Perhaps, but are you saying that Israeli treatment of Palestinians is above criticism?
No, not at all. I do say that Thomas (like most of the non-Palestinian Arabs) doesn't give two straws for the Palestinians. His arguments are all motivated by hatred of Jews, and are generally fictitious to boot.
I am no fan of the settlement policy and it's clearly failed. But most Israelis already agree with this. Do you realize that Barak offered to give up 80% of the settlements in his offer at Taba? (For some reason, it's always assumed that the Palestinians are entitled to a state with no Jews in it at all.)
There are really three separate settlement policies, not one.
First, is the settlements on the Jordan, which act as defensive outposts. Since the Green Line has proved an insecure border (Israel is less than 10 miles wide at the narrowest point), there is a genuine security concern at stake here.
Second, is building settlements just over the Green Line to move the border (The Green Line itself is the truce line of 49). The most populous settlements are in this area.
Third, is creating 'facts on the ground' to keep the territories. This the Gush Emonim policy that Shamir and Sharon favored, led by Zionist ideology and strong attachment to sites of historical Jewish settlement, such as Hebron or the Gush Etzion bloc.
This policy has clearly failed because the Israelis tried to have their cake and eat it too -- make the settlements but not annex the land. They didn't dare annex because of the demographics. The situation demanded either a)ruthlessness -- push most of the Palestinians out and annex the land -- or b) willingness to give back the land. The policy started with b) but the Arabs wouldn't accept it. During the years, the push and pull of Israeli politics led to an in between policy, which clearly has been a huge failure. They would have done far better to give the land back to King Hussein in the 80s. |
