Debate: Should Israel withdraw from the West Bank?

[MournSanity]

I think this would be interesting and educational. Let us have a debate on whether or not Israel should withdraw from the West Bank territory. I would love to hear everyone's stance on the matter, as it is one of the hottest topics in all of politics today.

I am sure you all know what a debate is. I think it should be kept civilized as possible, as there is no way to moderate the debate. I have a few rules that should be enforced so that this debate doesn't turn into one huge flame war. I know that without rules, there would be a huge one on this sensitive topic.

***********RULES: PLEASE READ***********

1. Absolutely no attacks on a person based on their race, background, religion, or anything else whatsoever. I do not want to see people saying "Oh, well you are a Jew so that is why you side with Israel" or anything like that. This is a civilized debate about whether Israel should withdraw from the West Bank or not. Take your flaming somewhere else.

2. If you say a fact or figure, you must show a source for it. It could be a link or a quote from a book or magazine or scan from any of these or whatever. I do not want anybody making up a a statistic just to help prove a point. The reason for this debate is to express why Israel should or should not stay in the West Bank in a CIVILIZED AND LOGICAL MANNER. I do not want to see anything like "But Israel massacred 1000 people in Jenin, they have to leave." If your statistic, fact, or figure has no source, it is NOT CREDIBLE. Therefore your entire argument is NOT CREDIBLE.

3. No racism in any form WHATSOEVER. You can not put down any race for any reason whatsoever. If you are a racist(and lord help you if you are), fine, I don't care, BUT KEEP IT OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION.

4. If you have nothing to add to this discussion, DON'T POST. No thread-crapping whatsoever.


As long as we all follow these three basic rules, I am sure this debate will remain informative and civilized, and will not turn into a flame war. I have trust in you guys(and gals), this is a very intellectual forum with very smart people. I can not wait to hear some of the arguments you guys have on this subject, and I'm sure this will be a very fun and educational debate for those who know little about this topic.

I have also added a poll to see just what stance most people are taking regarding this topic.

 

[miguel]

My Opinion:

Yes, they should withdraw and tighten their existing borders. They should do this to stop giving the terrorists reason to attack them. Undoubtedly, the would still attack, IMO. At that point though, Israel can no longer be pointed at by the rest of the world as the "instigator."

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: miguel
My Opinion:

Yes, they should withdraw and tighten their existing borders. They should do this to stop giving the terrorists reason to attack them. Undoubtedly, the would still attack, IMO. At that point though, Israel can no longer be pointed at by the rest of the world as the "instigator."

im sorry but i fail to see how isreal has provoked the suicide bombers, nor am i aware that the 'world' looks at them as the instigator. im under the impression that its quite the other way around

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: miguel
My Opinion:

Yes, they should withdraw and tighten their existing borders. They should do this to stop giving the terrorists reason to attack them. Undoubtedly, the would still attack, IMO. At that point though, Israel can no longer be pointed at by the rest of the world as the "instigator."

im sorry but i fail to see how isreal has provoked the suicide bombers, nor am i aware that the 'world' looks at them as the instigator. im under the impression that its quite the other way around

http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/resources/mrates.asp

 

[freegeeks]

1)Israel should withdraw from the west bank and other occupied territories
2)a democratic Palestinian state should be created with security assurances for Israel
3)extremists on BOTH sides should be nuked from this world
4)both Sharon and Arafath should appear before an international court because of terrorism and violations of human rights

repeat step 3 if necessary

there, you have my peace plan

 

[0roo0roo]

seriously...Poll: 59% of Palestinians support continuation of terror after state is created
Fifty-nine percent of Palestinians believe that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad should continue their armed struggle against Israel even if Israel leaves all of the West Bank and Gaza, including East Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state is created, a new survey shows.

Similarly, 80 percent of Palestinians say that, under those circumstances, the Palestinians should not give up the "right of return." code for we will take israel back, all of it is palestine


so no, not until palestinians renounce terror in all its forms. to renounce their policy of intolerance, indoctrination, worship of murder, and incitement that fills all their forms of media, government institutions, religious institutions. to do otherwise would simply be incredibly niave and only reward and encourage their tactics. the groups supporting the terror have goals that go far beyond the west bank, most simply want the complete destruction of israel. the arab states that still don't recognize or have peace with israel and fight through the palestinians also simply want the complete destruction of israel. the plo still doesn't recognize israel in its charter. the palestinians have freely chosen terror as their means to achieve political ends and should not be rewarded for it. any concessions without the destruction of such fanatism only encourages more.

