why doesn't the israeli government listen to the majority?

[bud]

instead of representing the majority of the people, the israeli government continues to not only defy international law but also go against what majority of israelis want:

A survey of the Israeli general public and Israeli settlers taken in early March shows three-fifths of the Israeli public (60%) support "dismantling most of the settlements in the territories as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians."

WPO

Poll

an example of how the government is controlled by the extremist settler groups. one false move against the settlements by bibi and his coalition will fall apart.

[Shady]

instead of representing the majority of the people, the israeli government continues to not only defy international law but also go against what majority of israelis want:

A survey of the Israeli general public and Israeli settlers taken in early March shows three-fifths of the Israeli public (60%) support "dismantling most of the settlements in the territories as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians."

WPO

Poll

an example of how the government is controlled by the extremist settler groups. one false move against the settlements by bibi and his coalition will fall apart.

Well, if the poll accurately reflects the will of the people, then the government will have no choice. If they refuse, then a new government will be elected. That's what democracy is all about.

[M.Dancer]

Wow!

An 11 month old poll....!!!

[bud]

Wow!

An 11 month old poll....!!!

wow? yes. in that time, the government had numerous opportunities to at least 'freeze' the settlements and instead elected to feed the extremist right wingers in its coalition.

[Bob]

The Israeli government isn't defying the Israeli majority, as peace talks have been virtually non-existent for years. In the context of an agreement, a majority of Israelis support withdrawing from parts of what you refer to as the West Bank. The important fact that you're ignoring in order to advance your political perspective is that there are no current negotiations taking place, let alone an agreement. Do you expect Israel to begin to evacuate Jewish communities proactively without receiving guarantees from the PA with respect to their end of the negotiations (security, refugees, borders, and Jerusalem)?

In the absence of negotiations and without an agreement to resolve final status issues, why are you expecting the Israeli government to dismantle Jewish communities beyond the 1948 armistice lines?

Consider a simple scenario, you and I are negotiating over the price of a home. You're trying to sell it, and I'm trying to buy it. We cannot agree on certain terms. I want some repairs and a lower price. Are you going to repair the home before we've made an agreement? Unless you're a fool, you will not do that until we've signed an agreement. The same is true in this scenario, why would Israel proactively undertake a massive endeavour such as evacuating certain Jewish communities in Judeah or Samaria outside of negotiations of a final status agreement?

Once again, the majority of Israelis support withdrawal and evacuation from many settlements in Judea and Samaria in the context of an agreement, and not simply just for the hell of it. This is an important distinction you're not making.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

Wow!

An 11 month old poll....!!!

The poll results are probably still relatively accurate. Not much has changed in the past eleven months with respect to Israeli-Jewish perspectives towards this conflict.

[Bob]

wow? yes. in that time, the government had numerous opportunities to at least 'freeze' the settlements and instead elected to feed the extremist right wingers in its coalition.

It depends on which settlements you're talking about, and what kind of freeze you're talking about. Israel did freeze all settlement activity for eleven months, beginning in late 2009 (November, I think?). We got nothing during that time, except increased shouts for a settlement-extension towards the end of the freeze and MORE terrorism during the entire period of time. The exception of course was Jerusalem, as necessary construction occurred during that time and continues today, as it should. There's no need to offer the carrot of freezing settlement developments when we get nothing in return. I think the population of Jews living across the 1948 armistice lines, "settlers", now totals over 300 000. These are communities with needs for growth. We're not going to punish them and forbid them from building what they need (roads, schools, apartments, businesses, etc) when we get nothing in return from the PA.

You need to give something to get something. Continued terrorism, incitement, and political warfare from the Palestinians and their supporters doesn't incentivize Israel to make concessions for the sake of making concessions.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Bob

[bud]

as a settler, i'm curious to know your view: why do settlers live in the settlements? what is their reason?

[Bob]

Clearly you don't understand the various types of settlers, or the various settlements. I live in an area that will never be under Palestinian sovereignty. I live in a neighborhood that was under construction very shortly after Jerusalem was liberated after the Six-Day War. I live just a few kilometres from the Old City. According to some, this is "occupied territory" as the neighbourhood in which I live is across the 1948 armistice lines. I live here because I like this neighborhood and it's near my language school, work, and major arteries.

The settler-image in your mind is probably the religious nationalists who believe in Greater Israel - Israel as defined by the Torah. They often view settling the land of Israel as a commandment from God (and it is, by the way) and a virtuous act. They also tend to be very unsympathetic to Arab grievances. These settler compose perhaps one-third, at most, of the settler population living in the "West Bank" (excluding the major population centres such as Ma'aleh Adumim adjacent to Jerusalem) far-out settlements.

