There isn't one form of Zionism. What is being considered Zionism today is a wing of the movement that has wrested control of Israeli politics since the fear that followed the second intifada. It is so thoroughly entrenched that you might as well call it Israel now. Its a shame. The moderate liberal impulse that was blossoming in Israel and palestine in the mid nineties and was leading to peace was derailed by extremists on both sides and now might just be dead. It is especially disheartening for someone who's first memories of Israel and Israeli palestinian relations are from that period. So much hope has reverted to so much bitterness. I Just hope to see peace in m lifetime.

But the way the movement is heading, with the importance of evangelicals and American Jews who are tacking hard to the right in foreign policy, I see it as unlikely. The ultimate end of this hawkish shift will not be good for the Israelis.

Here's what needs to happen for peace. Sorry if I repeat what's been said, I'm not gonna wade through over 120 posts. The order in which these get done would be very important, but I'll just present them as what need to exist at the end of the process.

1). Palestinians give up on the Right of Return
2). Israel tears up virtually all of its settlements in the West Bank
3). A truly sovereign and mostly contiguous Palestinian state is created in the West Bank and Gaza. Union with Jordan may or may not be permitted.
4). Palestine in compensated for the land Israel keeps with equally valuable land in the border areas of Israel
5). Israel gives up the Golan Heights, but only as a result of a permanent peace treaty with Syria.
6). Something needs to happen about Jerusalem. This is the hardest since both sides' positions are incompatible and they won't accept compromise.


Naturally there will still be the problems of Hamas and Hezbollah, but once a peace has established itself their threat will recede. Egyptians still hate Israel, for example, but they no longer want war.

The sad part is it's all very unlikely that these things will happen before another major war does. It basically requires strong, unsentimental leaders in Israel, the Palestinian movement, and the United States to work. Having all three simultaneously is a rarity. The good thing about another war would be that it would probably be decisive and settle the issue indefinitely. The bad thing, or course, is that it would mean the expulsion of either the Jewish or Palestinian people from the Southern Levant forever, with millions possibly dying in the process. Maybe the prospect of such horror will get people in power to finally do something to solve this enduring crisis.

The settlement issue has nothing to do with peace. No Jews were permitted to live in the West Bank for 20 years when Jordan occupied that area and yet the Palestinians still did not want peace. For 10 years after Israel recovered the West Bank very little settlement activity was undertaken, and still there was no peace. Peace Treaties have usually been signed when there has been an uptick in 'settlements'.

I see no reason why Jews cannot live in areas of the West Bank that Jews have lived since ancient times. If Arabs can live within Israel proper than Jews can live within the West Bank.

The last time there was momentum toward peace, the PLO was isolated. It was after the Iraq war. The PLO had backed the pan-Arabist Iraqi regime throughout the 1980s and into the conflict with Kuwait. Iraq's defeat left the PLO with no sponsors. The Second Intifada and rise in power of Hamas changed the equation. Now Iran has somebody it can support. I think if Hamas is knocked out the Fatah elements will feel secure enough to move toward peace. But right now Iran acts as a dividing force within Palestine and makes it so Israel has nobody it can negotiate with.

What needs to happen is an anti-Hamas uprising in Gaza, after people get fed up with living under their misrule. Israel can facilitate that by reducing its militant posture towards the Palestinians. Indeed what is ironic is that either side could be closer to victory if they just let the other side turn upon itself, which would likely happen if they backed off and stopped providing their opponent with a common threat.

The worst case scenario is if a militant Egypt rises to power. That changes everything. Israel needs to hurry up and get this thing settled before that happens. A combined Egypt & Iran making a mess of things would be a disaster.

There will never be peace. Even if the overwhelming majority want it, there will always be one group, regardless of how small, that will throw a spanner in the works; that will bomb a market; that will lob a missle over the border. And the more agressive "Greater Israel" movement will use this as justification to expand the settlements, using security as the rationale with of course a reaction from the otherside reigniting the cycle of violence.

I have to disagree with your statement about the settlements 100% there. Well, 90%.

I'll agree that dismantling the settlements won't necessarily make peace with the west bank. It takes two sides to make peace. However, these settlements can not be seen as anything other than expansionist and hostile.

