quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Yes... by your "logic" occupation is okay then? Occupation is wrong, and stop trying to justify it by saying the absence of curfews made it legitimate for it to continue.

Occupation can be justified for security reasons, such as in Germany, Japan, Iraq. I'll try to avoid the argument about whether Gaza and the West Bank should actually be considered "Occupied Territory", other than simply to ask "occupied from whom"? Jordan? Egypt?
I would agree that an indefinite, permananet occupation is wrong, but at least for the past 10 years (since Oslo) one can safely say Israel had no intention of this. Similarly, the US had no intention of a permanent occupation of Germany, Japan, or Iraq. Contrast this to Syria's occupation of Lebanon, China of Tibet, etc.

I think the refugee situation in the territories went on far too long (and obviously reached a boiling point in 2000), though I'm not sure what the solution would have been. Any withdrawal by Israel would have simply let the West Bank and Gaza become launching points for attacks against Israel.

The only obvious solution of course was for the Arab states to actually deal with the refugee problem they created at any time between 1949 and 1967, rather than just shove the Palestinians into refugee camps. Every other refugee population (and there were millions post WWII) were dealt with, but the Palestinians were kept in limbo as leverage against Israel. It worked, because now the world views dealing with the refugee problem as entirely Israel's responsibility. After having absorbed refugee populations, the Arab states could have simply ended their relentless quest to eliminate Israel. Under this scenario, Israel would not currently be in the West Bank and Gaza, and Palestinians would all have citizenship somewhere.

Also remember, every Arab living within the armistice lines of 1949 was given citizenship in Israel (hence about 20% of Israel now is Arab, most of which is Sunni Muslim, a mix of Bedouin and Palestinian). This would suggest that if Israel has indeed intended to ethnically cleanse its lands, it did a very poor job of it. Sometime after 1949, Jordan granted some level of citizenship to many of those in the West Bank, but Egypt and Lebanon kept their Palestinians in camps.

Look, I won't defend every action Israel has taken in its history (not effectively dealing with the Palestinian refugees for so long was definitely a mistake, but it was hardly a bloody, brutal occupation until around 2000-2001), but I think its reasonable to expect people to empathize with the almost ludicrously difficult situation the nation has been in since conception and inception. How can it stay a moral nation and still defend itself adequately? It's a rough position both on a personal level (young soldiers being forced to serve, fight, and sadly, kill), and a national level (policy decisions to try to stop terror, policies that inevitably result in death and hardship).

The world has no sympathy for Israelis. Do you think 19 year old soldiers like to have to choose between their own life or a brainwashed 10 year olds? Do you think military leaders and politicians like hearing that in their efforts to kill a terrorist leader, 8 civilian bystanders were killed? Or that because ambulences must be stopped and searched because some are used to smuggle explosives and terrorists, that innocent but badly sick people die? That Israelis love the fact that whenever they go out to a restaurant, mall, etc. they have to be searched by a guard? I know from personal experience that they do not enjoy these situations one bit. But their choice is to either deal with reality, or cease existing.