My point is that if the Israelis encouraged more Arab Muslim immigration to Israel and changed the country's name so that it didn't have religious connotations which alienates the surrounding 500 million Muslims, logic indicates the state would be less and less offensive to its neighbors (a good thing).
Hardly. Israel is REALLY OFFENSIVE because it is a democracy, and thus, represents a political ideology that is a threat to the rest of the depotic regimes in the region.
If you can't see, or understand, this, then take a look at Iraq where we see Islamic Militants opposing the government there because it is democratically elected and represents an alternative example of how people should be governed (as opposed to being ruled).
So implement things which make the country more appealing to the average neighbor, and make Hamas and Fatah's extremist position less appealing. As the winner of every war, they've gotta make the peace at some point in their future. They claim peace is what they want.
What are you talking about? Do you know how many Palestinians were employed in Israel because they couldn't find jobs elsewhere (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.. etc)? They were better paid, could see their families on a regular basis, and if they are an Israeli citizen, they can own property and a home, and vote in Israeli elections.
The problem with YOUR THINKING is that you think the Israelis have the obligation to accomodate Palestinian intransigence and intolerance and the Palestinians are not required to act as a responsible government accountable to its people and permissive of political opposition.
Interesting. So who owns the land where the settlements are located? Anyway, these are just immoral laws that can be changed.
Technically, since Jordan abandoned all claims to the West Bank, Israel "owns" it. But obviously they don't want to own all of it, just the parts that enhance their security and which they can exploit for settlements.
As I've understood it, Jewish settlements on the West Bank are not a case of Jews kicking Palestinians out of their homes and then building a Jewish settlement. Rather, the Israelis have taken unoccupied land outside of Palestinian population centers and developed it into settlements. They have placed many settlements at the top of hills, which also turns these settlements into "hard points" for defense from an invading army, presumably Jordanian.
And the laws might be "immoral", but according to this website, it is based upon Jordanian law, which international law states should be applied to governing the occupied territory.
btselem.org
7. Having acquired the West Bank in a defensive war, Israel later began building settlements on the West Bank. The settlements were built solely on land belonging to the Jordanian government, and not land belonging to individual Arab owners.
8. As a general rule, international law forbids the permanent annexation of territory, even after a defensive war. However, Israel's settlements did not violate this rule, because they were built in areas where no internationally-agreed international border existed. (See points 4 and 6).
volokh.com
However, since Jordan abandoned its claims to the West Bank, it would seem that Israel has the TECHNICAL right to govern the West Bank as it sees fit, since the Jordanian abandonment TECHNICALLY revoked the West Bank's status as occupied territory to that of "disputed territory".
Again.. I'm not arguing the moral correctness of Israeli settlements, but I think the argument that the West Bank is no longer eligible to be classified as occupied territory has some merit.
Thus, the Palestinians have the onus placed upon them to negotiate a final settlement with Israel for the creation of a Palestinian state. And so long as such a Palestinian state/government represents a clear threat to the Israeli state, the Israelis can justifiable determine that settlement activity is a consequence of such intransigence by the Palestinian Authority.
I know that if I "inherited" the property surrounding my home, I'd sure as hell wouldn't let hostile and violent people in, and I would develop any unoccupied land in such a way that it benefits MY family, rather than those who are threatening to kill me.
Preferably the Pal government and Israeli government would become one government (and one land).
Quit fantasizing Elroy. It's a completely unworkable solution and a waste of mental resources that completely ignores reality (unless you're willing to war against both the Israelis and Palestinians to coerce such a reality upon both of them).
The only realistic solution is the creation of a Palestinian state that is the creation of a Palestinian state that is tolerant and non-threatening to its neighbors. And based upon current reality in the region, such a possibility seems many years off in the distant future. And it will be the Palestinians who will have to come recognize that every year they continue to threaten and attack Israel is one more year of lost opportunity and economic progress.
I personally believe the only thing that would expedite such a possibility would be an international peace-keeping force that is tasked with eliminating any organization that advocates hostilities with Israel, and is able to establish a rule of law on the West Bank and Gaza. Essentially, it would place the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza under the status of being an international protectorate.
That, IMO, is the only thing that will create final peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. However, it will not end the hostility between the two entities. That will take generations.
Hawk |