I'm not talking about the suburbs of Jerusalem that are on the wrong side the green line. But these settlements made up of loony fanatics from Brooklyn are only there as a part of expansionist policy by the Israelis. They move there because, if they don't, it would become a part of the Palestinian state in the case of a two state solution. This aggressiveness is certainly an obstacle towards peace. Not the only one but, still, it is certainly condemnable.

As far as ancient claims go. Fuck that BS. Israel should, then, concede the Negev and make a claim for Jordan and Iran?
What borders are you using?
"Nahar hagadol ad nahar prat" (or whatever the exact line is)?

Anybody else having problems with the website today? It's very buggy keeps giving me an error message.

Anyway I had written a post but had problems posting it.

The fact is the vast majority of settlements are Jerusalem suburbs. So if you have no problem with those then there should be no real problem with the settlements. The other major settlement blocs are important for Israeli security, like the Ariel bloc. Consider the fact that Israel can easily be divided into two pieces in the event of a land war. Its center is only nine miles long. Israel has every right to undertake actions to enhance its security prior to a peaceful settlement.

This is not 'expansionism' as the settlements only comprise about 2% of the West Bank. They also employ a lot of Arabs, despite all the complaining.

The Palestinians just use the settlement question as an excuse. Their dream of a Judenrein West Bank is part of their greater dream of a Judenrein Palestine. The height of settlement activity was followed by the Oslo Accords, so the world knows very well that the settlements are irrelevant.

Who would have taken Putin33 for a Likudnik? The settlements are a huge obstacle to peace, and just about the only thing that is entirely Israel's fault. They, and the access roads connecting them, divide the West Bank into dozens of cantons. Travel between these areas is incredibly difficult for Palestinians, even in the case of medical emergencies. As for the idea that most of them are suburbs of Jerusalem, that true. But Israel unilaterally expanded the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem to a huge extent just so that argument can be made. Metro Jerusalem as defined by Israel (and Israel alone, even the United States doesn't accept it) nearly cuts the West Bank in half. In all but name the settlements have been annexed to Israel, since Israeli law applies in them, so the settlement building is gnawing away at land a future Palestinian state can control. These actions are 100% illegal according to international law, since they are being built on occupied land. Israel is building settlements to present a fait accompli in any future negotiations and put itself in a position to keep all of the West Bank besides densely populated Palestinian towns. If Israel wants peace, it needs to abandon most of the settlements and the Palestinians need to be compensated for the few it keeps.

sorry, it isn't East Jerusalem that split the West Bank nearly in half, it's the planned route of the Wall. Not much of a difference, though.

Yeah, site is giving me troubles too. I wonder if the site has grown much since the last upgrade.

The settlements compromise the security of Israeli citizens more so than protect it.
Soldiers are deployed to protect the religious nut jobs in disproportionate numbers.

They are provocative and founded with malintent. I really am quite surprised that you're defending them. It's a rather hawkish position to take.

I like how Putin just elides the 90's more or less out of existence when he states,

"The last time there was momentum toward peace, the PLO was isolated. It was after the Iraq war. The PLO had backed the pan-Arabist Iraqi regime throughout the 1980s and into the conflict with Kuwait. Iraq's defeat left the PLO with no sponsors. The Second Intifada and rise in power of Hamas changed the equation."

why, it's almost as if the al-Aqsa Intifada arose out of thin air, or perhaps the Palestinians had some bad hummus that week.

"These actions are 100% illegal according to international law"

That's incorrect. The law (the 4th Geneva Convention) only prohibits forcible transfer/deporations of populations to "occupied" land.

" Metro Jerusalem as defined by Israel (and Israel alone, even the United States doesn't accept it) nearly cuts the West Bank in half."

That's a gross exaggeration. The easternmost suburb/settlement of Jerusalem is a good 40 km from the Jordanian border. All the settlements around Jerusalem are within 10 km of the city.

"t's almost as if the al-Aqsa Intifada arose out of thin air, or perhaps the Palestinians had some bad hummus that week."

It did arise out of thin air. Ehud Barak was in the process of negotiating a very generous offer for a Palestinian state at Camp David & Taba. Yet right during that time they decide to go ahead and begin attack people worshipping at the Western Wall. Naturally Israel is blamed for protecting their own citizens from unprovoked terror and offering generous peace terms.

