YESHA: You Shall Abandon
Bush calls for “contiguous” Palestinian state, saying “A state on scattered territories will not work.” In other news, residents of the Hawaiian Islands, Alaska and New York City have voted to cede from the union.
Related Posts
The Desecration of a Gaza Memorial at Marquette University
April 23, 2024
Let All Who Are Hungry Come and Eat
April 18, 2024
Has he ever heard of Indonesia. (Well it is George Jr, so it is possible that he hasn’t)
Okay, I’m no fan of Bush’s comments, but I do have to say this is a relatively silly response. Come on. First of all, there is a difference between a “State” that is a portion of a larger country, and a “State” that means a country in and of itself. And secondly, While Hawaii, Alaska, and New York (and Michigan, for example) are not made up of contiguous pieces of land, there are also not other states whose land entirely cuts off one piece from the other.
Regardless, while in my mind there is no real way that both “Palestine” and Israel can each have contiguous, uniterrupted territories (if Gaza connects with land in the West Bank, that would cut off Northern Israel from Southern Israel), this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Joel, you would have a point, but with the exception of some water, Israel’s borders are all arab lands.
“this is an issue that needs to be addressed.”
It’s issues like this…and water…and Jerusalem…and the very existence of Israel herself… where I wonder if both sides think: “Damn this peace stuff is too complex, war is easier”
No one is (seroiously) suggesting that Palestinian territory be completely contiguous. The best Palestinians will get on total contiguity will be via rail link.
The issue is whether the West Bank will be contiguous, as Bush has called for. We’ve always known certain West Bank settlements will be dismantled. That they might be dismatled in part to make the West Bank contiguous Palestinian property should be expected.
Being from Michigan, I have to say Michigan is very, very contiguous. Sure, the upper peninsula and the lower peninsula are only connected by the five mile long Mackinac Bridge, they are nonetheless contiguous (being peninsulas, they have to be)
As for the topic at hand, Bush is correct (oh dear G-d! I said it! No one tell my dad! I’ll get disowned!) in that a Palestinian state must be contiguous. To have it any other way shouldn’t be acceptable to the Palestinians. I wouldn’t accept it if I were them.
Given that jewschool attracts surfers from a wide range of the political and spiritual spectrum, there’s no doubt that it and a small majority leans to the left.
Given that here the talk is already starting on how to procede in chopping up Israel, I assume that on the explicitly ‘left’ sites, there must be an orgy about this issue.
Crier — why does the fact that Israel is surrounded by Arab states have anything to do with whether Gaza and the West Bank are connected?
Shtreimel — I fear you may be correct.
Yisrael — that makes perfect sense to me, and would be an acceptable solution in my book, if it works. I just fear that Bush actually means a land bridge of sorts between the two pieces.
and Jared — that was exactly my point. Michigan’s two halves are contiguous, though separated by water, the same way the Hawaiian islands, Alaskan islands, and various parts of New York (eg Manhattan and Long Island) are as well.
Joel, if Israel is smart, they will have a rail corridor that prevents Palestinian infiltration by walling the corridor. It will be a de facto “land bridge,” but Israel would obviously maintain territorial sovereignty over the area, as well as under/overpasses as necessary. The alternative seems to be to give Palestinians overflight rights, which would be far more dangerous, and less practical economically.
you are all laughable – I could see the Jewish outcry now if President Clintongorekerry had made the same statement. people full of double standard BS.
Josh – the REAL conservatives have been against Bush since day one on all of this.
So, Bush supporters in America – how does it feel to realize you’ve been duped?
$300+ billion down the drain, and all you have to show for it is an ultra-pissed-off Iraq with an Ayatollah and Bush turning his back on all the big promises he made before the election about not having to give up any settlements etc
“you are all laughable – I could see the Jewish outcry now if President Clintongorekerry had made the same statement. people full of double standard BS.”
