Debating the settlements http://blogs.jta.org/ENTRY_PERMALINK_HERE/debating-the-settlements/ The Los Angeles Times has published a guide to the settlements and dueling opinion pieces on the issue. en-us aeden@jta.org Copyright 2009 2009-06-29T;20:08:00-05:00 Comment by Sheldon Dan sdan5753@bellsouth.net All right, if Ms. Whitson wants Israel to relocate the settlers within the 1967 borders (which are NOT recognized borders, merely cease-fire lines) and compensate Palestinians for their losses, then the Arab countries should compensate the Jews who lived in their lands for centuries (about the same population as the Arabs who were displaced in 1948) for THEIR losses.  Lots of luck. She cites the Geneva Convention, but the applicability of this is disputed.  She also cites the ordeals the Palestinians go through.  Has she thought that if some of those Palestinians didn’t commit suicide bombings, shoot rockets into Israeli territory, etc., there would be no need for those checkpoints? I will state again that these 1967 borders were merely cease-fire lines.  They are NOT “secure and recognized borders” called for in UN resolutions.  And I might remind everyone that Resolution 242 required withdrawal from “territories,” NOT “all” or “all the” territories.  In a final settlement, these borders are to be negotiated, and they were not anticipated to be the same as the 1967 borders.  The Palestinian apologists can complain all they want, but at best the West Bank is “disputed,” not “occupied” territory, and it should be determined through honest negotiations where the border should be. All right, if Ms. Whitson wants Israel to relocate the settlers within the 1967 borders (which are NOT recognized borders, merely cease-fire lines) and compensate Palestinians for their losses, then the Arab countries should compensate the Jews who lived in their lands for centuries (about the same population as the Arabs who were displaced in 1948) for THEIR losses.  Lots of luck.

She cites the Geneva Convention, but the applicability of this is disputed.  She also cites the ordeals the Palestinians go through.  Has she thought that if some of those Palestinians didn’t commit suicide bombings, shoot rockets into Israeli territory, etc., there would be no need for those checkpoints?

I will state again that these 1967 borders were merely cease-fire lines.  They are NOT “secure and recognized borders” called for in UN resolutions.  And I might remind everyone that Resolution 242 required withdrawal from “territories,” NOT “all” or “all the” territories.  In a final settlement, these borders are to be negotiated, and they were not anticipated to be the same as the 1967 borders.  The Palestinian apologists can complain all they want, but at best the West Bank is “disputed,” not “occupied” territory, and it should be determined through honest negotiations where the border should be.

]]> 2012-02-10T;12:44:00-05:00