For the record, Israel refers to the West Bank as "disputed territory," not occupied territory. Israel does not believe the green line is a political border. Israel believes that the territory belonged to Jordan, not the Palestinians, before Israel arrived, and therefore, the ownership of the land is in dispute.
How can you claim your territory is being occupied when it was never your territory?
You're not swinging over towards us lefties are you? If you are ....Welcome!!!
Sarah, my dear, dear sister, I love you, but sometimes...
YOU MAKE ME SO MAD.
"Israel itself will tell you that the occupied territories are occupied."
Oh, really?
"Israel's presence in the territories is often incorrectly referred to as an "occupation." However, under international law, occupation occurs in territories that have been taken from a recognized sovereign. The Jordanian rule over the West Bank and the Egyptian rule over the Gaza Strip during the years 1948-1967 resulted from a war of aggression aimed at destroying the newly established Jewish State. Their attacks plainly violated UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Plan). Accordingly, the Egyptian and Jordanian seizures of the territories were never recognized by the international community. As neither territory had a prior legitimate sovereign, under international law these areas cannot be considered as occupied and their most accurate description would be that of disputed territories."
I got this quote, by the way, from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. HELLO.
"Most countries in the world are not calling Jews' presence in most of Jerusalem, or Tel Aviv, or Petach Tikva, "occupation," and therefore there is no logical leap between the political reality of one area and the political reality of the other."
Which countries are we talking about? European? Arab? The U.N.? Since when has most of the rest of the world been on our side? Why does your argument have to be based on what *other countries* decide about Israel? Or is your argument truly seeded in a common, hidden, belief that Israel, for some reason, is incapable of being a truly independent country, and will always need the guidance of others to survive?
"The fact that there are those who would make illogical and violent leaps does not mean that we have to succumb to stupid, intellectually dishonest arguments."
The fact that you disagree with those arguments does not make them any more stupid or clearly dishonest than yours. Tit for tat, dearest sister.
"We especially should not be saying that "Gaza equals Jerusalem" because then those on "the other side" will have a logical reason to put the two in the same category."
Those on the other side, those who want Israel gone for good, already DO put the two in the same category. They will use whatever argument they can in their fight to see Israel destroyed. If, to do so, they have to get Israelis like yourself to believe that going back to 1967 borders is the "right" thing to do, so that Israel is again vulnerable to attack from all sides...then you have done a good job being played.
Raanan Elozory was not being stupid, or dishonest. He was writing about his own frustrations and beliefs.
While there is logic in your presentation, including recognition of what our enemies say, allow me to make another point which is: not once have the "Palestinian" Arabs ever stated that any of the withdrawals and yielding up of territory are a 'something' that brings the "conflict" closer to an end. They accept the ceding of territory but do not assign any shared positive value. In this situation, I can only copnclude that the "Green Line" borders are not where they will stop in their demands. If we can't get them to share in the "appreciation" of Israel's withdrawal, I am afraid that the position that we don't know where they want us to end up does make sense and that it isn't the Green Line but probably the Blue Line of the Mediterranean Sea shore.
Dear Sarah amu"sh(till 120)
You misunderstood what the letter's intent was. Ra'anan feels that the entire Jewish claim to the land is historical/biblical/halachik (jewish law) in nature. In that sense he makes an excellent point that Gaza is as much part of Biblical Israel as Yerushalayim( look in the verses in parshat ma'asei ( at the end of the Book of Numbers) and the disagreement between Rashi and Rav Saadia(2 biblical supercommmentators) as to what the words "Nachal Miztrayim"--Egyptian river mean) There are many who make the argument that you claim that he is making and ur criticism is well aimed, but i dont see that in his letter. kol tuv
i overheard an interesting discussion about withdrawing from gaza -- one person said that how he feels about it will depend on if we 'get something' in return. the other said he thinks we have already gotten something - that we no longer rule over the people in gaza. that, he said, is enough of a 'payback' since it was/is morally (and practically) detrimental to israel.
This post is vintage Chayyeisarah - thoughtful, logical, deeply intelligent and a pleasure to read.
In response to Kalman: In 1998 the late King Hussein announced the formal severing of all Jordan's legal and administrative ties with the West Bank. That means that the option of "returning" the territory to Jordan no longer exists. Jordan don't want the West Bank.
