This is a guest post by AKUS
On CiF Watch you’ve met the Tooth Fairy, Ben White:
and Santa’s Little Helper, Rachel Shabi:
And now it’s time to meet the Arsonist, Seth Freedman:
In another article displaying a “sparkling” (ahem) display of empathy for 150,000 Palestinians threatened daily by the 500 (admittedly objectionable) Jewish citizens of Hebron, legitimately occupying mainly a set of houses to which at least in some cases they have ownership papers from which those Jews who survived the 1929 massacre fled, Freedman once again pulled the flip-flop for which he has become … slightly known.
Don’t get ME wrong – no matter how legitimate their claims to some of the old houses like Bet Hadassah in the former Jewish Quarter, I think it was foolish to allow Jews to occupy those houses in Hebron because, as has indeed turned out to be the case, they are a bone in the throat of the local population. It was not hard to see that this would become a problem that Israel could well do without.
But let’s see what’s going on in the Arsonist’s latest article. First we need some melodrama to whip up the crowd:
“A sergeant manning the Tel Rumeida roadblock sneeringly derided TIPH [Temporary International Presence in the City of Hebron] as “smolanim [leftists] – they’re here to work against us. [They] only help the Palestinians. God forbid we should raise a hand to a Palestinian kid, then TIPH take photos and send them to all the world’s media”.
Typical “objective” reporting from Freedman – an unnamed sergeant, impossible to identify, “sneeringly derided TIPH” – a comment impossible to verify. Perhaps the sergeant merely “noted” that “TIPH is here to work against us?” And why would said anonymous sergeant “raise his hand” to a Palestinian kid? Maybe because he objected to being pelted with stones? We’ll never know.
Maybe Freedman disagrees with this sergeant, but strangely enough, he cites one Fathiyeh Gainey, 44, who seems to think TIPH is doing precisely what that sergeant refers to. Whether the sergeant likes it or not, Gainey apparently believes that TIPH acts as a protective shield for the Palestinians, and for good measure, accuses the 500 “settlers” of “ethnically cleansing” the 150,000 or so Arabs who still live in Hebron. After some 42 years, this must rank as clearly an amazing example of mismanaged ethnic cleansing. “”If TIPH are withdrawn, it will be [in line with] Israel’s ethnic cleansing agenda,” says Fathiyeh Gainey, 44, who is interning with Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), an NGO which maintains a constant presence in Hebron.”
As usual, all this feeds the cyber-mob.
14 Jan 2010, 11:57AM
Disgraceful.
Though not at all surprising.
It would seem that within Israel the terms “life” and “Palestinian” have no connection.
One suspects that Palestinians are seen as irritating vermin in the way of never-ending Israeli expansion.
14 Jan 2010, 12:10PM
The Jewish people have studied their historical suffering very well; they use it for black mail, and applying with calculated precision on the poor true owners of the land, the Palestinians.
Be Patient you lovely people, soon Israel will be deserted by all its friends, and the world will come to liberate you.
Then there are those who are led by the article to believe that the entire city of Hebron, and all its Arab residents, are in constant contact with the Israelis (to their detriment, of course) and demonstrates the evil intentions of the State of Israel despite the fact that the PLO actually agreed in 1996-1997 that Israeli citizens have a right to live in Hebron:
14 Jan 2010, 12:10PM
The situation in Hebron is extreme but should be seen as part of the wider picture i.e. another example of the many of ways in which the state of Israel denies Palestinians the right to live normal lives. Israel’s actions are deliberate and planned with the aim of breaking up Palestinian society. To blame the settlers is to ignore the role of the Israeli Occupation Force in backing them. So many of Israel’s abuses are well documented and still no action is taken by the international community.
Shortly, a reader invokes the well-worn tactic on CiF of warning that things are only going to get worse … much, much worse … unless…. unless …:
14 Jan 2010, 12:17PM
We know what removal of witnesses mean: something awful is about to happen.
It is time for a massive international boycott on Israel, its trade, its politicians, its parrots in art and media. at te same time an international support for peace.
(hope springs eternal in the minds of some… specially when they ignore the fact that on the West Bank, things are getting better … much, much better, as report after report from unbiased sources, including Palestinian ones, confirm)
Suddenly, with the clarity of a shofar on Yom Kippur, The Voice of Israel sounds forth and notes:
14 Jan 2010, 12:14PM
….
