Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israel launches massive search for three youths feared kidnapped in West Bank

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    So Israeli soldiers would patrol the inner border between the two Jordanian provinces, East Bank and West Bank? Watch towers, barbed wire fences and Israeli military patrols? Israeli settlements could remain? I'm assuming under the protection of Israeli guns. Frankly, I don't see how a single Israeli soldier can be allowed any jurisdictional rights anywhere in Jordan (including the West Bank in this scenario). Is the early warning system for Iranian missiles? Perhaps a joint Jordanian/Israeli early warning system on Jordanian soil is reasonable.

    Israel must be stripped of jurisdictional rights in non-Israeli territory if she's to be secure in the region. The irony of this is deafening. Frankly, it faces no existential threat from any entity bordering her, just painful nuisances. Hell, even if it did, it's got the greatest friend a country has ever had, probably ever. One that can and will guarantee Israel will never remain conquered for long, assuming that could ever happen.
    It is true that Israel faces no existential threats at this time and its relative position in the region is the strongest that it has ever been. However as Zraver correctly pointed out, Israel would never allow a situation where a foreign power would have the right to militarize the region outside Jerusalem. Moreover as the recent episode in Gaza has shown even a few rockets could shut down Israel's main International airport for a couple of days and the threat of that happening is even greater if a group like Hamas took over parts of the West Bank that are even in closer proximity to the airport. I don't see how it is realistic from Israel's point of view to relinquish its Security rights in the West Bank in the near term.

    I do agree that it will be devilishly hard to work out a scenario where Israeli troops are patrolling a region in a foreign country. Tanks and heavy weapons are easy to monitor, but how can Israel control the movement of people, and potential terrorists without check points along the border of the West Bank; that would be quite unacceptable to any sovereign country. Perhaps an alternative could be the West Bank being a fully autonomous state except for a Customs union with Jordan, a common currency, free movement of people.

    I suggested that the settlers could remain because uprooting them by force as experienced in the past has proven extremely difficult politically for Israel and any attempt to undertake a forcible removal of tens of thousands of settlers in the West Bank could tear Israel apart. However, if the West Bank did pass out of Israeli sovereignty (minus security), most of the settlers would voluntarily leave as they would be no longer able to live their privileged lives as Colonial masters. The few that remain, in their gated communities , even if they are protected by the IDF, don't really do so much harm.
    Last edited by InExile; 08 Aug 14,, 08:52.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by InExile View Post
      Moreover as the recent episode in Gaza has shown even a few rockets could shut down Israel's main International airport for a couple of days and the threat of that happening is even greater if a group like Hamas took over parts of the West Bank that are even in closer proximity to the airport. I don't see how it is realistic from Israel's point of view to relinquish its Security rights in the West Bank in the near term.
      So Israel fears about Ben Gurion airport's security needs trumps the Palestinian right to freedom? Not in my book. Israel can move the airport if it's so concerned. And the Palestinians in the West Bank have been amazingly restrained. Any rockets these past 10 years been launched at Israel from anywhere in the West Bank? Nope.

      Originally posted by InExile View Post
      Tanks and heavy weapons are easy to monitor, but how can Israel control the movement of people, and potential terrorists without check points along the border of the West Bank;
      Why does Israel have to man checkpoints on foreign soil? Jordanians (or Palestinians) aren't up to the task?

      If and when foreign terrorists from Yemen stream across the Jordanian border into the West Bank, and attack Israel in waves, then Israel can deal with the security issue then. But it has no right to impinge on Palestinian sovereignty on the off-chance it mighthappen. Until then Israel will just have to do with crossing its fingers and praying.

      Originally posted by InExile View Post
      I suggested that the settlers could remain because uprooting them by force as experienced in the past has proven extremely difficult politically for Israel and any attempt to undertake a forcible removal of tens of thousands of settlers in the West Bank could tear Israel apart.
      Is Israel that fragile? Well, it brought this predicament on itself frankly. Israel can keep some of those settlements directly adjacent to Israel and swap them for equivalent land (Abbas has affirmed that he'd support this). But all those settlements deep in the West Bank, those gated communities, those scores of outposts, Ariel too? They've all got to go. And if it tears Israel apart politically, then so be it. Israel will survive. And I can guarantee Gaza, and the West Bank have already been through worse. Those settlers that want to remain can, but they will have to put up with being under Palestinian jurisdiction, subject to Palestinian laws and Palestinian police, not to mention Palestinian zoning requirements (no Jewish roads, no off-limit areas to non-Jews). But you're right, most will probably leave anyway.