its like saying that bin ladin would stop persueing terror if the palestinians got everything they wanted. bin ladin wants much more then that, to build a worldwide islamic utopia through destruction of the western infidels with whatever means necessary. conceeding a little something to fanatics like bin ladin and such doesn't do much besides encourage them. its like a jew in 1940 dyeing his hair blonde to please hitler.

one must look at the situation through reality, not the fantasy accepted by so many in europe and the middle east where the palestinians just want the west bank and would stop terror just like that. a fantasy where the palestinians are peculiar innocents that have no free will and can't fathom the ideas of dr king and ghandi. a fantasy where the palestinians have not have innumerable chances to choose to build human capital/infrastructure to build a strong tolerant society in the face of adversity for the sake of their children, but instead of choose vengence, war and terror and have chosen violence every time. they were not under occupation until 1967, and even before that it was nothing but plotting war and terror.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
1)Israel should withdraw from the west bank and other occupied territories
2)a democratic Palestinian state should be created with security assurances for Israel
3)extremists on BOTH sides should be nuked from this world
4)both Sharon and Arafath should appear before an international court because of terrorism and violations of human rights

repeat step 3 if necessary

there, you have my peace plan

Except 3(which would negate the whole point ) and 4(toss them into retirement homes) I totally agree.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yes - ideally they should.
No - Realisticaly it would be suicidal.

The problem as has been discussed in multiple threads previously is that it only takes a few bad apples to run the barrel.
If the extremists could be contained on both sides and all external rabble rousers could be elimated from the picture, then the plan would work.

 

[kage69]

Would it stop the attacks? I really don't think so, but like miguel said, it would allow them to rightfully point the finger at the Palestinians as the instigators. Honestly though, I'd be a little reluctant to give up any buffer zones if I had neighbors who had already tried to eradicate me once before. Tough call.

 

[colonel]

1)Israel should withdraw from the west bank and other occupied territories
I think one of the many reason of 9/11 was the support of USA to Israel.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: miguel
My Opinion:

Yes, they should withdraw and tighten their existing borders. They should do this to stop giving the terrorists reason to attack them. Undoubtedly, the would still attack, IMO. At that point though, Israel can no longer be pointed at by the rest of the world as the "instigator."

im sorry but i fail to see how isreal has provoked the suicide bombers, nor am i aware that the 'world' looks at them as the instigator. im under the impression that its quite the other way around

miguel didn't say that Israel has provoked the attacks - that they (Pal terrorists) use the occupation as justification is undeniable. As for what the world thinks, certainly a large percentage (a majority, I would say) of the people that have an opinion on the matter blame Israel for it (either the occupation, or Israel's very existence). One need look no further than this forum to see the evidence of that.

To answer the question, yes, I think Israel should withdraw, and no, I don't think it would end the attacks. The decision to withdraw would be political, not practical.

 

[kandarp]

the problem is that there is no gandhi or MLK on either side to completely polarize the situation and distinguish the acts of one side to another. Now both sides are killing each other because the other killed them the last time. Now if there was a leader who promoted active peaceful resistance (ie marchs, peacful protests etc) then the other side would clearly be seen as intransigent and not committed to peace.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: colonel
1)Israel should withdraw from the west bank and other occupied territories
I think one of the many reason of 9/11 was the support of USA to Israel.

its a side issue. he would have attacked us regardless.

Throughout bin Ladin?s public statements and declarations--beginning with his ?Declaration of War,? published in August 1996, through his interviews with various Islamic journals, CNN and ABC News, and the two fatwas [religious rulings] published in February 1998 in Afghanistan--runs one fundamental and predominant strategic goal: the expulsion of the American presence, military and civilian, from Saudi Arabia and the whole Gulf region......

In any case, bin Ladin did not hesitate to present his extremist views to the American public and government. In his first TV interview, to CNN in March 1977, he stressed from the very beginning that of ?the criticisms of the ruling regime in Saudi Arabia and the Arabian peninsula, the first one is their subordination to the US. So, our main problem is the US government while the Saudi regime is but a branch or an agent of the US.? .....

Nevertheless, it is important to look more closely at the fatwa, publicly presented in May 1998 to Islamic journalists in the name of the leaders of the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders. This fatwa presents as the primary reason for the declaration of Jihad against Americans the fact that ?for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.? Second comes the ?devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people? and only in the third place the American role in serving the ?Jews? petty state? and its occupation of Jerusalem.