"sorry, it isn't East Jerusalem that split the West Bank nearly in half, it's the planned route of the Wall"

Where are you getting this idea from? What map?

Article 49 - Population transfer [hide]
Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Yes, and under what definition is the voluntary settlement of Jewish people in the West Bank a 'transfer' or 'deportation'?

See that last part? It's illegal for a state to transfer its population into occupied land. That's what the settlements are. Every country on Earth apart from Israel agrees, even the United States. As for the part about splitting the West Bank almost in two, here's a map of the Olmert Peace Plan, a really good offer in that the Palestinian state is continuous apart from Gaza, but which nonetheless has a border jutting far to the East of the city of Jerusalem. Impose that on the system of cantons and closed access roads which exist now and you see how expansionist Israel is behaving here. And again, settlements are almost literally the only thing I don't support Israel on. http://www.fmep.org/reports/archive/vol.-18/no.-6/olmerts-final-status-map/v18n6-map-westbankprojection.jpg

Under what definition is it a transfer? They're moving there! Israel is subsidizing the housing in the settlements to make it much more attractive and cheap to live there. Just because Israel isn't evicting homeowners in Tel Aviv and sending them off to a settlement in the West Bank doesn't mean a transfer isnt going on. How can you not see this?

The convention pertains to forced population transfers and deportations. There's nothing within it that suggests it prohibits voluntary settlements. Jews have always had a right to live in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Article 80 of the UN Charter specifically protected the right of Jewish people to live in these areas. They were prohibited from living in Jordan, but they could live anywhere in the West Bank & Gaza.

There's also the little matter of the fact that the convention only applies to occupations of territory belonging to some other high contracting party. The West Bank did not 'belong' to Jordan from 1948-1967 and there has never been an independent Palestinian state, so the convention doesn't even apply.

Basically, to summarize Putin's entire corpus of work regarding the Palestinians on this thread, I merely have to paraphrase a line from the Godfather...

"They're animals anyway, so let them lose their homes."

Again, everyone disagrees. How can you honestly believe that only forced transfers are forbidden? If the United States occupied New Brunswick and Mainers moved in to take advantage of tax breaks, that would be okay? What if there was then an American majority, and they voted to become a state? Is all that okay just because the Americans went there voluntarily? And Article 80 says nothing of the sort. You made it up.

"But which nonetheless has a border jutting far to the East of the city of Jerusalem."

I assume you're referring to the area around Ma'ale Adumim, which still leaves a 20 km corridor, which is still wider than Israel is in its center. Plus, overpasses & tunnels could be constructed to facilitate ease of movement from northern to the southern west bank. Plus, nobody seems to care that a proposed 'contiguous' Palestinian state connecting its two territories would split Israel into two pieces.

No one's talking about making Gaza contiguous to the West Bank. I hate using logic references since no one really know how to use them and my brief affair with formal logic was intensely unpleasant, but that's a ridiculous straw-man. As for the part about the settlements around Jerusalem nearly splitting the West Bank in two, the proposed line in the Olmert Plan that ought to have been accepted still goes pretty much halfway to the Jordan from the Green Line. And I said above, if you would bother to actually address my points, that the route of the wall has to be seen in the context of the existing settlements deep in the West Bank and the access roads which divide the land into isolated cantons. But I guess you had to find something to talk about instead of defending the indefensible settlements.

""They're animals anyway, so let them lose their homes.""

Shouldn't you be careful about quotations after your gaffe with the Protocols? Do you have an argument besides shouting "apartheid" here?

"And Article 80 says nothing of the sort. You made it up."

Article 80 protects the rights given to peoples in already existing international agreements. This includes the right for Jewish people to live in the West Bank, which was established by Article 6 of the Mandate of Palestine. The land which is being settled is state land. There is a reason why Article 80 of the UN Charter is known as the "Palestine Article".

"If the United States occupied New Brunswick and Mainers moved in to take advantage of tax breaks, that would be okay?"

That's a false analogy.

