I guess if you want something done well you do it yourself, no? I suppose a more prosperous apartheid is better than a poorer one, I won't hold that against them. However, given the revelations in the 'Palestinian Papers' you still have to ask to what end is the Israeli/US alliance playing this out. I wish I could believe that it was to get the West Bank up and running as a viable equal neighbor, but given the endless expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank such a hope seems invalid.

To address this post, first you have to get beyond the label of Apartheid. Perhaps the poster uses it because he feels it is accurate, but one must focus on the subtext of the term as well. Apartheid is typically used to describe different races, implying that in fact, there is a Jewish race and a Palestinian race. The last time a politician regularly referred to the Jewish race, his goal was to exterminate it, so anyone using the term must have an agenda that is different than bridging differences amongst people and opinions. If you walk into my synagogue you will see African Americans and Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans, and everything in between. English is such a rich language -- one would think another word could be used.

Overall, I think that Mr. Rather's report is on target. The Palestinians, the U.S., and the Israeli's are focussed on security. From the Israeli perspective, this is crucial for peace in the region. If Israel is to give up land for peace, it wants to make sure that the land is not another staging point for more attacks. I agree with Mr. Rather that the time for Israel to strike a deal is now, but alas, that's not what the democratically elected government thinks. Perhaps it will fall and a more moderate government will take over. I hope so. We do know that the next Israeli government will be democratically elected; we have no confidence of that fact for any of its neighbors; any peace treaty can be abrogated at any time without successive democratic governments. With the possible exception of Iraq, there is no such thing in the Arab or Palestinian world.

I would prefer that Israel stop its settlement policy, but I did want to examine the phrase "endless expansion". There has been some limited activity by the current government, but perhaps not the next. It evokes the sense that Israel is colonizing the Wst Bank at a feverish pace,but in fact, the pace is quite slow. Per Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement , from 2004 to 2009 there have been 70,000 additional settlers in the West Bank and just 8,400 in East Jerusalem. Much or most of this might just be growing families, and not just new settlements at all. If fact, the pace over the last 2 years have been even slower.

If this represents endless expansion, I wonder how we should describe the movement of Han Chinese to Tibet, Shiites to Kirkuk and Russians to Chechnya?

We are certainly agreed that their government would benefit from a move to the left.

Given that Israel is an apartheid state their notion of democracy is limited.

I think the settlers numbered around 23k at the time of the Camp David Accords in 1978 and now number something like 310k, so I guess if the settlers breed like rabbits than it certainly could be characterized as just population growth.

Yes, Jews are the same as rabbits. No subtext there.

Distract, distract, distract.

BTW, you are the one that suggested they have a nearly impossible reproduction rate. I was clearly suggesting that was NOT the case.

You are either being a lazy reader or intellectually dishonest. What I wrote is:

from 2004 to 2009 there have been 70,000 additional settlers in the West Bank and just 8,400 in East Jerusalem. Much or most of this might just be growing families, and not just new settlements at all. If fact, the pace over the last 2 years have been even slower.

How is that a nearly impossible reproductive rate?

That's not even phrased as a fact, simply that it 'might' be an explanation.

RJ, please don't be disingenuous. Neal goes a bit over the mark sometimes, but it's clear that as well as 'natural growth' (births outstripping deaths), settler number have been increasing due to migration.

I knew a woman from Florida who decided to move back to 'the old country'. And was adamant that she move to a settlement as her 'birthright' rather than just to Tel Aviv or Haifa or something. The argument between her and one of my friends (her ex) over the whole thing means she's now not talking to us. But that was only a few years ago - around the time of the pull-out from Gaza. So people are moving there. I suspect that my mate's former girlfriend is not the only person to move there in the last few years.

And I suspect that it's slowed over the last two years because Israel did make more effort than usual to stop new building. But they've decided to end that now, haven't they?

danivon wrote:RJ, please don't be disingenuous. Neal goes a bit over the mark sometimes, but it's clear that as well as 'natural growth' (births outstripping deaths), settler number have been increasing due to migration.

But I never wrote that there was no settler migration and no new settlements. All I wrote is that much or most of it might be growing families. I just wanted to frame the discussion on actual numbers of settlers and not Neal's hyperbole.

Yeah, but I don't see much middle ground here. Countering hyperbole (and yes, it's crass, but that is our dear Pigsy for you) is not always providing balance, if you do it with your own assumptions based on loyalty to one side.

