 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
I wouldn't bring up pre-1948 borders and who moved who out of where if I were you.
Jews were by far the minority even in most parts of Israel proper prior to 1948. The settlement activities are/were a barefaced attempt to assert ethnic supremacy over parts of militarily occupied land. |
So it's ok to move out minorities by force?
Hebron and Jaffa had thriving Jewish communities until the massacares of 1921 and 1929. After that, Jews left arab towns for Tel-Aviv.
Also there were Jewish settlements in Jerusalem, and around it, in Kyriat Arba iirc, and Gush Katif and such. They were all expelled during 1948 by the Jordanians.
Why is that any more morally acceptable, than fleeding or exiled Palestinians?
quote:
You had 30 years in the Occupied Territories and instead of planning an exit strategy you built settlement upon settlement until they now constitute 5% of Israel's population. |
We were planning a trading strategy. Since the starting point of the arabs was all the land of Israel, so called "colonization" of the west bank, lead them to reduce their immediate demands.
The territories however are a strategic assest for preventing attacks from Jordan and Iraq, and the high mountains allow for good placement of radars.
quote:
Israel claims that its millitary activities in the Territories are to prevent terrorist activities, and that once attacks against it stop it will begin good faith negotiations. In reality this works out to a stalling tactic, guaranteeing Israel's military presence in perpetuity. |
In reality it "works" to a stalling tactic because the Palestinians never stopped terrorising Israel.
When they agreed to stop, we pulled out in stages, for 7 years, even though the terror just increased in quantity and level. We agreed to be the bigger persons, and began leaving, without any proof on the ground of terrorist actions decreasing.
We proved the Palestinian claim, "leave and you will be left in peace" wrong. The less army we had in the territories, and the more self-control they got - the more terror came out of it.
Now it's their turn - they should stop terrorizing, while IDF is still there. Once terror comes to a very low level (I'm talking about attempt rate - not success rate. Even though the success rate in February was close to 0%, the attempts rate was extraordinarily high. This btw proves that IDF tactics work, by reducing the success rate to close to 0%.
quote:
Israel has taken a unilateralist stance when it comes to interventionism in the Occupied Territories. Very well, but this means it must also unilaterally move towards peace. It does not recognise the current PA as sovereign over its own territory, but continues to insist that its hands are tied until the PA changes its stance. |
This is again a matter of time scale.
From Sept 2000, until mid 2001, Israel did not target PA sovereignity , waiting for proof of PA taking action against terror. However, instead, proof came of the opposite - the PA was implicit in terror. Thus, Israel finally took matters into it's hands, successfully lowering terrorist success rates.
Once the PA chooses a stance that is against terror, we will deny it of it's sovereignity. Would you consider retaining a country's sovereignity while it was attacking you?
Your claim can also be solved in a different way. Instead of waiting for the enemous leadership to change on it's own - we could, like the allies in germany, install a puppet leader for several years.
quote:
If you do not recognise your negotiating partner then you cannot harangue them for failing their obligations. |
You again ignore the time scale.
Since we have stopped recognising the PA, we do not expect them to follow their obligations. Infact, we stopped recognising them exactly because they did everything but following thier obligations.
But until late 2001, we recognised the PA as a negociating partner, and demanded them to follow the obligations. Obviously we can't ignore the reality, and wait forever. After a while we took matters into our own hands.
Now we are saying that we are willing to withdraw - assuming we can get a new trustworthy leadership, coming from within - we do not wish to install a puppet government. We are willing to give them back sovereignity - just not to Arafat and his friends.
Just like you wouldn't have dreamed of leaving Hitler in power, after Germany's defeat in WWII.
quote:
You've failed for 30 years to accomplish your stated aims of withdrawing from the Territories and guaranteeing the safety and security of Israel's borders, despite having the absolute supremacy of forces in the area. Forgive the rest of the world when we're skeptical as to your motivations. |
Actually we've successfully guarantied the safety and security of Israeli borders, until 1993, when we began to withdraw, and transfered executive power to the PLO.
I agree that we failed - because we trusted a body (PLO) who is an enemy to us, and used cunning to gain political and military advantages, for a planned second Intifada (2000).
You can't judge our actions by ignoring our intentions and the reality that forces us to react.
The fact is, that when we had control over the territories (pre 1993) there were no suicide bombers in Israel.
The fact is, that when we regained military control (but not civil), the success rate of suicide bombers dropped a hundred times.
(Compare 3 terrorist acts in 3 months, [Jan-Mar 2003], to and average of 3 terrorist acts per day [Jan-Mar 2002] before Defensive Shield.)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2003 10:44
Attachment: 
|
