IDF general: Israel incapable of West Bank pullout

It is called Shomron ve Yehuda

Unlike yourself, I served the countries I believe in All you have done is stay home, typing and back seat driving When I felt as concerned as you pretend to, I went to help out, enclisted and all that stuff, you're still hiding in Australia Your citizenship, obtained by your ancestors, by slaughtering the aboriginies of a land you had no ancestral home in I, on the other hand, went by to my roots Since you insist on legalities, then tell your Arab brothers they shouldn't have invaded Israel's share of the Partiioned Land, contrary to the UN Resolution #181 I can show my heritage in Israel, the land is full of the physical markers of my ancestors, yours have only left piles of dung Remember the six questions I had sent, try answering them to prove your legitimacy

BJ: "The same grounds you have for living in Australia," Well worth examining, this... My "grounds" for settling where I like in Australia is my CITIZENSHIP i.e. I am a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, and so I can live where I like in that Commonweath. Note (1): my citizenship gives me no special rights OUTSIDE that Commonwealth. Note (2): my citizenship has NOTHING to do with my ethnicity or my religion. OK, BEN JABO continues.... BJ: "with one main exception, the very name 'Judea' clearly indicates it`s 'Jewish' " Oh dear, oh dear.... BEN, you've just shot your claim out of the water. Ehnicity has no part to play in my "grounds", and so if an Israeli settler has "the same grounds as me" then you must "ground" that argument in that dude's "Israeli citizenship". You can't; he is a citizen of the occupying power, and occupying powers are prohibited from colonizing occupied territory with their own citizens.

Israel needs to hit a rock and fall to the ground. Then it will turn on the flashlight and end the occupation.

The same grounds you have for living in Australia, with one main exception, the very name "Judea" clearly indicates it's "Jewish" The other part is comparable to U.S. War against Mexico, Mexico lost war and land Arabs waged war against Israel and lost war & land If you really feel that adamant about Israel, then apply the same standards to yourself Matter of fact, it's high time you moved your duff and went to the area you write so much about Seems your Ponce is keeping you busy doing backseat driving chores

The passage of TIME? This argument is utterly ridiculous (unless, of course, you lay claim to something that isn't yours, based upon TIME worn arguments that a 'powerful deity which was created by my ancestors gave it to me') given that what happened to the native populations of the Americas was, although horrible and very wrong, happened WELL before ANY OF US were alive. The big difference, Chaim, is that what your people are doing is YESTERDAY, TODAY, and TOMORROW and we can do something about it before it reaches the levels of the disgusting behaviors of the past, and we collectively have to look back, at some point in the future and say "Look, we kept right on doing it, even though we claimed to be enlightened."

C: "Is America capable of pulling out of California?" California is a State of the Union. C: "Same with Israel." No, not in the slightest: the West Bank is not a part of the territory of the state of Israel. C: "A huge majority of Israelis are determined to keep Judea and Samaria forever." So might makes right, and because we seized it we can keep it? How wonderfully 19th century of you, Chaim. C: "Because just as California belongs to the U.S., Judea and Samaria belong to Israel." On what grounds, Chaim? By what law, Chaim? Because you **do** know, don't you, that not even Israel makes the claim that "Judea and Samaria" belongs to Israel......

Is America capable of pulling out of California? It's neither possible nor likely. Most importantly, an enormous majority of Americans would never let it happen. Same with Israel. A huge majority of Israelis are determined to keep Judea and Samaria forever. Because just as California belongs to the U.S., Judea and Samaria belong to Israel.

You had better make sure that you don't raise a glass of wine after making that there toast - there are many in the potential Islamic Republic of Palestine who would be less than impressed with your alcohol-related support.

Palestine....unilaterally declare statehood! Do it now....before you have nothing left.... Cheers

SDHD: "Try doing that with a quarter of a million people from lands that they actually own." France did exactly that when it got tired of fighting the Algerians for the benefit of the privileged descendents of European colonists. France had to remove nearly 1.5 million of those pieds-noirs to finally make peace. Which rather puts "a quarter of a million" into its correct perspective.....

ZISD: "I do not believe in self-determination for Jews" The Jewish citizens of Mandate Palestine carried out self-determination in May 1948, ZISD. What *you* are arguing is that they should be allowed two bites of the apple. Sorry, but that ain't in the rule-book. ZISD: "I believe that Arab countries who attacked Israel several times in a war of extermination and as a result lost land, should be given that land back" Errrr, THIS land is supposed to be given to the stateless PALESTINIANS, not to an Arab country. And the only time an Arab country (Jordan) *did* put their hand up for this land nobody recognized that claim. ZISD: "I am not content that Iran should be pulling the strings through their proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. Give them The West Bank as well" That's Mighty Fine Paranoia from someone whose country DOES pull the strings in the West Bank, thanks to a Big Ol' Army of Occupation.