Just as not all Jewish residents of Hebron are aggressive towards the Palestinians, so not all Palestinian residents of Hebron are peaceful towards their Jewish neighbors. As anyone of reason who considers the situation would know, these two peoples are in conflict over the right to live in Hebron. As part of that conflict each side commits excesses. And as I have stated, I am ashamed of the excesses committed by Jews in Hebron, irrespective of what the Palestinians do.
We can argue about who’s excesses are worse and whether Jews have a right to live in Hebron (there has been a Jewish presence there for thousands of years). But I will not argue the fact that Jews in Hebron must only be permitted to live on land that legally and fairly belongs to them. (That of course will raise the argument about what is legal and what is fair.)
And at that point, our Arsonist, having well and truly lit the flames (and if you don’t believe me, look at the number of deletions on that thread!) remembers his religious upbringing at a good Jewish Day School in gloomy old Britain, and re-enters the fray – this time flip-flopping to try to put out the hateful fire he has lit:
14 Jan 2010, 1:15PM
regardless of what happens in terms of a future peace deal, a situation must never occur where jews are not allowed to visit the cave of machpela (in the centre of hebron’s old city), in the same way that muslims must never be prevented from praying at the dome of the rock.
Thus, suddenly, far too late, we are reminded WHY these religious Jews are so adamant about being in Hebron – not just to dispossess Arabs, or annoy or attack them, but because for many Jews this is the bedrock of Judaism – this is as close to the start of the whole religion as a religious Jew can get. By the way, he could equally have written:
“in the same way that muslims must never be prevented from praying at the cave of Machpela”
because it is shared by both faiths which both recognize Abraham as their progenitor, if I may use that word – the Jews via Abraham’s son Isaac, and the Muslims via Ibrahim’s son Ishmael. Because the reality is that for both faiths it is a holy city that will have to be shared in the future, just as Israel shares Jerusalem with Christians and Moslems today.
Things heat up, if I may use the phrase in connection with our Arsonist, pretty quickly thereafter, as the resident airhead shows off her paces:
14 Jan 2010, 2:06PM
sethfreedman
regardless of what happens in terms of a future peace deal, a situation must never occur where jews are not allowed to visit the cave of machpela (in the centre of hebron’s old city), in the same way that muslims must never be prevented from praying at the dome of the rock.
How can anyone say that regardless of what happens in the future, we must be allowed free access to this and that place in another country? If applied to another place, another situation, you would see that such exactingness can only be displayed if you hold the gun to someone defenceless. The normal situation is that you are prepared to offer something to get something. In this case that negotiation must take place after the withdrawal of Israel to its legal (ie international law) and a Palestinian state can take the question under consideration. Should they choose to build a school, a carpark or whatever there, they are in their right to do so. It is not as if Israel has shown due deference to sites that Palestinians of old hold sacred.
Hmm…“It is not as if Israel has shown due deference to sites that Palestinians of old hold sacred”. Really?
Ellymiranda displays, of course, both her monumental ignorance and strict adherence to the GWV with which she has been carefully indoctrinated by articles like this one on CiF. Israel goes to enormous lengths to protect holy places of all faiths – Christianity, Islam, Bahai, Judaism, Samaritans, the Druze, and probably others I am not aware of since it seems every faith under the sun wants its own little foothold in the Holy Land.
Too late the Arsonist begins to realize that he may have started a blaze he cannot contain, and, like a true Arsonist, begins to play the Fireman:
14 Jan 2010, 2:20PM
ellymiranda – ” Should they choose to build a school, a carpark or whatever there, they are in their right to do so”
did you say the same when the taliban blew up the buddhas? do you genuinely not believe in showing respect for other faiths’ holy sites/artefacts/etc,
And the self-justifying snarling so many have noted in the Arsonist’s responses begins:
or are you just letting your venom for all things israeli cloud your judgment?
impeccable logic, for a playground at least. however just as i criticise instances where israeli officials show disregard for palestinian rights (eg the construction of the museum of tolerance on a muslim cemetery), why would i not apply the same criteria in a situation such as palestinian officials preventing jews praying at machpela in a future palestinian state?
you don’t need to respond immediately, if it takes you a while to get your head round the sauce for the goose principle, so be it. i’m a patient man.
Yet his patience wears thin pretty quickly:
14 Jan 2010, 3:23PM
ellymiranda – “No, I have no respect for religion per se; I hold it all to be dangerous superstition”
as you wish. Pretty pointless discussing religious freedom with you in that case.
