdraw from Sinai, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza, implementing UN Security Council Resolution 242 and thus ending the matter. Israel is the one that demanded a handshake, joint photos and waving flags in exchange for evacuating territories. That's how the "land for peace" formula was born. Anwar Sadat came to Jerusalem and got Sinai. Hafez Assad refused to come and was left without the Golan.

Now the roles have reversed. Israel wants to get out of most of the West Bank and thus implement Resolution 242, whose English-language version called for "withdrawal from territories." Ehud Olmert does not want anything from the Arabs in exchange for the mountain ridges: no peace, no love letters and no summits. But now the Arabs are the ones conditioning the withdrawal on negotiations and joint photographs. Just look at how Mahmoud Abbas is pleading for a meeting with Olmert and at the efforts Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah are making to host such a summit. Strange, no?

The second paradox: For decades, the Israeli occupation and the establishment of dozens of West Bank settlements were depicted as obstacles to peace and as very serious threats to the security of the region, if not the entire world. Generations of diplomats, political activists and intellectuals campaigned to end the occupation and dismantle the settlements, justifying Palestinian terror as a war of liberation against the land theft, the checkpoints and the humiliations. A coalition of Arab nations, non-aligned countries and EU members stood like an international wall blocking efforts by Israel to justify its control and settlement of the territories on historic and legal grounds.


The pressure worked, and Israel was persuaded. Now it wants to withdraw from 90 percent of the West Bank and evacuate 70,000 settlers after proving its seriousness with the disengagement from Gaza. So what do the Palestinians and their supporters around the world do? They say no to Olmert. No. Don't move. Stay in Itamar and Elon Moreh and Psgaot until we allow you to leave. Mohammed Dahlan is even threatening war if the convergence takes place. What's going on here? Is it possible that just as Israel understood that the territories and settlements are a burden and not an asset, the Palestinians don't want them?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/729859.html

[Tom Joad]

1. This is a joke. Get out of the West Bank?

Implement Resolution 242?

They have built permanent settlements on Palestinian land, many of these taking water from Palestinians, and many settlers are attacking violently Palestinian residents.
They have built the annexation wall to take Palestinian land and its most fertile farmland.
They are taking land in the Jordan Valley, and making life miserable for Palestinians living there.

This is implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 ?!?

This is nothing but the same old ethnic-cleansing regime that has been in place since 1948. The whole idea is to minimize the land Palestinians live on (since there is no way simply to eliminate them entirely, despite the outspoken wishes of a few), and maximize the land Israelis have control over.

International law requires that land not be acquired by force. International law prohibits the transfer the civilian residents of the occupying nation to the occupied territory.

The "convergance plan" will only remove a small fraction of the settlers.

implementation of Security Council Resolution 242. That would be a good start. We are no way near that.

[Scorpio2000]

2. "International Law" only seems to apply to one side

"International law requires that land not be acquired by force."

Have you forgotten that little 1948 dust up?
The 1967 war? How did Israel come to possess the "west bank"?
Who possessed it before Israel? (hint: it certainly wasn't the "Palestinians")

[Behind the Aegis]

3. You seem to think ONLY Israel should follow UN R 242...

...do the PA not have to follow this 'plan?'

[pelsar]

4. intl law...

does intl law say ANYTHING about missles flying from gaza into sederot?.....does intl law say ANTHING about the rights of the Palestenian gay community?...doe intl law say ANYTHING about Palestenains having some responsability toward their own and their neighbors?

only the fool looks at the present and not the results of actions.....a "free Palestenain state today...is well.....gaza....I guess some want to expand the chaos and have kassams landing on additional israeli cities......and then...I wouldnt wish upon my worst enemy what the palestenain citizen can expect in return...and i for one will will be part of that.....