"...you managed to throw out 750,000 Palestinians in `47 -`48 and another 300,000 in `67 so deep down in your archives there must be instructions on how to get it done?" Pierre S.

The proposal/offer you describe is incorrect and rests on a later Palestinian characterization/map that "inaccurately depicts Israeli security zones carving the West Bank into three cantons" (Morris, One State, Two States, Yale University Press, 2009, p. xiii). For the actual Camp David and other proposals, see pp. xii-xiii (maps) and pp. 134-150 in the same text by Morris.

Where are you getting this "3%" nonsense from? In fact, what are you even referring to? If you're talking about the "generous offer" from Barak, it was not even close. The "grand offer" from Israel would have divided up the West Bank into three parts broken apart by the settlements Israel intended on keeping, as well as Israel keeping control of 15-20% of the West Bank's Jordan River Valley. (I believe the language used was that the River Valley would be under "temporary Israeli military jurisdiction" for an undetermined period after which it would be "returned") This is not even mentioning that the "generous" state Israel offered would have its airspace and seas succumb to Israel's control and wishes, trade and borders belonging to Israel's whim. The Palestinians have already settled for 22% of their historic land in the West Bank and Gaza, and have repeatedly said they would accept the '49 lines in which Israeli proper makes up 78% of the land their refugees were expelled from.

"In August 2005, Israel evacuated 9,000 Jews from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. And now they`re "incapable?" Tell me another one." Try doing that with a quarter of a million people from lands that they actually own.

"Israel has been offered terms for liberating Shalit any number of times, it`s just that Israel didn`t want to pay the price. Similarly the Pals don`t want to settle for life in little split-up Bantustans." Trading hundreds of murderers is extortion. And the Palestinians were offered CONTIGUOUS territories, NOT bantustans. Try getting your facts straight. They would have only had to give up on 3% of the territories instead of 100% of them. Unfortunately, Arafat accepted the offer about a year-and-half after rejecting it. Maybe it wasn't such a bad offer after all.

These peoples' contributions to this board can be summed up in a few statements: "I do not believe in self-determination for Jews" "I believe that Arab countries who attacked Israel several times in a war of extermination and as a result lost land, should be given that land back plus the rest of Israel, so that they can hand it to Hamas" "I am not content that Iran should be pulling the strings through their proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. Give them The West Bank as well"

ombudsman: "...a military axiom informs us we should embrace the high land.and that we is what we will do." ======================== Israel probably need the high ground. It will be fighting the Arabs for another 60 years.

as provided for in the UN Partition Plan They rejected their state, prefering to attack the State of Israel instead Israel was quite willing to live side by side, Arabs didn't want to and still don't

Pierre, As well as the 800,000 jewish refugees who had been living in the arab countries for over 2,000 years were forced to leave from 48-through to today. [see yemen] btw, when India and Pakistan separated over 6 million refugees switched sides.... no refugee camps....let's get real.

Writers and journalists complain the blogs are mere noise. Facts are non-existent and literary style.... well, that's simply asking for too much. Read an expose in Vanity Fair, the New Yorker or Der Spiegel and you get a lesson in linguistics that fascinate the mind. Riffle through an Amira Hass article and it reads like a student's first attempt at reporting. It's not necessarily her subject matter [no enchantment there].... it's the style and approach. Sometimes I wonder if there's any editorial supervision applied. Or is Ms. Hass allowed to submit her notes.... as a finished piece.

I agree that Israel is politically incapable of withdrawing the settlers. That would require political will and competence, somethings that the current government lack. One has only to look at how these same politicians (with few changes) handled the Gaza mess. That they lacked competence is manifest. There is no evidence that they would in the future. Any deal should recognize this and provide for the IDF and other law enforcement and occupation arms of the Israeli government be replaced in an orderly manner by Palestine's forces. And if the settlers don't like their government, they can vote with their feet. Israeli government competence is not required.

"Or don`t you think the Pal barbarian hordes deserve human dignity and freedom?" What have the Pals ever done that makes them worthy of human dignity? Gaza was evacuated and instead of taking the opportunity to accomplish something with their freedom, they proceeded to attack Israel. Did they build factories? Yes! The number one industry became the manufacturing of rockets. If there is a silver lining it is the West Bank where the economy is starting to pick up. Now that the Pals can not make war they are starting to make $$$ and finally earning some dignity.