But you see, dear Arsonist – that is exactly the point – you insist on writing articles that whip up the ellymirandas and the rest of her kind. Actually, it’s pretty pointless discussing anything with ellymiranda – her needle is embedded so firmly in its groove nothing will get it out. She’s even joined those trying to write Jews out of history and write Palestinians in:
14 Jan 2010, 3:20PM
jpdonelevy
14 Jan 2010, 3:06PM
Hebron was a Jewish city centuries before a Palestinian one. The only lasting peace will come with a transfer of populations so that Hebron and other places in the ?Occupied Territories? revert to their Jewish character.
We don’t really know that, do we? Nor what ‘Palestinian’ and ‘Jewish meant ‘back then’. But you think that Israeli citizens that are not Jewish should be thrown out?
Of course we do know perfectly well that Hebron WAS a Jewish city centuries before a “Palestinian” one. The historical record of Jewish life there for centuries is clear and documented, and, of course, the concept of an Arab Palestinian city dates all the way back to about …. 1967. We know exactly what “Palestinian” meant “back then” – for example, in Roman times, since they created the word and idea of “Palaestina/Palestine”. It meant … “Jewish”. In fact, even under the British mandate, the Jews were Palestinians.
Let’s look at starofdavid’s comment that shows how ridiculous the Arsonist’s article really is, and incidentally, is the only reference in the article or the accompanying thread that mentions the critically important division of the city into H1 and H2 agreed to by Arafat and his negotiators in 1996-1997:
14 Jan 2010, 5:32PM
Reading the article one is led to believe that life for the Arabs in Hevron is untenable and is at the whim of the Jews in the city, of course one needs International Observers to protect the Arabs…..and then there’s this little niggling thing called reality that gets in the way of this fantasy.
There are 170,000 Arabs living in Hevron, the PA has jurisdiction over these people and has total physical control over their people, the area being called H1.
There are 500 Jews living in Hevron, they are under the jurisdiction of the Israeli gov’t. in the area called H2.
The IDF does not enter the H1 unless requested or authorized by the PA.
There are no International Observers ensuring that Jews can and do enter H1 for any purposes what-so-ever.
170,000 Arabs cannot live with the knowledged that there are 500 Jews living in enclave, unable to leave them in peace on top of which they have the unmitigated gall to claim that THEY are threatened????
Reading this article you’d thing it was the other way around, 500 Arabs unable to live in peace because of 170,00 Jews and how important it is for International Observers to ensure their safety.
Perhaps it’s time for the Arsonist to take a well-intended hint, although I certainly query the idea that the Arsonist is “always thoughtful and compassionate” (certainly not towards Jews):
14 Jan 2010, 3:32PM
Seth you’re a good man and your articles are always thoughtful and compassionate, although for reasons of acute discomfort not always readable (to the end) bless you but I think I speak for most of us when I say that Israel fati[g]ue has set in and as Apocalyptic as the [situ]ation might be I think we have reached the point where we think “let it take its course” – these people are never going to see the wood for the trees (as it were)
But if you are an Arsonist who wants to play both sides by lighting the fire and then pretending to be the fireman – why let a little cool logic and the historical record get in your way? One good reason may be, as my late mother used to say:
“Children who play with matches get burnt”.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
126 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 16, 2010 at 6:20 am
John
exiled
Seeing that’s exactly what happened – Jews from the Arab lands vs Arabs from Israel – what makes you think that a more thorough job would have produced better results?
Yes – that is what happened. But not exactly. The Jews from the Arab lands were settled by the nascent, impoverished Israeli state (without financial help from the UN or any nation) – this is an achievement of which Israel should be proud. There are writers like Shabi who denigrate this achievement and point to the racism – yes, there was racism! yes Jews are like any other people! yes Israelis are like any other peoples! – that existed between the various groups who found themselves thrown together. The Mizrahim and the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim are now inter-married and inter-connected, baruch Ha’Shem. All of us must regret that the Arabs were not likewise settled and integrated into Jordan, Egypt etc. Imagine how much better the lives would have been for those Arabs had that happened! That is what I,/b> mean.
January 16, 2010 at 6:31 am
John
exiled
I do not know the detail of the Knesset Bill. In general, my understanding is; The bill, inspired by a US Congress resolution passed in April 2008, conditions a peace settlement between Israel and Arab states on the safeguarding of the rights, namely to compensation for seized property, of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2010/01/legislation-committee-puts-pedantry.html
I doubt that a ‘perfectly achievable peace agreement’ will stand or fall on this issue. There are other more difficult hurdles to overcome and, being a cynical realist, I suggest that Israel would throw the Jewish refugees overboard for Jerusalem, the Arab ‘right of return’ etc.