So these are Israel's options:
1) Occupy the West Bank by force indefinitely (costs a lot in terms of money and soldiers' lives, not to mention the dubious morality of undemocratic military rule over an unwilling population);
2) Incorporate the West Bank into Israel, which means either (a) giving citizenship to the Palestinians and making Israel a state for the Jews with a Jewish minority population, or, (b) not giving the Palestinians citizenship, which means that Israel wouldn't be a democracy anymore;
3) Withdraw the IDF from the West Bank and allow the Palestinians to create a sovereign state.
None of these choices is particularly attractive, but if we love Israel and want our country to survive and flourish as a democratic state for the Jewish nation then we will have to make some painful choices.
Sorry, that date should've been 1988.
You might want to read Judge Edmund Levy's minority decision for an eye opening perspective as to why you are simply wrong.
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/
files...5016610.a20.pdf
I respectfully take issue with the thrust of your post. See:
http://myobiterdicta.blogspot.co...dumb-
sarah.html
PS
I didn't say you were (God forbid) dumb. The title is: The Argument is not that Dumb, Sarah....
Lisa, once again I knew it was you speaking even before I got to your name.
In addition to the "four options" problem that Lisa mentioned, there are a few other points to make:
(1) Israel is the only country in the world that accepts its own argument that the territories are "disputed" rather than occupied (although nowadays even Ariel Sharon speaks of the impossibility of indefinitely "occupying" another people). And this argument was formulated at a specific time and for specific reasons - look for Gershom Gorenberg's upcoming book for the fascinating details.
(2) As an attorney, I know that a legal argument is only as good as the judgment it gets you in court. In this case, the "court" is the international community, or at least those countries that are pretty much in charge - the Western powers. These powers fully recognize the State of Israel within its pre-1967 borders, which were created by a UN resolution and expanded somewhat after a clear war that the entire world understood as an attempted annihalation of the state.
(3) Anyone who thinks Israel does not need to consider other nations' attitudes toward it is living in a Messianic dream world. Our country's survival depends largely on the strength of its economy; only a strong economy can support a strong defense. In today's globablized economy, good international relations - especially academic and business (not to speak of military) ties to other countries - are absolutely essential to survival.
(4) As Israel has moved closer to a peace with the Palestinians based on territorial compromise, our relations not only with the West but even with Arab countries have improved. Our peace with Jordan and Egypt may be cold, but it is a peace. Other Arab countries are also now starting to consider establishing relations of one kind or another.
(5) By the way, the right wing makes two incompatible arguments. On the one hand, it doesn't matter what "the goyim" think of us, because we are infinitely strong. On the other hand, it matters very much whether all, most or even some Palestinians want to wipe Israel off the map, because we are so weak that territorial concessions under those circumstances will doubtless destroy us.
The four options argument, however, remains the strongest one for a two-state solution. I don't really see how anyone who is not relying (against Jewish law) on Divine intervention feels s/he can afford to ignore it.
I'm only responding to the above b/c you said you are an attorney. Then you should have well been able to handle the reading of Judge Edmund Levy's opinion where you would have seen clearly the legal arguments in International Law validating Israel's position that they are disputed territories - not occupied. And that even the majority opinion that supports the concept of "tfisa lochamtit" acknowledges the essential validity of this position, and refuses to allow the application of many areas of International Law that apply to occupied territories, to be applied to the areas in question. Were Israel to apply tomorrow to parts of the West Bank the same administrative order they applied to Ashkelon (yes, it wasn't even at the level of a statute), then the majority on the court would accept that it is no longer subject to tfisa lochamtit and Israeli law would apply - not occupied territory.
You would have also noted clearly that the world does NOT recognize Israel's pre-1967 boundaries, and that Israel itself did not extend full Israeli laws to the areas beyond the partition plan borders captured in 1948-49, until well after the six-day war. These annexations were no where "recognized" in the International Arena and the only basis for Israel's claims to them are those Israel makes towards the post-1967 areas as well - the same legal arguments I note (San Remo, League of Nations, etc etc.) There is simply no legal basis for suggesting that Ashkelon, Jaffa, Acre or Western Jeruslem are any different than Gush Etzion, Hebron, Jordan Valley or Eastern Jerusalem under International Law. And it is pretty clear that the scenario will play itself out as laid out by Judge Levy should Israel continue on its current course of action.
