Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't say "go back to" the 1967 borders, I said "not build a wall on the other side of" the 1967 borders. Without a negotiated settlement, it's not their land.
|
In a legitimate unsettled occupation, I'd suggest that, within reason, it is their land until they negotiate it away.
If the Palestinians can go even just a few months as a civil society, with the rule of law and all (while the Israeli's sit on the other side of the wall), then I'll gladly support the Palestinians' push for their land back. However, until they are even willing to negotiate, I think its pretty much Israel's to do what it wants with, within reason.
That said, I think the settlements themselves are a no-brainer. Israel should evacuate, within reason (i.e., not greater Jerusalem, but just about everything else), all civilian settlements. Negotiation or not, its been dangerous to Israelis troops and and it is an ugly hand to play in a negotiation. Occupation is legitimate, resettlement of civilians onto enemy land is not.
Which is not to say that the land has been stolen, though I'd guess that some settlements have been built on land confiscated by the Israeli gov't, which is ugly.
All in all, I think Israel gets to do what it needs to do militarily, and the wall is part of what it needs to do. So far, the decrease in deadly bombings has been marked, and its not even finished.
Hello
Threaded Mode