Canada is a high contracting party. New Brunswick clearly currently belongs to Canada. The West Bank didn't belong to anybody, it was just as occupied in 1966 as it has been since 1967. The West Bank and Gaza are disputed territories that Israel acquired control of in a defensive war.

So the Palestinians are uniquely screwed? Not even all Israelis hold your position, let alone any state or international organization. Once again, I support Israel and it needs to do what it needs to do to protect itself, but the settlement building is nothing but an illegal land grab. It's really quite outstanding that you can be so wrong on so many things, Putin33.

"But I guess you had to find something to talk about instead of defending the indefensible settlements."

I've addressed all of your points. I don't see why you're getting all huffy here. You earlier said peace requires a 'mostly' contiguous Palestinian state. How do you plan to do that unless you split Israel into two pieces?

"f you would bother to actually address my points, that the route of the wall has to be seen in the context of the existing settlements deep in the West Bank"

There aren't that many settlements 'deep' in the West Bank. There is really only one bloc that fits that description - Ariel, around the narrow Israeli center. And there's all this histrionics about the wall allegedly going out to these areas and yet it hasn't even been built there.

"So the Palestinians are uniquely screwed? Not even all Israelis hold your position, let alone any state or international organization."

Yes they do this is the position they've always maintained. I don't know where you get your information from, or why you're so emotional about this when you claim to support Israel.

The Palestinians can unscrew themselves at any moment, by accepting an actual two-state settlement. They've yet to do so. But yes the stupidity of the Arab states in the past - launching an offensive war after illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza, and losing spectacularly in 6 days, has put the Palestinians in a bad spot.

"ou earlier said peace requires a 'mostly' contiguous Palestinian state. How do you plan to do that unless you split Israel into two pieces?"

Contiguous apart from Gaza, obviously. You really don't know how fractured the West Bank has become due to the settlements and access roads, do you? I've avoided using the term banutstans since the apartheid comparison is pretty ridiculous, but in the sense that Palestinians live in an archipelago of non-viable enclaves the term fits pretty well. For a State of Palestine to exist then the West Bank has to be contiguous (as in the Olmert Plan).


"There aren't that many settlements 'deep' in the West Bank."

That's simply not true. And even where the settlements aren't too large, they are connected by access roads that Palestinians can't drive on or cross except at a limited number of checkpoints, dividing the cantons even further. Add to that the huge Area C under full Israeli military control (which, admittedly, they need until there's a proper peace), and you've got an overwhelming Israeli presence that is actively making life more difficult for the Palestinians by building these settlements where ever they can and then building closed roads to connect them with other settlements and Israel. Here are some maps.

http://normanfinkelstein.com/img/photos/maps/un_westbankmap_2007.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0 /Settlements2006.jpg


"Yes they do this is the position they've always maintained."

This is about my question about the Palestinians being uniquely screwed out of protection by the Geneva conventions with regards to population transfers. For one, since virtually every state on Earth is a party to the convention it's safe to say that it is now a part of customary international law. That means it applies universally, even if it didn't apply to the former Mandate before (a dubious claim). But in addition to that, it's ridiculous for you to claim that the Palestinians claim that they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions. Quite the opposite. They do claim that their treatment by Israel is excessively harsh by comparison to similar groups (I don't really buy that), but never that they've got it so bad since international law doesn't apply to them. That's ridiculous and anthoer strawman from you.


"The Palestinians can unscrew themselves at any moment, by accepting an actual two-state settlement. They've yet to do so. But yes the stupidity of the Arab states in the past - launching an offensive war after illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza, and losing spectacularly in 6 days, has put the Palestinians in a bad spot."

All true about the Arabs. But the Palestinians need a state worth accepting. If the offer is a collection of non-viable enclaves then there's no point in accepting, since it means that Palestine would be nothing but a dependency of Israel. Olmert's plan would have worked if the bum wasn't about to be run out of office, giving Abbas every incentive in the world to hold out for an even better deal, considering how much better Olmert's offer was than the one at Camp David. And then the Gaza War made talks politically impossible for Abbas, regardless of whether the war was necessary or not.