Lisa,
I was merely setting the record straight about the terminology Sarah was using. Whether you agree with Israel or not, the Israeli government's official position is that the West Bank is "disputed territory." Sarah was going on and on about how "Israel itself will tell you that the occupied territories are occupied." No it won't. And if you follow political discourse in this region, then I'm sure you know it.
Forgive me if I'm reading too much into it, but your response to my comment reveals that you care more about making political points than you care about truth.
Kalman, I'll forgive you quite easily for reading too much into my comment (you did). But I find it less easy to forgive people who make assumptions about me and misinterpret me in a way that seems quite willful.
I am an Israeli. I do live in Israel. I do follow politics. Actually, I'm a journalist with a degree in Middle Eastern studies.
I stated my political viewpoint in my comment. Since when is the statement of opinion "scoring political points"?
Go ahead and disagree with me - the more opinions, the better, as far as I'm concerned. But you weaken your own position by making erroneous assumptions about me and by patronising me. If your argument is strong, you should be able to make it stand on its own - without resorting to personal remarks.
Lisa,
What I was trying to say is that your response to my initial comment, where you lay out an entire case for Israeli withdrawal and all that, seems to be political opportunism. I was not arguing for or against withdrawal. I was correcting a significant factual error in Sarah's post.
In my response to you, in which I continued to remain neutral about withdrawal, I was expressing disappointment in your comment, which took pains to point out the logic of withdrawal - even though that's not the topic at hand at all -but ignored the significant error. It was as though it didn't matter what Sarah wrote or what I was moved to respond to. All that mattered was that there was an opening to push your political opinion. That's why I wrote that you seemed more concerned with scoring political points, not with truth.
I was not making assumptions about you. I've seen many of your posts on a variety of blogs. And I've read your own blog before. I think you write well, and I feel that you mean what you say. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't. But nothing I wrote on this thread exressed either agreement or disagreement.
I also wasn't being patronizing. I still don't understand why you felt it was vital to launch a political argument. If you feel you were engaging me, I'm not sure why you feel that way. Go back and read Sarah's post. Then read my comment. You'll see I was merely expressing the government's position, which was badly misrepresented in Sarah's post. But notice that I didn't accuse Sarah of being deliberately false. Still, she made such a point of it, it had to be corrected.
But I'm really not looking for a fight. And I'm not interested in a political discussion about withdrawal. I regret you were offended, but your message would have been much cleared (and stronger) if you acknowledged what I was saying, and then added your political bit. As it were, your comments give me the feel of someone who's looking for a fight.
Lord, this whole thread is putting me into a foul mood.
>:-(
Even if Israel is calling them "disputed territories" instead of "occupied territories," my point still stands: Israel is NOT putting "the territories" into the same geopolitical category as Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
That fact means nothing, obviously, to those who would drive us into the sea. But it DOES matter to our allies, few as they may be.
That's all I'm sayin'!
Discussion ends here. Everyone back into your corners, no matter how wrong you are! I've had the last word on this. My blog, my last word. If you want to go grumble about me, I recommend the comments at My Obiter Dicta, who at least presents his case reasonably, without ad hominem attacks.
Sheesh. Sometimes I wonder why I keep a blog at all. I'm getting under my covers now with a book and a hot chocolate, and making you all go away!
:-P
Sarah darlin', I know how much it sucks to see the comments section on your blog turn into a verbal battlefield. I started an argument without meaning to and I contributed to an upsetting situation. And for that I am so sorry. Come hang out with me at Ginzburg and I'll make it up to you with the most decadent chocolate mousse cake in Tel Aviv - if not Israel.
Geneva Convention is an interesting one. Israel says it does not apply in the WB and it's complance with the GC in those areas is voluentart. Why? Because the GC the between "High Contracting Parties", i.e. states. Until the PA declares a state and becomes a signator to the GC, it can claim no protection under it and can not hold Israel to the letter of it's term.
I'm so pleased to hear an Orthodox Jew take the position you have. I am heartened to see that there are differing voices within your community and that some of them are more willing to face the possibility that Israel will have to make territorial compromises in order to attain the peace that has so long averted it & which it so much deserves.
Commenting by HaloScan