      A secure, sovereign, prospering, territorially intact Palestine, without an enormous list of grievances, would be such a powerful force for peace, way more than all the Israeli border checkpoints could ever accomplish.
      Last edited by Goatboy; 08 Aug 14,, 09:44.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
        Israel has had decades to build up the Palestinians to get them ready for statehood or inclusion as Israeli Arabs and has not done it. Mass repression might weaken Hamas in the short term but does nothing for the long term problems caused by the occupation. The long decades light of leaked documents, court cases and statements by Israeli officials make it clear the misery in Gaza and West Bank and stunting of the civil society infrastructure is by design.
        Let us not forget history.

        West Bank and Gaza were in Jordan and Egypt respectively from 1948 to 1967, and they did nothing to build up the Palestinian state.
        Now that the Palestinians have their own "goverment" in both these territories, they must concentrate on development and growth.

        War is futile for them (Palestinians), but their groups are too blind in their hatred to understand this.

        Cheers!...on the rocks!!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
          I've heard of alls fair in love and war, but I don't believe it. That's a recipe for barbarism.
          Like I stated , war is just that ,not queensbury ,its kill or be killed . And to reiterate to your statement ref concrete / wood etc , cant be classed as weapons , OH YES THEY CAN . Anything that can be used to defeat an enemy is a weapon .
          Last edited by tankie; 08 Aug 14,, 11:16.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lemontree View Post
            Let us not forget history.

            West Bank and Gaza were in Jordan and Egypt respectively from 1948 to 1967, and they did nothing to build up the Palestinian state.
            Now that the Palestinians have their own "goverment" in both these territories, they must concentrate on development and growth.

            War is futile for them (Palestinians), but their groups are too blind in their hatred to understand this.
            Fatah in the West Bank recognized Israel and renounced violence- still no state, Bibi won't even stop settlement expansion. Internal Israeli documents and statements from leading Israelis show that Israel has no intention of Palestinian statehood no matter what the Palestinians do. Palestine should join the ICC and take Israel to task for the Crime of Apartheid, Violation of the 4th Geneva Conventions rule 130 prohibition on population transfers into an occupied territory and violation of Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

            Comment


            • Zraver,

              Let's suppose Pals do all that and win the case. Then what?
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                .
                I don't entirely disagree with your sentiments about Palestinian freedom and sovereignty. However, while I do loathe what Israel is currently doing in the occupied territories, I do think that Israel has legitimate security concerns and presence of Israeli troops in the West Bank, only to protect the borders and not inside Palestinian cities and towns is a reasonable short term compromise. Ofcourse the goal would be for the Palestinian state to be fully sovereign in time.

                Anyhow regardless of what either of us think, due to the unconditional support that Israel has from the US, it is unlikely that Israel is going to face any pressure to make any meaningful concessions in the near term. Even limited goals like the freezing of settlements and the removal of roadblocks and the presence of Israeli troops in Palestinian towns would require applying some coercion on Israel by the US, like withholding some aid, or abstaining a UN vote, actions that no US administration appears to have the political will to take.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                  Zraver,

                  Let's suppose Pals do all that and win the case. Then what?
                  The ICC could issue arrest warrants for the primary political and military actors. This means those individuals would not be allowed to travel because of fear of arrest. Even in states (US) that do not recognize the court do recognize interpol warrants. Further Isreal being found guilty of the Crime of Apartheid would be a PR nuclear bomb and almost certainly lead to sanctions at the national and multinational (EU) level which could cripple Isreal economy. This is why Isreal has been trying to intimidate the PA. Being labeled an Apartheid state would do more to undermine Isreal legitimacy as state than any other act.

