Confusing points

Submitted by Emanuel (Slovakia), Aug 9, 2005 at 10:54

The only purpose of this article is to prove that the Palestinians do not want peace and that the pullout of illegal settlers does not help to improve their attitude. ...

Why? Because it is very likely that the attitude of the Palestinians will not change. They know that Sharon does not "evict" the settlers because of real desire for peace. It is only a tactical move. The sustaining of Settlements in the Gaza Strip is too expensive and above all too many Israeli soldiers have died in Gaza. Those are the reasons. Mr. Sharon will now concentrate on the consolidation of settlements in the West Bank - which means - expansion of the old settlements (maybe construction of new ones) and therefore the attitude of the Palestinians will and can not change.

"In addition to being a unique event in modern history (no other democracy has forcibly uprooted thousands of its own citizens of one religion from their lawful homes), ..." To call Israeli settlements "lawful homes" is to contort the reality. Those settlements were built in contravention of the Geneva Convention. This is what Mr. Pipes calls "lawful". By the way - the scientific name for the present time is contemporary history. And I agree that there is one thing unique in contemporary history - and that is that no other democracy build settlements on occupied land.

Mr. Pipes calles return of occupied land as "gift". It is very interesting description. That indicates that the content of UN SC resolutions (in this case 242, 338) is about gifts, presents, donations or bakshees and not about law.

On the one hand he says - "But I forecast a very different outcome. Given that about 80% of Palestinian Arabs continue to reject Israel's very existence ..." On the other hand he cites Palestinian politicians and people who say - "Today Gaza, tomorrow Jerusalem." Or "The withdrawal will not be complete without the West Bank and Jerusalem.Or "Our march will stop only in Jerusalem." But it is a very different thing than rejecting the existence of Israel. It is only about the other occupied territories, not about Israel. But by mixing occupied territories and Israel together... it is confusing.

...

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".