Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The bane of Israel's existence
Few Israelis have friends in the settlements or have ever visited them, yet a lot of what happens to Israel, for the better but particularly for the worse are the product of the settlements.By Gideon Levy
Is all this really worth it? If it hadn’t been for the West Bank Jewish settlements, the occupation would have ended long ago. If not for the occupation, Israel's situation would have been a lot better. One can, of course, take exception with both assumptions, particularly the second one. The first requires no further proof. But anyone who does accept these propositions has to do some real soul-searching.
A lot of what happens to Israel, for the better but particularly for the worse — both in the international arena and on the domestic front, the country's image and its likeness — are the product of the settlements. They have determined its fate: The ostracism, denunciations, boycotts in the offing, and the apartheid state that has already existed here for some time. They are because of the settlements, as are some of the country's economic ills — in addition, of course, to the blood that has been shed.
That's a lot for such an out-of-the-way piece of land that most Israelis avoid. A large proportion of them have never visited there, and many others have no interest in the fate of its residents. A community is living on this piece of land, at least some of whom — the hard-core of the settlers — speak a different language. Their beliefs and culture are different, as are their laws and way of life. The thread connecting life in the settlement of Yitzhar and the upscale northern Tel Aviv neighborhood of Ramat Aviv is very thin, if it exists at all. Life in the settlement of Ofra is totally different from Haifa, as are the issues the residents of each face.
The ties between the two communities — the secular majority in the State of Israel and the messianic minority in the Land of the Settlements — are highly tenuous.
A lot of what happens to Israel, for the better but particularly for the worse — both in the international arena and on the domestic front, the country's image and its likeness — are the product of the settlements. They have determined its fate: The ostracism, denunciations, boycotts in the offing, and the apartheid state that has already existed here for some time. They are because of the settlements, as are some of the country's economic ills — in addition, of course, to the blood that has been shed.
That's a lot for such an out-of-the-way piece of land that most Israelis avoid. A large proportion of them have never visited there, and many others have no interest in the fate of its residents. A community is living on this piece of land, at least some of whom — the hard-core of the settlers — speak a different language. Their beliefs and culture are different, as are their laws and way of life. The thread connecting life in the settlement of Yitzhar and the upscale northern Tel Aviv neighborhood of Ramat Aviv is very thin, if it exists at all. Life in the settlement of Ofra is totally different from Haifa, as are the issues the residents of each face.
The ties between the two communities — the secular majority in the State of Israel and the messianic minority in the Land of the Settlements — are highly tenuous.
(snip)
We need to ask if the continued existence of that messianic minority where it is currently situated — where it bases its control on divine and Biblical commandments that are so foreign to a large segment of the Israeli public — is so important and relevant to the secular majority that it is ready to carry that minority on its weary shoulders, and pay the price that is being demanded for it.
Is the relocation of the minority community (which is less than a tenth of the country's population) to within the country's sovereign borders such a major disaster in the eyes of the majority that it thinks it justifies the continuation of the current situation? Or instead, does the portent of disaster lie in their continuing to live where they do? After all, not many people still seriously believe that the existence of the settlement of Ariel protects the Israeli town of Carmiel, or that Ma'aleh Adumin defends Ma'aleh Hahamisha, or Ateret to Mevasseret. At last, some Israelis finally understand that the opposite is the case: more than providing a defense, the settlements pose a risk.
Is the relocation of the minority community (which is less than a tenth of the country's population) to within the country's sovereign borders such a major disaster in the eyes of the majority that it thinks it justifies the continuation of the current situation? Or instead, does the portent of disaster lie in their continuing to live where they do? After all, not many people still seriously believe that the existence of the settlement of Ariel protects the Israeli town of Carmiel, or that Ma'aleh Adumin defends Ma'aleh Hahamisha, or Ateret to Mevasseret. At last, some Israelis finally understand that the opposite is the case: more than providing a defense, the settlements pose a risk.
(snip)
With the approach of the moment of truth, if it is approaching, these questions must occupy the attention of more Israelis. When boycott threats become real, when Israel is mentioned in the same breath as the most outcast of countries, every sane Israeli needs to ask himself whether all this is really worth it. For the settlements and the settlers?
Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.538291#Scene_1
93 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
It went through the Israeli cabinet and Arafat rejected it. He later regretted rejecting the Taba offer...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel
Not generous? Tell Arafat who regretted not taking it!
Barak pulling the offer due to elections had nothing to do with it since Olmert made an even better offer in 2008 after many months of negotiations and Abbas rejected it. That propaganda you're pushing is complete shit.
You give about as many excuses supporting the occupation/settlements as the most crazed 1-state fanatics.
shira (18,664 posts)
16. I honestly cannot think of 1 good reason for 1-state
The 2 peoples cannot get along. There's just too much bad blood...
16. I honestly cannot think of 1 good reason for 1-state
The 2 peoples cannot get along. There's just too much bad blood...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113445380#post16
so when you say it, it's all good but when an Arab say it
apartheid, racism, fascism...........
but I understand I really do
once again it's okay when Israel does it, but outrage when Arabs do
are Israeli citizens who also happen to be none Jews with the as you so luv to tell us the same rights as Israeli citizens who are Jews
thanks for the oh so very revealing exchange, sometimes the truth comes out in strange ways 
The thing is, you and Abbas are for a Jew-free 100% ethnically cleansed Palestine, so that's not even an option.
I suppose yours is the most progressive, humane solution. If only I supported a racist apartheid Palestine like yourself...
accusations, no surprises there 
...even less than three decades ago.
How old are you, Shira? I imagine - I could be wrong - but i imagine that if you've been whacking around on DU as long as you have, you're at least late 20's? Older, perhaps? It's a rhetorical question, how old you are isn't actually important, except that I'm certain you're old enough to know what Levy says there is the honest-to-goodness truth. In fact he understates; the two-state solution as an acceptable idea is barely even two decades old. Prior to and even a little after the First Intifada, the notion of an Arab state west of the Jordan was pure heresy. An unthinkable, unacceptable proposition, a sacrilege, an idea only judenrat and their Nazi friends would ever dream up. No, the standard then was that all the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan was Israel, and the Arabs could either surrender to that, or they could get expelled to Jordan / Lebanon. This is the mentality behind why Shimon Peres hired an invisible terminator robot to murder Rabin (You do still regard Nahum Shahaf as the mouthpiece of god, right?
I tease )
Twenty years. Not much has gotten done on that situation, huh? See, it's sort of like a redneck's yard-car:
Sure it looked good when you invested... a little work here and there, you thought, she'd be good as new! So you put it on blocks and every now and then go out to tinker on it. But after twenty years, this damn thing's on blocks in your yard, rusting away... It's a big shambled heap now, more than it was when you bought it. It didn't run twenty years ago, and it sure as shit isn't going to run now. So do you keep sticking a wrench in it, or just admit you bought a wrecked lemon and turn your attention towards investing in something that might actually run?
Sunni Conservatives vs. Jihadis vs. Shiites vs. Copts, Women, Bahai, Gays, etc...
Why can't they all get along nicely Scoot......better yet in 1-state?
And if they can't, what makes you think it'll work with the Jews?
