Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219254)	2/18/2007 4:46:26 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What country does the West Bank legally belong to? They are "occupied territories" not "annexed territories" if that gives you a hint. The term "occupied" vs. "annexed" is not in any legal dispute as far as I know. As I'm sure you know the absurd semantic argument is over what the word "the" means or rather the absence of the word "the". But that's only in the context of Israels obligation to withdraw from "territories occupied ". Put "Withdrawal of Country X's armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." before 100 random people and see how many come up with a conclusion that it might mean some of the territories. jttmab

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219254)	2/18/2007 5:48:04 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So, you're saying those settlements are on ISRAELI land? I don't think even our chimp Nero believes THAT Nadine! =================================================================== Bush is right: Illegal outposts must come down By M.J. Rosenberg July 13, 2004 web.israelinsider.com In a May 5 press conference, National Security Adviser Condeleezza Rice praised Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to evacuate Gaza and dismantle four West Bank settlements. She pointed out that the Sharon plan represents the first time since the Sinai withdrawal that Israel actually will take down settlements. "With all the negotiations we've had over all the years, with all of the special envoys we've had over all of the years, Israeli settlements have not come down; land has not been given back to the Palestinians," she said. This was reason enough to support the Prime Minister's initiative. Last Tuesday, however, the administration made clear its displeasure on a closely related front: the illegal outposts. These are those settlements established by zealots throughout the West Bank without authorization from the Israeli government. Extreme nationalists -- some ultra-religious, many not -- grab a hill, put up a trailer, and declare that the surrounding land is now theirs. Often they promise to fight to the death to hold on to it. Their goal is to make it more difficult for Israel to ever withdraw from the West Bank, to tie the government's hands. A collateral benefit for the zealots is that these outposts add to the misery of the local Palestinian population. Squeezing the Palestinians is part of their strategy. For the zealots, the goal is nothing less than driving the Palestinians out of the West Bank or, at least, pushing them into ever smaller enclaves. The government wants these outposts gone. They were established in contravention of Israeli law and they are designed to thwart Israeli government policy. Israeli soldiers are ordered to guard them, at considerable risk to themselves and with little appreciation from the outpost residents who respect the Israeli Defense Forces about as much as they respect Israeli law. On top of all that, the Bush administration wants them down. At the Aqaba summit, a full year ago, Prime Minister Sharon assured President Bush that the outposts -- every last one -- would be evacuated. It hasn't happened. Some have come down. Others have gone up. Formerly illegal outposts are being retroactively declared legal. And the courts have become involved. There has been some progress but even more foot-dragging. The Bush administration is not happy. Following a meeting with Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom in Washington on Tuesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell let his frustration show. "I explained to the Foreign Minister our concern about the rate at which outposts are being removed," he said. Coming from an administration that is very supportive of the Sharon government, Powell's measured words indicate concern, even anger. His mood was probably not improved when Shalom shrugged off Powell's complaint with a list of areas on which "very broad agreement" was reached. Haaretz reported that these were as follows: "An unequivocal demand that the Palestinian Authority consolidate its security forces and combat terrorism; the need for Egypt to halt smuggling from the Sinai desert into the southern Gaza Strip; the disengagement plan should be kept out of the UN Security Council; the need for a U.S. veto, should the International Court of Justice rule the West Bank fence illegal, and the Security Council attempt to act on the ruling." And, continued Haaretz, "Shalom asked Powell to try and convince the nations donating money to the Palestinian Authority to condition future financial aid on the cessation of Kassam rocket attacks against Israel, and on the political reform of the PA. Shalom also told Powell that Israel opposes an Egyptian proposal for a Palestinian cease-fire declaration in September." In other words, agreement was reached on those issues in which Israel was making requests of the United States. On the one issue where it was the United States making a request of Israel, there was no agreement. Something is wrong here. The alliance between Israel and the United States has to be a two-way street. The Bush administration, as friendly to Israel as any in the past 56 years, does not ask very much of its ally. In fact, just about the only thing it asks of Israel is that it occasionally help America advance its standing in the Middle East by avoiding those actions that inflame Arab public opinion without promoting Israel's security. Maintaining the illegal settlements is clearly in that category. Why not get rid of them? With Prime Minister Sharon committed to settler evacuation in Gaza, why hesitate over settlements Sharon himself considers illegal? Why all these fits and starts when simply enforcing Israeli law can simultaneously enhance Israel's own security, promote stability in the region, ease the burden on Palestinians, and help the United States at a very difficult time? The answer some Israelis will give is that going after the illegal outposts could lead to a civil war of sorts. Jews will be fighting Jews. Some soldiers may refuse to carry out their orders (extremist rabbis are already telling them to disobey any order to dismantle a settlement). It could be a terrible scene, best avoided for as long as possible. Much of that is true. Some of these settlers are more than willing to fight the Israeli army. As Jeffrey Goldberg's recent New Yorker article on the settlers demonstrates, there are quite a few settlers whose loyalty to the ideology of "Greater Israel" far exceeds their loyalty to Israel, the country. The most extreme of these are living in the West Bank outposts. But Israel cannot delay action for much longer --and not only because the United States is putting the heat on. Even more significant is that failure to act on the illegal outposts sends the wrong signal about Prime Minister Sharon's Gaza withdrawal plan. Sharon says that all 7,000 Jewish settlers will be out of Gaza by the end of 2005. The Gaza settlements he is talking about are not among those the Israeli government deems illegal. How will Israel achieve the evacuation of these legal settlers when it is so reluctant to send the illegal settlers packing? This is not to argue that evacuating settlements will be easy or pleasant. But doing so is something Israel needs to do not to appease others but to promote its own security. Does anyone believe that Ariel Sharon decided upon Gaza withdrawal to please the Palestinians or the Europeans? Or even the Americans? Of course not. He wants out of Gaza because remaining there is a threat to Israel's future as a Jewish state and reduces the chances of Israel ever realizing the benefits of peace. He wants out of Gaza because remaining there threatens the lives of young Israeli soldiers. He wants out of Gaza because getting out is better for Israel than staying there. That is why Sharon is hell bent to get out, and get out swiftly. The same logic applies to the illegal settlements in the West Bank, in spades. Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.