The Jews have a right to live in their ancient homeland. Israel has a right to exist. But at the same time Israelis cannot simply steal land in the occupied West Bank from its Palestinian owners and continue to build settlements which make life impossibly difficult for the ordinary Palestinian people. Israel needs to tear up almost all the settlements, and compensate the Palestinians for the land taken with land from what is currently Israel. Israel is giving up a lot, but so are the Palestinians since they'll have to give up on the Right of Return in any peace deal. In principle this is even what Avigdor Lieberman supports! You're holding on to an outmoded view that is actually quite dangerous for Israel's security. Things can't continue as they are, and a real war in the area would be devastating for the entire world.

"That's simply not true."

Provide examples of these supposedly numerous settlements which are 'deep in the West Bank'. Yes there is the Ariel bloc, but that's the only one.

"Add to that the huge Area C under full Israeli military control (which, admittedly, they need until there's a proper peace), and you've got an overwhelming Israeli presence that is actively making life more difficult for the Palestinians by building these settlements where ever they can and then building closed roads to connect them with other settlements and Israel. "

You're trying to confuse the issue here, bringing up Area C and trying to tie it to the settlements. Area C controls travel to the Jordan Valley, which is barely populated and isn't remotely near any settlements. It also controls access to the Dead Sea area. Again, no settlements. Furthermore, the checkpoints were imposed largely after the Second Intifada and many have been removed since the height of it. So again, the settlements are just an excuse. The real cause of Palestinians living in so-called 'enclaves' or 'bantustans' is terrorism. All of this was brought up to distract from the fact that no map shows the West Bank being 'divided in two' by settlements or anything connected to settlements.

" But in addition to that, it's ridiculous for you to claim that the Palestinians claim that they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions."

Do you even bother to read your own writing? You said it wasn't *Israel's* position. I said it was Israel's position. Of course it is not the Palestinians' position. This is becoming quite tedious.

"For one, since virtually every state on Earth is a party to the convention it's safe to say that it is now a part of customary international law."

What on earth would customary law have to do with anything? You can't just shoe-horn the law to types of cases it doesn't even apply to because everybody is a party to the Geneva Convention. In order for that particular section to apply, the territories have to be 'occupied'. In order to be 'occupied', they have to belong to some kind entity that had legal title to the territories. Jordan certainly did not. The territories are *disputed*, not *occupied* (in the legal sense). The Mandate of Palestine allowed for Jews to live anywhere within the West Bank and Gaza. This status is protected by the UN Charter, which you haven't even bothered to address.

"That's ridiculous and anthoer strawman from you."

Considering that's not even what I said, it's a ridiculous strawman from you. I think at this point you don't even know what 'straw man' means. I'm not constructing an opposing argument that is weak in order to tear it down. I'm giving legal arguments for why the settlements are not illegal as per international law.

"But at the same time Israelis cannot simply steal land in the occupied West Bank from its Palestinian owners and continue to build settlements which make life impossibly difficult for the ordinary Palestinian people."

The land is not 'stolen'. The settlement areas are from state-owned land or land privately purchased by Israelis. The settlements are a net benefit to Palestinians, as tens of thousands find work due to their being there. The amount of land, as I said, is trivial, and vital for the security of Israel. No American President has proposed a peace plan that did not include the incorporation of settlement areas.

"In principle this is even what Avigdor Lieberman supports! "

I have no idea what 'this' means. Your writing style throughout this thread is more opaque than ever. Are you saying Liberman wants the settlements removed? That's just ridiculously false.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/20-2

"You're holding on to an outmoded view that is actually quite dangerous for Israel's security."

What on earth is outdated about my view? I don't think Jews living in the West Bank is any serious obstacle to peace, nor do many Middle East pundits. I don't get why the solution has to be an ethnically pure Palestine vs a marginal Jewish majority in Israel. That seems like a gross double standard, especially since even when that is the demand Israel is still called 'racist' anyway.

" But the Palestinians need a state worth accepting. If the offer is a collection of non-viable enclaves then there's no point in accepting, since it means that Palestine would be nothing but a dependency of Israel."

The checkpoints and security barriers will come and go as terrorism comes and goes. They aren't permanent obstructions. No where has any Israeli ever said that these things would be permanent in a future Palestinian state. Ironic that you construct this argument for Israel yet perpetually whine about 'straw men'.