Dealing With the Jews of Judea, Samaria & Gaza

We can debate the wisdom of the Israeli government's subsidization of these settlements all day,

As Israel has no recognized border the decision to populate areas vital to Israel's national interests and thereby insure that these areas remain in Israel seems absolutely sensible to me.

I'd expect any peace deal to make their towns part of Israel,

These towns will be part of Israel, peace deal or no. I do not expect to see peace in my lifetime, though I would love to be wrong.

perhaps in exchange for Temple Mount/Haram Al Sharif and the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem

I would rather constantly be at war defending the spiritual, historical, and cultural center of Judaism, the city of Jerusalem, than make the trade you suggest. My father fought to relieve the siege of Jerusalem in the War of Independence. While the eastern part of the city was under Jordanian control the Western Wall was used as a garbage dump. The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism and I will oppose any attempt to give it up. Also, some political reality for you: when Ehud Barak offered up parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians he immediately lost his majority in the Knesset. I cannot foresee a time when Labor, Meretz, and the Arab parties hold 61 seats, and unless that happens Jerusalem will never be divided.

Some things are worth fighting for, even dying for. Jerusalem is one of them, and most especially the Temple Mount. Also, one piece of history you may not know: in 1854, before the first Zionist aliyah, when Jerusalem was little more than the old walled city, the majority of the population was Jewish.

If an area is strategically important, why put civilians and even children there?

What better way of insuring that those places remain in Israeli hands? Many of the settlements you describe are actually Israeli towns and cities with up to 30,000 population, are perfectly safe and have been free from violence.

That would be Israel's perogative as an occupier

Grrr! You accept what the press and the U.N. say without question. How can Israel be an "occupier" of land when the ownership of the land itself is in dispute. Israel's borders have never been agreed upon. Further, the last treaty that did exist was the 1919 treaty between the British and the Hashemite King of Jordan and Iraq which set the border of a future Jewish state at the Jordan River. Failing a new agreement that treaty is still in force as the legal definition of borders.

Israel rules over 3.5 million Palestinian Arabs against their will. However, the only territory which could legally be called occupied is that which we ceded to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo agreement. All the rest is the world swallowing the Arab position and repeating the big lie. Look at the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. There is a wonderfully detailed article titled Disputed Territories with links to comments by one of the authors of UN Resolution 242. The drafters of that resolution and the subsequent Resolution 338 NEVER INTENDED for Israel to return to the indefensible 1967 borders.

Instead, all signatories of the Geneva Convention consider Israel in violation of same, except of course for Israel.

An interpretation which is purely political and legally incorrect.

These are the people that Poraz is suggesting need to be dealt with harshly. Arutz Sheva calls that "anti-Jewish".

I have called Arutz Sheva extremist on Free Republic and have been branded a hopeless leftist for it. However, in my view, Arutz Sheva is in line with the "national camp", which is a small minority of those Israelis to the absolute farthest right of the political spectrum. They are not the mainstream in Israel but seem to be on Free Republic. Do NOT judge Israeli public opinion by Free Republic because it gives a very distorted view.

As far as how such settlements will be dealt with if we must, look no farther than how Ariel Sharon dealt with Yamit. However, Minister Poraz is wrong in one respect: you don't predict violence ahead of time to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. I do NOT want to see the spectre of Jews killing Jews. The Palestinians would love that. You do everything possible for a peaceful resolution first.

Finally, this discussion really is moot. The majority of Palestinians, according to recent polls, believe the "armed struggle" should continue and terrorism should continue even if they have a state. Based on that the only solution I see is unilateral separation and that should be based on demographics. The 1947 U.N. Partition Plan was based on demographics and I believe that principle still works.

The Arabs simply have no onterest in any solution that does not envison destroying Israel.

Is it possible that most of them have given up on that possibility?

Based on what I read in the Arab media, see in the Arab press, and the statements made by most Arab leaders I think I can answer that question with an unequivocal "no".

The Arab League offered Israel full diplomatic relations with its entire membership in exchange for withdrawl to the 1967 borders and recognition of some form of a "right to return".

"Right of return" is Arab diplomatic speak for flooding millions of hostile Arabs into Israel and us ceasing to exist as a Jewish state. Yossi Sarid, the leader of Meretz, the most left-wing and dovish party in Israel, has called "right of return" national suicide. While I rarely agree with MK Sarid, this is one place he has it absolutely right.

The late Defense Minister Moshe Dayan called the 1967 borders the "Auschwitz line" because such borders would eventually lead to the destruction of Israel.

Oh yes, the Arab League made a big public show of offering recongnition and peace to Israel with terms that only offered the peace of the grave. Thanks but no thanks.

While I do not think that Israel should accept that deal, it's a de facto recognition of Israel's right to exist.

That is what they would like you to believe. It simply is not so.

In any case, the "Arabs" are hardly unified.

You are a master of understatement.

Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. The deal with Jordan is a virtual mutual defense pact. I believe that Israel also has diplomatic relations with Morrocco, and its well known though not publically acknowledged that they have significant dealings with the Saudis, some of the Gulf States, and Pakistan.

Pakistan is not an Arab state. Morocco severed diplomatic relations in 2000 though there has been talk of restoration. Israel has had positive dealings with Qatar, one tiny country. There have never been any sort of meaningful relations with Saudi Arabia.

All of those states, as well as Egypt, acquiesce to Palestinian terrorism and parrot the Palestinian line which amounts to calling for the destruction of Israel. Egypt, to her credit, has expressed frustration with Yasser Arafat and has tried to mediate talks. OTOH, look at the anti-Semitism and anti-Israel material in the Egyptian media. I really wonder if the peace treaty will survive beyond President Mubarek.

I think your views on the prospects for peace are wishful thinking at best. I would love it for you to be right but I am a realist and I have to live in the region.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.