The question arises as to why Osama bin Ladin has chosen the American presence in Saudi Arabia as the main focus of his ideological, strategic and terrorist activity. ..............http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=53

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: kandarp
the problem is that there is no gandhi or MLK on either side to completely polarize the situation and distinguish the acts of one side to another. Now both sides are killing each other because the other killed them the last time. Now if there was a leader who promoted active peaceful resistance (ie marchs, peacful protests etc) then the other side would clearly be seen as intransigent and not committed to peace.

"...distinguish the acts of one side to another."

Is that a serious statement? You can't distinguish between the intentional murder of innocent civilians by homicidal terrorists and the targeted killings of those terrorists (with occasional unavoidable mistakes), whose aim is to commit murder and eventually destroy Israel? C'mon, you have to be joking, no?

BTW, I find it also humorous that you would bring up MLK and Gandhi, when Israeli's in general, have a much more personal experience in their recent past, in which they were generally a pacifist and non-reactive society and ended up paying dearly for that. That is the legacy that many Israeli's understand today and those memories are what drive Israeli's to protect their freedom and livelihood to the best of their ability. All countries in the World, who value their citizens, would do no less. Israeli's understand that the destruction of Israel could also spell the end of Jews in this world as we know it.

 

[kandarp]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: kandarp
the problem is that there is no gandhi or MLK on either side to completely polarize the situation and distinguish the acts of one side to another. Now both sides are killing each other because the other killed them the last time. Now if there was a leader who promoted active peaceful resistance (ie marchs, peacful protests etc) then the other side would clearly be seen as intransigent and not committed to peace.

"...distinguish the acts of one side to another."

Is that a serious statement? You can't distinguish between the intentional murder of innocent civilians by homicidal terrorists and the targeted killings of those terrorists (with occasional unavoidable mistakes), whose aim is to commit murder and eventually destroy Israel? C'mon, you have to be joking, no?

BTW, I find it also humorous that you would bring up MLK and Gandhi, when Israeli's in general, have a much more personal experience in their recent past, in which they were generally a pacifist and non-reactive society and ended up paying dearly for that. That is the legacy that many Israeli's understand today and those memories are what drive Israeli's to protect their freedom and livelihood to the best of their ability. All countries in the World, who value their citizens, would do no less. Israeli's understand that the destruction of Israel could also spell the end of Jews in this world as we know it.

Actually i am quite serious, innocents on both sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up (demolished) or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters or whether they friends were killed in they favorite cafe or whether they uncle was killed on a bus on his way to work.

Also your comment "generally a pacifist and non-reactive society " is quite off base in my opinion because they have in the "recent pass" (under sharon) have become more proactive if anything else. (ie "sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters " ). Also you last comment "Israeli's understand that the destruction of Israel could also spell the end of Jews in this world as we know it." is a bit wierd considering there is no widespread conspiracy to eradicate Jews starting with Israel. This in my viewpoint is a political problem and not some grand genocidal scheme, therefore it follows that.

MLK and Gandhi both took unilateral steps to say do what you will do us but we will not return your actions with violence. Imagine if there was a PLO leader who unilaterally took steps to eradicate HAMAS (etc) or a Israeli PM who took unilateral steps to withdraw from the WEST BANK, and not relatiate for the last suicide bomber. The whole eye for an eye thing leaves people blind and dead.

 

[kandarp]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: kandarp
the problem is that there is no gandhi or MLK on either side to completely polarize the situation and distinguish the acts of one side to another. Now both sides are killing each other because the other killed them the last time. Now if there was a leader who promoted active peaceful resistance (ie marchs, peacful protests etc) then the other side would clearly be seen as intransigent and not committed to peace.

"...distinguish the acts of one side to another."

Is that a serious statement? You can't distinguish between the intentional murder of innocent civilians by homicidal terrorists and the targeted killings of those terrorists (with occasional unavoidable mistakes), whose aim is to commit murder and eventually destroy Israel? C'mon, you have to be joking, no?

BTW, I find it also humorous that you would bring up MLK and Gandhi, when Israeli's in general, have a much more personal experience in their recent past, in which they were generally a pacifist and non-reactive society and ended up paying dearly for that. That is the legacy that many Israeli's understand today and those memories are what drive Israeli's to protect their freedom and livelihood to the best of their ability. All countries in the World, who value their citizens, would do no less. Israeli's understand that the destruction of Israel could also spell the end of Jews in this world as we know it.

Actually i am quite serious, innocents on both sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up (demolished) or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters or whether they friends were killed in they favorite cafe or whether they uncle was killed on a bus on his way to work.

