Yaacov, serious question for you. I was having an "argument" with a good friend of mine who, being european, was trying to explain why the euro governments are reluctant to support the US on the Iraq "problem".
One reason he claimed is that the US is perceived by many to not be taking the "political high road" in that we support Israel despite the apparently expansionist policy represented by the "settlements". His contention: Israel's policy is to eventually end up with the West Bank simply by using settlers to displace the Palestinians.
While I consider the two problems (Iraq and Israel/Palestine) to be orthogonal, he ties them together.
I have to admit, I can't really understand why the settlements are there, unless it really is an expansionist policy. If so, and the Israelis refuse to pull them out, the situation would seem completely unresolvable. After all, the US didn't "colonize" Germany or Japan during its military occupation - and always intended to pull up that occupation once peaceful societies were reestablished and functioning.
So can you, Yaacov, or anyone else provide an alternative justification for the settlements or shed light on the issue?
Serious replies only please - that means Len, Thomas, and Gus need not respond. I have you all on Ignore anyway.
~dbf |