And negotiation is part art part poker. I merely mentioned negotiations post WW2 to illuminate that negotiations are part of making peace and nowhere did I suggest that the UK or US threatened Japan or Germany and I am startled that you think that Israel is ‘threatening’ rather than negotiating in the age-old manner.
January 16, 2010 at 6:39 am
exiledlondoner
John,
“Yes – that is what happened. But not exactly. The Jews from the Arab lands were settled by the nascent, impoverished Israeli state (without financial help from the UN or any nation) – this is an achievement of which Israel should be proud.”
Yes it should.
“There are writers like Shabi who denigrate this achievement and point to the racism – yes, there was racism! yes Jews are like any other people! yes Israelis are like any other peoples! – that existed between the various groups who found themselves thrown together. The Mizrahim and the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim are now inter-married and inter-connected, baruch Ha’Shem.”
You won’t hear that from me – the Jewish refugees form one of the most powerful moral arguments for Israel’s existance.
“All of us must regret that the Arabs were not likewise settled and integrated into Jordan, Egypt etc.”
What, even the Arabs in Hebron, Gaza, Ramallah and Gaza?
This is where the prolem lies – just why are Zionists so concerned about the fate of the people that they drove out? Human concern? I doubt it. Fear of a right of return? Nobody seriously thinks that there will be anything other than a token RoR in any final deal.
No, this all comes down to a negotiating position over the West Bank settlements. Everybody knows that 20% of the territory isn’t enough to house five million people – in the end, Palestinian state or no, many Palestinians will have to live outside Palestine, though probably with dual nationality.
Israel sees that if that were to happen prior to a deal, then the pressure on them to return stolen land would be less.
In this, Israel is trying to evade its responsibilities, just as the Arab states are trying to evade their’s – sorry, but those who carried out the ethnic cleansing should face up to the consequences, and that includes Israel.
“Imagine how much better the lives would have been for those Arabs had that happened!”
Lets see. They would have had to give up all rights to return to their homes, damaged the prospects of a viable Palestinian state being created, and they would have become citizens of such forward thinking states as Syria, Jordan and Egypt. An offer to good to refuse?
January 16, 2010 at 6:43 am
exiledlondoner
John,
“I am startled that you think that Israel is ‘threatening’ rather than negotiating in the age-old manner.”
“Threatening” is the age-old manner of negotiation.
For twenty years Israel’s position has been ‘if you don’t agree to us keeping some stolen land, the occupation continues’ – sort of demanding land with menaces….
January 16, 2010 at 7:12 am
John
I was talking about 1948 – pre the 1967 war and the subsequent occupation of the WB/Judea/Samaria. The Arabs from Hebron and Ramallah would have been subsumed by Jordan and the Gazans by Egypt. This did not happen and this is not the time and place for a blow by blow account of what did/did not take place to whom and when. I was talking theoretically of what might have happened and comparing it to what did happen with the Jewish refugees from the Arab lands.
And you do many, many Jews and Israelis – I would suggest a majority – a grave injustice to suggest that we have no human concern for the fate of the Palestinians. So Zionists- inhumanely – lack human concern for the Palestinians but anti-Zionists – humanely – are motivated solely by human concern? Stop it. And back to ‘stolen land’, ‘ethnic cleansing’, evasion of responsibility – damn it, had the Arabs accepted partition in 48, there would have been no war and no Arab refugees and there would have been a Palestinian state. And between 1948 and 1967, a Palestinian state could have come into being – but it didn’t.
Land for peace, exiled, land for peace. Sign peace treaties with us and you can have the land back that you lost by attacking us. The Germans and Japanese signed peace treaties and paid compensation because they lost the war.
Over and out – discussing with you, dear exiled, is one step forward but two back and it is too mind-bending for a rainy Saturday morning. Usted es un hombre demasiado testarudo, no?
January 16, 2010 at 7:28 am
exiledlondoner
John,
“Usted es un hombre demasiado testarudo, no?”
Muy bien, pero tu castellano es demasiado correcto – aqui, “usted” es solo para americanos, viejos y turistas.
Hasta luego.