                  Comment


                  • I wouldn't hold my breath about enforcing ICC rulings.
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by InExile View Post
                      I don't entirely disagree with your sentiments about Palestinian freedom and sovereignty. However, while I do loathe what Israel is currently doing in the occupied territories, I do think that Israel has legitimate security concerns and presence of Israeli troops in the West Bank, only to protect the borders and not inside Palestinian cities and towns is a reasonable short term compromise. Ofcourse the goal would be for the Palestinian state to be fully sovereign in time.
                      Ideally, you're right. A temporary Israeli security presence in the West Bank would be acceptable. But granting Israel the power to decide for itself when it's safe for the IDF patrols to cease? There's a trust problem here, and an ulterior motive problem


                      Anyhow regardless of what either of us think, due to the unconditional support that Israel has from the US, it is unlikely that Israel is going to face any pressure to make any meaningful concessions in the near term. Even limited goals like the freezing of settlements and the removal of roadblocks and the presence of Israeli troops in Palestinian towns would require applying some coercion on Israel by the US, like withholding some aid, or abstaining a UN vote, actions that no US administration appears to have the political will to take.

                      You know what really gets my goat (so to speak). It's bad enough that Israel has refused to suspend, or slow down the settlement construction as a reward for the relative peace in the West Bank these past 10 years, it's that Israel has actually, and loathsomely sped up settlement construction! Such arrogance. Such disrespect. Such a humiliating slap in Abbas' face.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                        I wouldn't hold my breath about enforcing ICC rulings.
                        An ICC ruling would pave the way for sanctions against Israel at the national and multinational level even if the US wont and blocks UN sanctions. It would also subject Israeli political and military leaders to arrest if they traveled outside the country- even to the US since the warrants would likely be issued by a country the US has an extradition treaty with. Finally it would make BDS nuclear powered. It is in Israel's interest to resolve Palestinian statehood and settlement removal now before it gets to the ICC.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          An ICC ruling would pave the way for sanctions against Israel at the national and multinational level even if the US wont and blocks UN sanctions. It would also subject Israeli political and military leaders to arrest if they traveled outside the country- even to the US since the warrants would likely be issued by a country the US has an extradition treaty with. Finally it would make BDS nuclear powered. It is in Israel's interest to resolve Palestinian statehood and settlement removal now before it gets to the ICC.
                          This is why I firmly believe that leaders like Netaneyahu place their ideology above their country's interest
                          "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            An ICC ruling would pave the way for sanctions against Israel at the national and multinational level even if the US wont and blocks UN sanctions. It would also subject Israeli political and military leaders to arrest if they traveled outside the country- even to the US since the warrants would likely be issued by a country the US has an extradition treaty with. Finally it would make BDS nuclear powered. It is in Israel's interest to resolve Palestinian statehood and settlement removal now before it gets to the ICC.

                            An ICC ruling on Israel? That'd make for some serious big font headlines on the front of every major newspaper the next morning.



                            a good article briefly outlining the pluses and minuses of Palestine's ICC threat. I found it particularly poignant that Maliki, the Palestinian foreign minister appears ready to accept an Israeli ICC counter-suit, since he feels the relative weight of legal grievances rests with the Palestinians.

                            Palestine's ICC Threat: Pluses and Minuses for Mahmoud Abbas | The National Interest Blog

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                              An ICC ruling would pave the way for sanctions against Israel at the national and multinational level even if the US wont and blocks UN sanctions. It would also subject Israeli political and military leaders to arrest if they traveled outside the country- even to the US since the warrants would likely be issued by a country the US has an extradition treaty with. Finally it would make BDS nuclear powered. It is in Israel's interest to resolve Palestinian statehood and settlement removal now before it gets to the ICC.
                              There is nothing that the State of Israel needs which USA can't supply.

                              But a huge PR victory for the Palestinians, symbolic sanctions from countries having nothing to lose and few derails for Israeli citizens there wpnt be any change on the ground for the Pals.

                              We know first hand how hard and obliging icc rulings are.

                              The paper ant the ink used to write them have more value.

                              All this rant applies of course only if DC continue the support.
                              Last edited by Doktor; 09 Aug 14,, 08:15.
                              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                                There is nothing that the State of Israel needs which USA can't supply.
                                Except a market.... The US is Israel's single largest trading partner for a single nation, but the EU as a whole is over half of Israel's trading volume. Israel loses the EU markets and its depression time for Israel. Losing German foreign aid and military sales would also cripple the IDF.

                                But a huge PR victory for the Palestinians, symbolic sanctions from countries having nothing to lose and few derails for Israeli citizens there wpnt be any change on the ground for the Pals.
                                Dissagree

                                We know first hand how hard and obliging icc rulings are.

                                The paper ant the ink used to write them have more value.

                                All this rant applies of course only if DC continue the support.[/QUOTE]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X