Well, as someone who is opposed to prettymuch everything Bush stands for, I can say that this is one of the few positions of his that I support, just as I’d support it in the case of “Clintongorekerry”. He is recognizing that many of the West Bank settlements are illegal by national and/or international law, do not have the support of the Israeli majority, and distract troops from guarding the nation itself, in addition to imposing hardships on Palestinians. Even some settlers are saying that some compromises need to be made on Israel’s side in order for peace to be achieved.
Don’t have a seizure, people. He means West Bank contiguity. Gaza to the WB is going to be a rail, or a highway overpass, or something, but not a land connection. No one’s ever even suggested that.
There’s supposed to be continuity between the West Bank and Gaza according to the Partition plan
Hey Brown,
Is your fashion circa 1930’s also?
Also…
I’m sure horrible adults were once nice kids. What’s your point?
Why does anyone think giving back an inch of land will bring peace? what is the historical precedent for this idea? what nation has ever given land back after winning it in a war where they were not the agressor?
Did any of you see that Hamas is declaring the disengagement of Gaza as a victory due solely to forceful resistance? You know what that means? that Hamas is feeling pretty damn confident right now about the tactics they have used thus far and will be emboldened to continue their attacks.
Jeremy,
You are the only one who makes sense on this whole page.
Hey Ben I answered you on the other page. (Too many pages to deal with…)
I’d like to see anyone one of you give Jeremy a satisfactory answer.
JeremySchmo,
No, you’ve got it all wrong, Mobius and Brown claim all is good and lovely.
To the people who are talking any sort of segregated Arabs only land corridor from Gaza to Judea, do you realize how much money this wuld cost??? A 40km long overpass or enclosed rail-link cost billions, and for all you bleeding-heart liberal land-lovers wreck a lot of nature during construction and frankly, forever. But for peace, that’s a price you are all willing to make (since none of you even live near the path of future fantasy corridor.
As for territorial contignuity between Judea and Samaria, it already exists and Arabs and Jews can use it already. Making a new Arab-only corridor there will not bring peace. Waste your time on bridging the gap between the peoples, not dividing them up. Segregation breeds hate, not peace.
Bush turning his back on all the big promises he made before the election about not having to give up any settlements
Who’s being naive JohnBrown? Bush never made any promises, and just to make sure Powell emphasized this the day after. The main disadvantage of living in America is that you only have two options to vote for. And I’m willing to bet a lot that majority of American voters on BOTH sides, voted because they thought that the other candidate was a dolt. I think you’re being naive in thinking that Bush supporters are Bush fanatics. Most of them just didn’t want the country to be ruled by whatshisface and the Democrats. Don’t be childish and rub it in their face.
Things are not so good and lovely. Let’s just wait and see how long it takes for the Palestinians to disagree about some minute point and then unleash their terror once again.
Well, since the Oslo accords went so well, why don’t we think that rolling over to the Palestinians will work this time?
*cough*
PS: In case anyone is confused, I’m with Jeremy here.
Firstly, for clarity, I am not pro-Bush, nor was I a Kerry supporter. I think they both suck. That being said, I was simply commenting on Bush’s comments, and the response herein thereto (like that? ;-).
That being said, Jeremy:
What about all the land that was returned to Japan and Germany after WWII? The land I’m referring to being Japan and Germany.
And why do I think that will bring peace? Not because I believe that the Arabs/Palestinians will stop hating us afterwards, but because I believe it will make our homeland more easily defensible. I honestly don’t believe there is any complete solution other than Hashem sending us the Moshiach. But until that point, I think we need to do as much as possible to prevent the loss of as many lives as possible.
Jeremy wrote: “Why does anyone think giving back an inch of land will bring peace? what is the historical precedent for this idea?
Egypt & the Sinai
Jeremy continued: “what nation has ever given land back after winning it in a war where they were not the agressor? “
The Soviets when they took E. Germany, Hungary, Poland
Josh wrote: “Who’s being naive JohnBrown? Bush never made any promises”
Yes he did. See this earlier story: Bush: Settlements OK, Right of Return Nay
Responding to Fun Joel, we can’t just sit back and wait for Moshiach, although I agree that it will be the only solution. In the meantime, we must hold onto as much land as possible.