Also your comment "generally a pacifist and non-reactive society " is quite off base in my opinion because they have in the "recent pass" (under sharon) have become more proactive if anything else. (ie "sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters " ). Also you last comment "Israeli's understand that the destruction of Israel could also spell the end of Jews in this world as we know it." is a bit wierd considering there is no widespread conspiracy to eradicate Jews starting with Israel. This in my viewpoint is a political problem and not some grand genocidal scheme, therefore it follows that.

MLK and Gandhi both took unilateral steps to say do what you will do us but we will not return your actions with violence. Imagine if there was a PLO leader who unilaterally took steps to eradicate HAMAS (etc) or a Israeli PM who took unilateral steps to withdraw from the WEST BANK, and not relatiate for the last suicide bomber. The whole eye for an eye thing leaves people blind and dead.

ADDED: I dont know why this is posting twice..really pissing me off

 

[Moonbeam]

I discovered a post will repost when refreshed if you get an 'expired' thingi. Israel should form a secular state and create citizenship for all. We are all the same.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I discovered a post will repost when refreshed if you get an 'expired' thingi. Israel should form a secular state and create citizenship for all. We are all the same.

Last time I checked, this was already the case. Unfortunately, the same can not be said of its neighbors.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: kandarp

Actually i am quite serious, innocents on both sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up (demolished) or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters or whether they friends were killed in they favorite cafe or whether they uncle was killed on a bus on his way to work.

Also your comment "generally a pacifist and non-reactive society " is quite off base in my opinion because they have in the "recent pass" (under sharon) have become more proactive if anything else. (ie "sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters " ). Also you last comment "Israeli's understand that the destruction of Israel could also spell the end of Jews in this world as we know it." is a bit wierd considering there is no widespread conspiracy to eradicate Jews starting with Israel. This in my viewpoint is a political problem and not some grand genocidal scheme, therefore it follows that.

The "generally a pacifist and non-reactive society " comment was in reference the Jews of Europe who mainly sat idle while German anti-Semitism built up to a feverish pitch, and ultimately resulted in the extermination of 6 million Jews. Like it or not, many Israelis and Jews around the world understand that as long as Israel exists, nothing like the Holocaust will ever be allowed to happen again. Without Israel, one only needs to look at recent history.

However, you are correct that Israelis have more recently become more proactive with regards to fighting terrorism. That was my point and it is a good thing. The fault here lies not with the Israelis but with the Palestinian leadership who refuses to actively work to eliminate those groups living among the Palestinians who advocate mass murder as a means to achieve their political goals.

MLK and Gandhi both took unilateral steps to say do what you will do us but we will not return your actions with violence. Imagine if there was a PLO leader who unilaterally took steps to eradicate HAMAS (etc) or a Israeli PM who took unilateral steps to withdraw from the WEST BANK, and not relatiate for the last suicide bomber. The whole eye for an eye thing leaves people blind and dead.

So I take it you believe that war is never the answer? I assuming you believe the USA was wrong in Afghanistan and the World was wrong to eradicate the Nazis? More reasonable persons can understand that force is often necessary to protect freedom and that this utopian dream you seem to believe in is well...just a dream.

 

[kandarp]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: kandarp

Actually i am quite serious, innocents on both sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up (demolished) or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters or whether they friends were killed in they favorite cafe or whether they uncle was killed on a bus on his way to work.

Also your comment "generally a pacifist and non-reactive society " is quite off base in my opinion because they have in the "recent pass" (under sharon) have become more proactive if anything else. (ie "sides dont distinguish whether their house was blown up or a car in the middle of a crowded street was hit by rockets from Apache helicopters " ). Also you last comment "Israeli's understand that the destruction of Israel could also spell the end of Jews in this world as we know it." is a bit wierd considering there is no widespread conspiracy to eradicate Jews starting with Israel. This in my viewpoint is a political problem and not some grand genocidal scheme, therefore it follows that.

The "generally a pacifist and non-reactive society " comment was in reference the Jews of Europe who mainly sat idle while German anti-Semitism built up to a feverish pitch, and ultimately resulted in the extermination of 6 million Jews. Like it or not, many Israelis and Jews around the world understand that as long as Israel exists, nothing like the Holocaust will ever be allowed to happen again. Without Israel, one only needs to look at recent history.

However, you are correct that Israelis have more recently become more proactive with regards to fighting terrorism. That was my point and it is a good thing. The fault here lies not with the Israelis but with the Palestinian leadership who refuses to actively work to eliminate those groups living among the Palestinians who advocate mass murder as a means to achieve their political goals.