January 16, 2010 at 7:34 am
John
In Bogotá, the use of the “tú” is very restricted. Interestingly, even when talking with very close relatives such as parents, siblings or spouses, as a sign of respect, “usted” is used.
January 16, 2010 at 9:24 am
Margie
Exile When was the last time you protested about the Guardian’s treatment of anyone else?
Just as soon as I see the Guardian begin to treat my own country fairly I will switch my attention to helping others. I will first make sure however, that I am in full possession of the facts so that I don’t fall into the same trap as the bigots’ brigade, yelling opprobrium for imagined faults.
January 16, 2010 at 9:39 am
Herzl's Daughter
John
As eliyahu points out in the comments, Israel is prepared to exclude the descendants because they do not wish to imperit the peace process such as it is.
This statement is correct – and an error to Israel’s shame.
January 16, 2010 at 9:42 am
Herzl's Daughter
any such settlement should also acknowledge the injustice that was done to 700,000 Jews
By the closest calculation, about 970,000 Jews fled the Muslim countries (including non-Arab Iam). Of these 970,000, avout 700,000 fond refuge in Israel.
Israel has a moral duty to insist refugee compensation include the 970,000 – who have even been mentioned by a US President.
January 16, 2010 at 9:46 am
Herzl's Daughter
any such settlement should also acknowledge the injustice that was done to 700,000 Jews
By the closest calculation, about 970,000 Jews fled the Muslim countries (including non-Arab Iran). Of these 970,000, about 700,000 found refuge in Israel.
Israel has a moral duty to insist refugee compensation include the 970,000 – who have even been mentioned by a US President.
January 16, 2010 at 9:53 am
AKUS
As the writer who “lit the fuse” on this particular thread, I wanted to thank all those who responded for the opportunity to share your views. It is fascinating that this thread, with some exceptions, shows the thoughtful and reasonably mutually respectful exchange of diverse opinions that the Guardian should be hosting, but never does.
Viva CiFWatch!!
January 16, 2010 at 9:57 am
exiledlondoner
AKUS,
“It is fascinating that this thread, with some exceptions, shows the thoughtful and reasonably mutually respectful exchange of diverse opinions that the Guardian should be hosting, but never does.”
If you say so…. I thought that racism and ad hominem attacks were what you accused the Guardian of?
January 16, 2010 at 10:12 am
VacuumCleanersStillSuck
AKUS
Such self congratulation is highly unbecoming of an editor or internet forum contributor. You really should polish up your act a little.
But I don’t wish to appear mean spirited — so:
Viva AKUS!
January 16, 2010 at 11:31 am
Margie
6:45 am For twenty years Israel’s position has been ‘if you don’t agree to us keeping some stolen land, the occupation continues’ – sort of demanding land with menaces….
How did we steal this land — by defeating the armies that marched in from here to kill us and our families, though we told the little king that it would be a good idea to sit this war out.
How evil we are to menace those who attack us. I am soooooooo ashamed (NOT)
January 16, 2010 at 11:42 am
AKUS
VacuumCleanersStillSuck – I am an “above the line” contributor, not an “editor”
January 16, 2010 at 12:03 pm
VacuumCleanersStillSuck
Yes, my dear AKUS — I did write, “or internet forum contributor”…
I have to say, it’s good to see you enjoying yourself here, even though this site is to the right of the ADL.
January 16, 2010 at 12:10 pm
exiledlondoner
Margie,
“How did we steal this land — by defeating the armies that marched in from here to kill us and our families, though we told the little king that it would be a good idea to sit this war out.”
Nope – not by defeating the armies that marched in from here to kill you and your families, nor by occupying the land until a final settlement is reached. Both of those are perfectly legal and above board.
Israel stole the land through the illegal annexation of some of it, and the illegal settlement of some more.
January 16, 2010 at 2:32 pm
peter1
exiledlondoner treats us to more horseshit:
“Israel stole the land through the illegal annexation of some of it, and the illegal settlement of some more.”
For somebody who has little invested, less awareness and knowledge on the subject that fits into a thimble with room to spare he is very big on using catch phrases to demonize Israel.
You don’t have any customers for your pollution here.
January 16, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Serendipity
peter1 that horseshit is akin to an idee fixee. Ignore him. He’s bored with CiF and with a bit of luck he may go away.
January 16, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Irit
Exiled Londoner: Is Northern Ireland an illegal annexation?
Oh, and for the record, I am against forced expulsions of innocent people, but I am not going to fight with people with whom I am generally in agreement just for your delectation.