What you and others like you need to understand is that certain major settlement blocks are not up for negotiation. My neighbourhood is one of those areas. This is true for many reasons, including the importance of many homes, institutions, and businesses here, value, as well as security issues. Pizgat Zev is another example of a Jewish community that is referred to as an "illegal settlement" which will never be given away. This is simply reality. People who live in these neighbourhoods come in all flavours, religious, not-so-religious, political, apolitical, right-wing, centrist, leftist, gay, straight, whatever. People in these neighbourhoods don't fit the stereotype you have in your mind of the evil right-wing religious settler.

The main think I hope you learn from this post is that there are settlements and then there are settlements. Not all are the same. A majority of Israelis are willing to relinquish the smaller, newer, more fringe settlements. The place where I live, however, while technically a "settlement" according to some, is simply not on the table for negotiation. Everyone who is connected and knowledgeable about this conflict and the territories involved (you're not a part of this group) knows this. Remember, there are settlements, and then there are settlements. Some are negotiable, others are not. Typically, the further-out settlements tend to have strong minorities of national-religious advocates for Greater-Israel, not so much the neighbourhoods such as the one I live in.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Bob

[dre]

as a settler, i'm curious to know your view: why do settlers live in the settlements? what is their reason?

The settlements are designed to stake out claims to certain strategic areas. The more Israel developes the west bank, and the more Israelis live there, the less chance there is of them ever having to give the land back.

If you look at the location of the settlements and the security wall a picture starts to emerge of what Israel plans to do which is essentially to annex the parts that they see as valuable, and secure the mountain aquifier permanently. The settlements are also a usefull method of angering palestinians and derailing the peace process.

[Bob]

The settlements are designed to stake out claims to certain strategic areas. The more Israel developes the west bank, and the more Israelis live there, the less chance there is of them ever having to give the land back.

If you look at the location of the settlements and the security wall a picture starts to emerge of what Israel plans to do which is essentially to annex the parts that they see as valuable, and secure the mountain aquifier permanently. The settlements are also a usefull method of angering palestinians and derailing the peace process.

A lot of the settlement locations are based on various needs, including security, and proximity to major population/business/political centres such as Jerusalem. Some settlement locations are based on spiritual and religious needs, such as the Jewish communities in and near Hebron. Others don't serve much of a practical purpose.

You're in no position to be telling others about the reasons for settlements in a broad sense, especially considering that there is no one-size-fits-all simplistic answer as you're trying to portray. You also managed to slip in a vile suggestion that Israel doesn't want peace and intentionally tries to derail movements towards and equitable resolution to the conflict.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Bob

[bud]

Clearly you don't understand the various types of settlers, or the various settlements. I live in an area that will never be under Palestinian sovereignty. I live in a neighborhood that was under construction very shortly after Jerusalem was liberated after the Six-Day War. I live just a few kilometres from the Old City. According to some, this is "occupied territory" as the neighbourhood in which I live is across the 1948 armistice lines. I live here because I like this neighborhood and it's near my language school, work, and major arteries.

The settler-image in your mind is probably the religious nationalists who believe in Greater Israel - Israel as defined by the Torah. They often view settling the land of Israel as a commandment from God (and it is, by the way) and a virtuous act. They also tend to be very unsympathetic to Arab grievances. These settler compose perhaps one-third, at most, of the settler population living in the "West Bank" (excluding the major population centres such as Ma'aleh Adumim adjacent to Jerusalem) far-out settlements.

What you and others like you need to understand is that certain major settlement blocks are not up for negotiation. My neighbourhood is one of those areas. This is true for many reasons, including the importance of many homes, institutions, and businesses here, value, as well as security issues. Pizgat Zev is another example of a Jewish community that is referred to as an "illegal settlement" which will never be given away. This is simply reality. People who live in these neighbourhoods come in all flavours, religious, not-so-religious, political, apolitical, right-wing, centrist, leftist, gay, straight, whatever. People in these neighbourhoods don't fit the stereotype you have in your mind of the evil right-wing religious settler.