70,000 extra settlers in a five year period is (based on the estimate of 310,000 total now), over 20% growth. I know that religious Israelis have higher birth rates, but I am doubtful that 'most' of that growth is births minus deaths. It may well be a significant proportion, but it would be naive to believe that migration into existing settlements and the founding of new ones is not significant factor as well. You may have been reacting to Pigsy's terminology, but just as his words are misleading and wishful thinking, I am tempted to see the same thing from yourself here, on that item.

And yes, the colonisation of Tibet and Chechnya is also egregious. Colonisations tend to be.

Danivon,

I think that's a fair point. As I look at the math, I think you are right that most of that 70,000 is new migration. Yes, we are talking about at most 14,000 people per year as some of it is certainly new births.

I think Neal's comment that Israeli settlements are "endless" may not be correct. All things are endless until they end. The reality is that Israel is a vibrant democracy with a full range of opinions. They are considering the wikileaks info, and also the current realignment in the Middle East. Some see it as scary ... others see it as an opportunity. President Peres said today that talks with the Palestinians are urgent. I do think that the Israelis are sensitive to European sentiment, and American as well. Frankly, even a Zionist like myself has mixed feelings about the recent US veto. It's obvious that the settlements are a problem, if only just a PR one.

Israel has its share of religious zealots like your friend, but so do all countries. I suspect that they have a larger % than Europe, a slightly higher % than the US, and a lower % than the Muslim world. The zealots are not a majority, and they don't run the country, although they do have influence greater than their numbers.

The Israelis are very cognizant of the huge amount of anti-Israel sentiment and opinion on both sides of the current Arab rebellions / revolutions. They are cognizant of over 60 years of bad behavior, and a 9 mile width if all of the West Bank is returned. They are cognizant of Hezbollah and Hamas and Iran. They are cognizant of "endless" terrorism and an ideology of hate. They recall several wars, and the fact that they can not afford to lose one ever as Mr. Rather pointed out. They wonder whether it makes sense to uproot the settlements because they mostly don't believe that the Palestinians are sincere about peace. Look how the Arab "street" reacted to the wikileaks. Why do you think they are leaks instead of genuine offers by the PA at a negotiating table? How long will the Palestinians respect the offer after the settlements are dismantled and the land is returned? The Nakba is about 1948 and not 1967.

But Israel is a demcoracy and they can figure it out for themselves. And they will.

Among the very limited options open to the parties regarding the settlements, one obvious one is never considered: in a two-state solution Jewish settlements now within the occupied territories would simply become part of the new Palestinian state - no need for anyone to be relocated or buildings abandoned. The settlers would become citizens of Palestinia and enjoy all the rights and privileges thereof. It's an obvious option but the reasons it's never considered are equally obvious. Among the Arabs in Israel, 76.9% agree or tend to agree with this statement: "I would prefer to live in the State of Israel than in any other country in the world." (source) If they don't want to be part of Palestinia, imagine how much less attractive that option would seem to Jews. On the other hand, the Arab refugees continue to insist overwhelmingly on their desire to have and to exercise a right of return to Israel. They do not condition this on there being better overall treatment of Arabs in Israel, and it's certainly within the bounds of reasonable imagination to picture an Arab moving to Israel. Why is it not so with Jews moving to an Arab state?

The point of this "whataboutery" is not to deflect responsibility or excuse, but rather to encourage the application of a broader perspective. Calling Israel an apartheid state goes hand-in-hand with placing upon them the unilateral moral obligation to reform. (After all, how many blamed the blacks for the situation in South Africa?) "Apartheid" ranks right up there with war crimes (of which Israel is also frequently accused) on the table of evil. But on three occasions the world nearly had the opportunity to gain a broader perspective about separation/apartness and war crimes. The Jews could easily have lost in 1948, 1967 or 1973. Let's imagine they had, and what's now Israel is instead either "Palestinia" or part of Syria, Jordan or Egypt. Would 76.9% of the Jews living there agree or tend to agree with this statement: "I would prefer to live in [Palestinia/Egypt/Syria/Jordan] than in any other country in the world." Would there even be any Jews around of whom we might ask this question?

Broaden your perspective.

It's an interesting study of Arabs in israel proper.

In the old Redscape a few months ago I remember posting a survey of Arabs in East Jerusalem which indicated that many (most?) had real concerns about a Palestinian state and wanted to stay part of Israel, mostly because of economics and partially because of trepidation about the nature of a Palestinian state. To me this study was earth shattering, but it seems to have faded without a peep in the way the world looks at these issues.

In fact, I have a vague recollection of a referendum taken by Arabs in a town bordering the 1948 armistice line where they voted to be part of Israel. Work calls ... I can't look into it now.

RJ

I am reading something here that is from Judge Goldstone of the Goldstone report that appears to basically be a recanting of the entire report.