January 16, 2010 at 5:53 pm
AKUS
exiledlondoner – Israel stole nothing.
It won a war forced on it. In the particular case of Jordan, responded to an attack by Jordan which it repeatedly tried to avoid by sending messages that it would not attack Jordan unless attacked first.
Following the attack by Jordan, Israel occupied the territory it gained from the Jordanians, who, in fact were the thieves, if you want to go down that road. Jordan occupied the area supposedly mandated for a furure Arab state for 20 years by grabbing the WB as its part of the attack on Israel in 1948. Jordan threw the Jews – those who survived – out of Jerusalem – and I never recall anyone suggesting that the should “give it back” to some Arabs living on the WB or allow the Jews back to their homes in the Old City, Hebron, Nablus, Kfar Etzion ..
I’m surprised to see you going down that cheap propaganda road.
January 17, 2010 at 1:15 am
exiledlondoner
Hi AKUS,
“exiledlondoner – Israel stole nothing.”
If you don’t like “stole”, what would you suggest?
“It won a war forced on it. In the particular case of Jordan, responded to an attack by Jordan which it repeatedly tried to avoid by sending messages that it would not attack Jordan unless attacked first.”
So that legitimises the war and subsequent occupation.
“Following the attack by Jordan, Israel occupied the territory it gained from the Jordanians, who, in fact were the thieves, if you want to go down that road. Jordan occupied the area supposedly mandated for a furure Arab state for 20 years by grabbing the WB as its part of the attack on Israel in 1948. Jordan threw the Jews – those who survived – out of Jerusalem – and I never recall anyone suggesting that the should “give it back” to some Arabs living on the WB or allow the Jews back to their homes in the Old City, Hebron, Nablus, Kfar Etzion ..”
You’re conflating two issues – ethnic cleansing and sovereignty.
Don’t expect me to defend the actions of Jordan (or Egypt). Jordan attacked Israel for its own selfish interests, behaved appallingly when it occupied the West Bank, did nothing to give Palestinians self-determination, and then sold them down the river.
The much-lauded peace between Israel, Egypt and Jordan was little more than the three countries looking after their own interests, at the expense of the Palestinians. Egypt got Sinai back, Jordan’s royal family got security, and Israel got a free hand in the occupied territories.
“I’m surprised to see you going down that cheap propaganda road.”
Well let’s see.
By common consent – pretty much every country on earth accepts this – both the annexation of East Jerusalem, and the settlement program, are illegal.
When a Swede, Frenchman, Canadian or even American, says “illegal settlements” or “illegal annexation”, what do they mean? I suppose that 20 years ago, while Israel was still maintaining the pretence that they would remove the settlers to achieve peace, they might have meant “illegally borrowed”?
Now the language has changed – there is no more pretence. Israel intends to hold on to the main settlement blocks and East Jerusalem, and if that prevents peace, so be it.
So while I apologise if my undiplomatic language grates, don’t kid yourself – when a well-schooled diplomat talks about “illegal settlements” or “illegal annexation”, that’s what he means – stolen land.
January 17, 2010 at 4:12 pm
peter1
Goodness gracious, the exiled one has realized something- Israel intends to hold on to some of the land won in the ’67 war.
OMG, breaking news OYEZ OYEZ.
What a surprise, the exiled one has made the incredible revelation that Israel really is going to keep some of Judea and Samaria……like this is some kind of news.
There’s more room in that thimble than I realized.
Why don’t you listen and learn instead of pontificating on subjects that you just don’t know much about.
January 17, 2010 at 6:02 pm
GiyusAndTrolls
“It’s her fault-Why didn’t she consent?” exclaimed the rapist.
“The Arabs should give us their land” said the Israeli.
“Shhh!” said conspiracy grandma
January 17, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Bat Gurion
Israel intends to hold on to the main settlement blocks and East Jerusalem, and if that prevents peace, so be it.
Peter1 is right. The Exiled one shows ignorance with every word.
The portion of the settlements which will remain Israeli are the large-scale communities close to the green line. These communities
- would represent a gargatuan dislocation both socially and economically to remove
- cannot be done poiltically
- are a non-issue, being resolved by one-for-one land swaps which everyone (except the Guardain and the Exiled one) already knows to be the inevitable outcome of peace negotiations.
In other words, it is aleady known they are not obstacle to peace.
Barak even offered East Jerusalem – unwisely, in my view. Israel should offer East Jerusalem only after the UK has offered London to the Germans.