The main think I hope you learn from this post is that there are settlements and then there are settlements. Not all are the same. A majority of Israelis are willing to relinquish the smaller, newer, more fringe settlements. The place where I live, however, while technically a "settlement" according to some, is simply not on the table for negotiation. Everyone who is connected and knowledgeable about this conflict and the territories involved (you're not a part of this group) knows this. Remember, there are settlements, and then there are settlements. Some are negotiable, others are not. Typically, the further-out settlements tend to have strong minorities of national-religious advocates for Greater-Israel, not so much the neighbourhoods such as the one I live in.

good explanation but you're making one big error. i never insinuated that i believed all settlers are religious fanatics. i also understand the different types and the different reasons why they are in these settlements.

in fact, the reason why i asked was because of the poll i posted. in the poll, the settlers' motives for living where they are, are as follows:

46% - personal wish for quality of life

31% - national or religious mission

15% - importance for the security of israel

the above poll, reflects your explanation.

what's interesting is what the perception of settlers' motives by settlers and the public:

26% - personal wish

48% - national or religious mission

13% - security

the public (israeli) perception is similar with 55% perceive that the reason is national or religious.

[bud]

bob.. your thoughts on the mayor of jerusalem and the recent demolishing of palestinians homes in arab neighbourhoods, including the demolishing of sheppard hotel.

you mentioned settlements that are already established and have been for many years. however, what about the new settlements (and/or the paving of new settlements) in the arab neighbourhoods like the above-mentioned. do you find it acceptable?

[Bob]

good explanation but you're making one big error. i never insinuated that i believed all settlers are religious fanatics. i also understand the different types and the different reasons why they are in these settlements.

in fact, the reason why i asked was because of the poll i posted. in the poll, the settlers' motives for living where they are, are as follows:

46% - personal wish for quality of life

31% - national or religious mission

15% - importance for the security of israel

the above poll, reflects your explanation.

what's interesting is what the perception of settlers' motives by settlers and the public:

26% - personal wish

48% - national or religious mission

13% - security

the public (israeli) perception is similar with 55% perceive that the reason is national or religious.

One more thing you need to understand is that different settlements contain different types of Jewish communities. Consider the settlement of Kiryat Arba adjacent to Hebron. I am certain that the resident of that community are more right-wing, less sympathetic to Arab grievances, more rigid with respect to the sacrifices they think Israel should make towards a peaceful resolution, and more religiously observant than the residents of the Gush Etzion or Pizgat Zev settlements (both of which will always be a part of Israel).

This is partly due to the hostilities these settlers have been directly affected by, basically vicious terrorism. They are also religiously motivated, however, as Hebron is one of the most important locations in Jewish history. It is highly important to us, spiritually.

Aside from all the, you need to know that different settlements are composed differently. Generally speaking, the political/religious composition of settlements that are adjacent to or near the 1948 armistice lines are more in-line with national averages, while the populations in settlements that are deeper in the "West Bank" tend to have larger proportions of right-wing national-religious settlers. The deeper settlements, generally speaking, are the ones that will likely be relinquished to Palestinian sovereignty in the event of final status peace agreement. If you're interested, read Dennis Ross' "The Missing Peace" to view maps that illustrate proposals made by Israel to Arafat in the years leading up to 2001's collapse.

[Bob]

bob.. your thoughts on the mayor of jerusalem and the recent demolishing of palestinians homes in arab neighbourhoods, including the demolishing of sheppard hotel.

you mentioned settlements that are already established and have been for many years. however, what about the new settlements (and/or the paving of new settlements) in the arab neighbourhoods like the above-mentioned. do you find it acceptable?

It's not only acceptable, it's necessary. Housing costs are very high in Jerusalem, and the only way to ameliorate this problem is to put a downward pressure on costs by increasing supply. This is not a joke, I would venture a guess that at least 20% of the Jewish population of Jerusalem lives below the national poverty line. The cost of living in Jerusalem is higher than most large Canadian cities, and the worst part is that the salaries here are a fraction of what they are in large Canadian cities. The housing situation in Jerusalem can certainly be described as a real municipal crises, and it's getting worse. The problem is that whenever construction begins to take place to service the Jewish population, there are cries of outrage claiming that we are stealing Palestinian land. We cannot relegate all of our developments to certain parts of Jerusalem for political purposes. Jerusalem isn't just some dot on a map for pundits to cry about on television, it's a real city with real problems. Things in Jerusalem will happen organically as they occur in other cities. There are many important areas of Jerusalem which qualify as "East Jerusalem" which Jews should not be prohibited from being able to access in order to appease political tensions.

The recent news focus on the Sheppard Hotel is another artificial controversy designed to stoke the flames and denigrate Israel. The property by purchased by the billionaire Moscovitz many years ago, and now he wants to develop the property to become an apartment. Don't be fooled by the headlines into thinking this is some sort of imperialistic land-grab. The hotel (I walked by it a few days ago) has been out-of-commission for man years, and the truth about this story is that the only reason there is opposition to it is because it will cater to observant Jews in the city. The Arabs don't want to see the beginning of a Jewish community in their neighbourhood, end of story.