MLK and Gandhi both took unilateral steps to say do what you will do us but we will not return your actions with violence. Imagine if there was a PLO leader who unilaterally took steps to eradicate HAMAS (etc) or a Israeli PM who took unilateral steps to withdraw from the WEST BANK, and not relatiate for the last suicide bomber. The whole eye for an eye thing leaves people blind and dead.

So I take it you believe that war is never the answer? I assuming you believe the USA was wrong in Afghanistan and the World was wrong to eradicate the Nazis? More reasonable persons can understand that force is often necessary to protect freedom and that this utopian dream you seem to believe in is well...just a dream.

I am hardly a pacifist, and the reason that i cited Gandhi and MLK is exactly the reason that they werent some idealist vision of civil disobidience but rather historical events that proved that one can repeat the same thing (MLK emulating Gandhi) to achieve different political ends. As far as point about the Nazi's and Taliban, neither governments had the moral or political right to do what they did (Nazis overruning much of Europe, Taliban hardboring criminals (terrorists)), however in the MidEast situation both groups have equal political and moral right to their own states, therefore comparing the situation to some war against oppresion or terrorism is misleading. The politicians on each side have been entrenched in their positions abiding by the "fight it out till the end" strategy always looking to scape goat the otherside trying to make acheive just slightly more moral ground than the other.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: kandarp

I am hardly a pacifist, and the reason that i cited Gandhi and MLK is exactly the reason that they werent some idealist vision of civil disobidience but rather historical events that proved that one can repeat the same thing (MLK emulating Gandhi) to achieve different political ends. As far as point about the Nazi's and Taliban, neither governments had the moral or political right to do what they did (Nazis overruning much of Europe, Taliban hardboring criminals (terrorists)), however in the MidEast situation both groups have equal political and moral right to their own states, therefore comparing the situation to some war against oppresion or terrorism is misleading. The politicians on each side have been entrenched in their positions abiding by the "fight it out till the end" strategy always looking to scape goat the otherside trying to make acheive just slightly more moral ground than the other.

Yes, the Palestinians do have a right to their own state and the overwhelming majority of Israelis support this idea. Too bad the opposite can't be said of the average Palestinian.

However, the Palestinians don't have a right to slaughter innocent civilians and that is where the comparison lies. Israel is well within her right to react to terrorism committed on its soil, much like the USA did, regardless of the perceived reasons for the terrorism. Israeli's know from past experience that holding hands and singing kum-ba-ya will do nothing to protect you from terrorists whose goal is your destruction. Yes, civilians may be killed as a result of their close proximity to the terrorists. However, blame Palestinian society, which has encouraged the terrorists by creating all sorts of anti-Semitic propaganda as well as placing homicidal terrorists on a pedestal whom all Palestinians should look up to.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I discovered a post will repost when refreshed if you get an 'expired' thingi. Israel should form a secular state and create citizenship for all. We are all the same.

Last time I checked, this was already the case. Unfortunately, the same can not be said of its neighbors.

Check again.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I discovered a post will repost when refreshed if you get an 'expired' thingi. Israel should form a secular state and create citizenship for all. We are all the same.

Last time I checked, this was already the case. Unfortunately, the same can not be said of its neighbors.

Check again.

I checked again and found out that 20% of Israel is comprised of Israeli Arabs. In addition, I also learned that two Arab members of the Knesset were recently reinstated despite the fact that they both have issued statements in support of suicide bombings. I wonder where else in the Middle East this kind of freedom can be found? In Gaza, Iran, Syria...etc?

Unless you advocate the destruction of Israel, it doesn't take a genius to understand that Israel must limit the immigration of non-Jews, otherwise it would be over-run and quickly cease to exist in its current form. If that is what bothers you about Israel's policy, well then, I don't see a solution. Otherwise, know that Israel?s founding principle was based on secular Zionism or a separation of religious Judaism from the concept of a Jewish state. Despite popular misconceptions, most Israelis are not religious. However, to most Israelis, Israel is not about preserving the Jewish religion, it's about their survival

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
1)Israel should withdraw from the west bank and other occupied territories
2)a democratic Palestinian state should be created with security assurances for Israel
3)extremists on BOTH sides should be nuked from this world
4)both Sharon and Arafath should appear before an international court because of terrorism and violations of human rights

repeat step 3 if necessary

there, you have my peace plan

Sounds like a good plan.

 

[XZeroII]

Isreal should be able to do whatever they want. They have a right to stand up for what they believe in and you people have NO right to question the beliefs of other cultures (isn't that how it goes?). Thus, this entire thread is hypocritical.