As for Mr. Brown….what kind of peace do we have with Egypt? It is not a warm peace. Giving back the Sinai, which was not a part of biblical Israel did not bring the peace that we had hoped for. It is because we gave Sinai back that the rest of the vultures came to see what they could pick away from the carcass.
And as for the Soviets giving land back, there was no history of that land ever belonging to them. Fortunately for us, you can walk anywhere in Judea Samaria, and Gaza and find archaelogical proof that Jews lived there thousands of years ago. The land was given by G-d to the children of Israel. Plain and simple. What right do we have to start dividing it?
Jeremy wrote: “what kind of peace do we have with Egypt? It is not a warm peace. Giving back the Sinai, which was not a part of biblical Israel did not bring the peace that we had hoped for.”
What kind of peace do we have with Egypt? A fine peace. There’s been no wars between Israel and Egypt ever since. You asked what the precedent was for land for peace and that’s it.
As far as warmth goes, that takes time and healing. And the healing won’t really start until the occupation ends.
Jeremy continued: “And as for the Soviets giving land back, there was no history of that land ever belonging to them.”
So what? You asked who ever gave land back that they ‘won’ in a defensive war, and I told you. Furthermore, the covenant with God in the Torah is not “History” – It’s mythology.
Brown, I feel very sorry for you if you believe that the covenant between Hashem and the Jews is mythology. Were you circumcised as an infant? If so, then why would Jews around the globe continue this seemingly “barbaric” custom due to some archaic myth? Learn your Torah, buddy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=myth
myth – noun
#
1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
2. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
well, most of the world considers mythology to have an inherent measure of fantasy within it. Just look how you used it in your sentence….basically, you think that the Torah is not an historic document…but, look at the realms of archaeology and science and you will see how much they corroborate what the Torah says. Torah = Truth. It is not some collective mythology like the those of the Greeks, it is a blueprint for Man. just like your computer comes with an instruction manual, so does the soul. Your soul’s manual is Torah. Read it and learn it.
Josh wrote: “Who’s being naive JohnBrown? Bush never made any promises”
John Brown: Yes he did. See this earlier story: Bush: Settlements OK, Right of Return Nay
Bush says a lot of things: http://tinyurl.com/6yfev
Fun Joel
but because I believe it will make our homeland more easily defensible.
Are you informed about a certain Israeli chief of staff fired, rather, not having term extended as usual, recently because he is against the retreat plan?
Are you informed about a certain Israeli mossad chief fired, rather, not having term extended as usual, recently because he is against the retreat plan?
The plan is bad for Israel’s defenses, period. We’ve already learned to not depend on wishful thinking and now isn’t any different: Military intelligence: Terrorists getting ready to return to attacks
No one claims that it will make Israel more defensible, just that it will help the demographics and keep Israel Jewish (and that based on old numbers too).
jeremy,
My advice is don’t waste your time with John Brown. If you would have seen my previous posts with him you would be convinced that he has no interest in the truth. He simply repeats himself without addressing solid points.
Unfortunately I have found that with a number of “posters” here. This includes almost all those who begin the posts.
Its well known to anybody who can even think a little that Egypt and Jordan have peace with Israel because of fear. They fear what Israel will do. The fact is that Syria is not either attacking Israel neither is Iraq or Iran. Those countries have even less to fear, since they are not next door, and yet they ahven’t lobbed one missile.
Would any sensible person say that we have peace with syria, Iraq or Iran?
I don’t see the difference between them and Egypt and Jordan. There is a “Cold” peace with all of these equally.
You see Jeremy, these people simply can’t think straight or worse, they can think but are deceitful.
The fact is that Rabbi Meir Kahane was and is 100% correct. The arabs must be removed from our Holy land. All other “solutions” are a fog clouding our vision,
Well said!
Schmo,
good point. The countries we have peace with are either afraid of us, or officially still at war (won’t admit defeat).
The PA on the other hand is not afraid of us since they actually won this war and might soon have a lot more land and free housing/factores/greenhouses to show for it too.