As far as "demolishing homes of Palestinians", you'll need to be more specific.

[Bob]

Look, at the risk of being simplistic, we live on top of each other. That's the thing that makes this conflict so complicated. Even worse, the majority of of these populations don't want to live around the other. This is why there is an unofficial segregation in this country which is voluntarily adhered to by both Jews and Arabs. There are Arab communities, Arab business districts, and Arab schools, as well as Jewish communities, Jewish business districts, and Jewish schools.

There are legitimate reasons behind this separation which I don't feel like getting into at the moment, but I can explain it later. The reasons tend to apply to both sides. This is a really messed up situation.

[GostHacked]

I think the population of Jews living across the 1948 armistice lines, "settlers", now totals over 300 000. These are communities with needs for growth. We're not going to punish them and forbid them from building what they need (roads, schools, apartments, businesses, etc) when we get nothing in return from the PA.

Israel is expanding at the expense of kicking out Palestinians from their land. Israel would best learn from history. Israel was created with the notion it had historic ties to the land from which they were driven (diaspora) only to have them create Israel in the middle of the mandated area in which they are now trying to slowly choke and drive out the remaining Palestinians (or offer them a home within the new borders of Israel), when that happens the Palestinians will have their very own diaspora.

You need to give something to get something. Continued terrorism, incitement, and political warfare from the Palestinians and their supporters doesn't incentivize Israel to make concessions for the sake of making concessions.

I don't see Israel giving anything. Since it's modern inception, it has continually grown for one reason or another.

[Shady]

I don't see Israel giving anything. Since it's modern inception, it has continually grown for one reason or another.

Gazaa?

[Shady]

I'm pretty sure Israel would gladly give up the Golan Heights. If they knew it wouldn't be used again for a staging ground for more attacks/invasions, or missile/rocket/mortar attacks.

[dre]

Gazaa?

The reason they gave up Gaza is because theres little of value there. They will not give up the settlements in the west bank which are strategically placed to secure water resources, and currently provide almost 1/3rd of israels fresh water.

[Bob]

Israel is expanding at the expense of kicking out Palestinians from their land. Israel would best learn from history. Israel was created with the notion it had historic ties to the land from which they were driven (diaspora) only to have them create Israel in the middle of the mandated area in which they are now trying to slowly choke and drive out the remaining Palestinians (or offer them a home within the new borders of Israel), when that happens the Palestinians will have their very own diaspora.

Nobody was forced from their homes since 1948. At that point the refugee problem came into existence. The picture you are trying to paint is completely false. We are not in the process of driving people from their homes or starving them out of existence. The areas into which Israel "expands" are unpopulated areas.

Even the PA, decades ago, stopped using such stupid rhetoric as you're using now. The Palestinian population in Israel, and in Judea and Samaria is growing, and their economy is growing (although their economy is a house of cards built on donations). Nobody is being forced out of an anywhere. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I don't see Israel giving anything. Since it's modern inception, it has continually grown for one reason or another.

That's because you don't know anything about Israeli history. Israel has given a lot. Whether it be the Egyptian peace agreement in 1979, or the offers made to Syria, or the Jordanian peace agreement in 1994. Israel, through different governments and at different times, have made a variety of offers to the PA for final-status issues. Israel also withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Of course, you know nothing about this. And of course, that doesn't stop you from speaking on the subject.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Bob

[bud]

Gazaa?

you can't give something that is not yours.

the gaza settlements were small and removed due to the high cost of maintaining them. it was useless to sharon. not only that, but the settlers were just moved to the west bank settlements.

'terrorism' by palestinians was non-existent for many years throughout the occupation years. israel has continued to increase its settlements every year. they promote it and give incentives to those who move to the areas. this is not called natural growth, it's systematic land grab.

[dre]

Nobody was forced from their homes since 1948.

[Bob]

I'm pretty sure Israel would gladly give up the Golan Heights. If they knew it wouldn't be used again for a staging ground for more attacks/invasions, or missile/rocket/mortar attacks.

Israel made an offer to relinquish 99.9% of the Golan to Syria, keeping about 300 metres of it. The offer was refused. I forget the year and date, but I will find the details and update this post.

[bud]

Nobody was forced from their homes since 1948. At that point the refugee problem came into existence.

whitewashed history. expulsions and removals have been well-documented. it only makes you look bad and removes people's interest in what you have to say when you repeat lies like this.

Nobody is being forced out of an anywhere. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

tell that to the hundreds of people who are losing homes in east jerusalem. tell that to the palestinians who are not given permits to build. tell that to the rabbis who have signed a declaration to keep the newly built homes on top of demolished arab homes, jews only.