Recent Israeli developements

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stubeeef, Aug 18, 2005.

  1. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #1
    I find them promising, after Arafat has gone, things may happen. The light will shine on the Palastineans to not squable so much and screw things up.

    Lots going on, what is the read here?
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  3. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    Like a lot of people, I'm worried that the Israeli strategy is to give with one hand while taking with the other. West Bank here we come.

    It's always frightening to me to listen to the radio in the US and hear how many people call in quoting the Bible and saying this is an abomination and that it is Jewish land.
     
  4. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #4
    I guess after the 67 war they learned not to give away a strategic and tactical position won after nearly getting eliminated.

    Had the war not happened that would not be Israeli land.
     
  5. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    I've forgotten history. 67 they occupied the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza (and Sinai)right? It was earlier that they actually conquered territory that they've annexed into current Israel.
     
  6. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #6
    I can't remember either, need to read up more soon. sorry, if i was wrong I need to be corrected, but I thought much of those areas were won in the 67 war.
     
  7. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #7
    i'll go with milo on this one...

    i mean, it's not often we see countries (or even people individually) give something away unless it benefits them in some way. one can make the case that this improves security by alleviating tensions (at least a bit) i guess. but i'm worried that they plan to do something "bad" while they have positive pr... and can say "but we just did this and that" good stuff.

    i'll admit i haven't followed all the details and reasonings as to why they did this, so if anyone wants to enlighten me as to sharon's public reasons that make sense beyond just a good natured gesture, feel free :)
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    Yes, all of these territories were captured by Israel in 1967. The settlement programs began shortly thereafter. While Sinai, Gaza, the Golan and the West Bank (including east Jerusalem) were never part of the state of Israel, the thinking has been that Israel would create "facts on the ground" with the settlements, and those territories would never have to be returned. This evacuation of Gaza is biggest step towards peace in this region since Camp David (when the Sinai was returned to Egypt). The next phases would have to be the West Bank, and then settling the status of Jerusalem, in exponentially increasing orders of difficulty. I would watch very closely for signs of civil strife within Israel. The country has a sizable minority of religious fanatics. They could make a lot of trouble, and I expect they will. It could get ugly. Remember what happened to Itzhak Rabin.
     
  9. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    There are plenty of signs already, with a rogue soldier shooting a few people and stuff like that.

    As for this beign a case of a country giving something away, it's important to remember that the Gaza strip isn't Israel's any more than, say, Iraq is US territory. Since the establishment of the UN states pretty much haven't been allowed to conquer and annex territory militarily.

    edit: wait! I thought of one. China conquered Tibet, and Richard Gere hasn't succeeded in kicking them out yet.
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    Sure, but it's pretty much limited to background noise at this point. I'm thinking of major acts of civil disobedience, sustained, organized political violence, that sort of thing. It would certainly be ironic if in the coming days the Israeli Army was forced to fire rubber bullets and tear gas at rioting, stone-throwing Israelis. It could happen.
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    I expect it will. The fanaticism which would cause the death of a prime minister would not confine itself to pouring paint over soldiers. The West Bank, as you pointed out, will be a different kettle of fish.
     
  12. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #12
    When it comes to Jerusalem, the kettle will be boiling so hard it might be difficult to tell there were fish in it. I can't see how the Israeli government will ever be able to partition a city with such significance to three religions. Maybe it's best left for the next century.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    Jerusalem is an issue just made for the UN.
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    I believe such ideas have been floated before, but Israel has rejected them. I've always thought that Jerusalem should ultimately be declared an international city and become a self-governing city-state. It could even happen, maybe 25 years from now, if Israel's security is enhanced by giving up control of Gaza and the West Bank. I'm sure at this point few Israelis believe it will, so in that respect, it's up to the Palestinians to prove that they can govern and police themselves.
     
  15. anonymous161 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Location:
    Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
    #15
    Wasn't Jerusalem originally supposed to be an international city? The Israelis just kept moving people in.
     
  16. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    Good question; I don't know. Care to do some research and enlighten us? I'm fairly certain that West Jerusalem was included within the borders of the original state of Israel. East Jerusalem was effectively annexed in 1967.
     
  17. anonymous161 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Location:
    Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
    #17
    Wikipedia has a little bit
    Still looking for something better...
     
  18. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #18
    Here's a good place to start if you're looking for basic information.

    UN Partition Plan by BBC and UN Resolution 181

    So, yes, the City of Jerusalem and its surrounding area was to be placed under international trusteeship. Israel changed this with the take over of much of the land allocated to the Palestinians by the UN Partition in the 1948 war, including West Jerusalem. In 1967 the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, came under Israeli occupation and that is in essence where we stand today.

    While I think the withdrawal of Israel from any Palestinian land is a good thing, I can't help but look at the current dispute among Israelis over Gaza as a dispute between those who want to create "bantustans" and those who want outright ethnic cleansing.
     

Share This Page