Rather clumsy evasion. Now answer the question.

I think Eiland is sincere. The settler movement was Greater Israel's "Rubicon," but instead of crossing it, they got stuck in middle, and are now wondering what happens if a storm comes up and floods the river they're stuck in.

JN: "In and of themselves, occupations can`t be illegal because there is no law against them." Untrue. The combination of UN Charter Article 2(4) and 51 tells you when an occupation is legal and when an occupation is illegal. An occupation is legal when it is maintained for the purpose of national self-defense by the occupying power (that is permitted under Art 51). An occupation is illegal if it is being maintained for any other purpose (that being prohibited under Art 2(4)). IF Israel is maintaining this occupation BECAUSE it insists on extracting a territorial concession from the occupied THEN this occupation has descended into illegality, because the *only* excuse for occupying (the "self-defense" provision of Art 51 of the UN Charter) no longer applies.

but you managed to throw out 750,000 Palestinians in `47 -`48 and another 300,000 in `67 so deep down in your archives there must be instructions on how to get it done?" The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem himself called upon the Arabs to leave "Israel" so that the Arabs would not be exterminated (along with the Jews) when 6 Arab countries invaded "Israel". If they would not have listened things would be much different in Israel today. In 1967, after Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran, threw out the UN, massed 100,000 troops and 1000 tanks on Israel's border, Iraqi tanks were approaching Israel through Jordan, etc, etc. Israel did what any intelligent country would do. They attacked before they were attacked. Sorry but if the end result was 270,000 people leaving their homes fearing for their lives, because of a war, Israel can not be faulted for something that the Arabs brought upon their own people. In the future may I suggest that you use the web to find the facts + then comment

The poor people cannot live in peace without someone trying to STEAL their land everyday or SHOOTING rockets at them everyday.

Regardless of the West Bank settlements, after Israel disengagement from the Gaza Strip back in 2005, what have Israel gotten in exchange ?, Nothing. A harrowing conflict at the beginning of 2009, the same international criticism as it have never disengaged. So will a West Bank pullout bring about a solution ?

though when Israel vacates them, they will hopefully sell them for a nice profit, along with the infrastructure.

Why should Israel evacuate its citizen living in the West Bank? The Arabs started the wars with Israel and they lost, so they should stop whining. There were thousands of terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians inside Israel carried out by Arabs in the years between 1948 and 1967. The PLO was formed with goal of destroying Israel in 1964--three years before the "occupation." The only real ethnic cleansing that happened in 1948-49 was when the Arabs murdered or expelled every Jew living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Why should Israel believe that by returning to the 1948 borders they will be given recognition and peace? They were certainly never given either between 1948 and 1967. The reason why Israel has peace with Egypt and Jordan is because Israel responded to their violence with extreme force and they realized it cost something to fight with Jews. The Palestinians have yet to understand that. When they do perhaps they will live in peace with their Jewish neighbors.

Jews don't have equal rights in the arab lands, never did, and those Arab countries have excellent diplomatic and trade relationships with the EU, US and the rest of the world. If there is a one state solution the arabs can and should be second class citizens because they would be a fifth column bent on Israels destruction as a state for the Jews run by Jews. If they don't like it they can move to the other 22 or more ststes run by Arabs. The Tamil Tigers analogy is more appropriate-- oppose the government and chance being wiped out.

In August 2005, Israel evacuated 9,000 Jews from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. And now they're "incapable?" Tell me another one.

Obviously pretty difficult, but you managed to throw out 750,000 Palestinians in '47 -'48 and another 300,000 in '67 so deep down in your archives there must be instructions on how to get it done? Or perhaps you don't want to use those methods on Israelis?

Americans are a funny lot. There was once an American lady singer performing in Amsterdam interviewed by Dutch television. "I love Belgium and this nice capital" she said. When informed she was in Holland, she said in a slightly defending tone: "those Baltic countries..."

"... the uncivilized, Arab, barbarian hoards to the east." If you insist on using racist language, at least try to spell it correctly - 'hordes'.

"Funny how those, "hostages" have been offered a key to liberate themselves any number of times. Unfortunately, they`ve thrown that key away every time." Israel has been offered terms for liberating Shalit any number of times, it's just that Israel didn't want to pay the price. Similarly the Pals don't want to settle for life in little split-up Bantustans. Since you're from the ethnically mixed and democratic USA SDHD, I imagine, in any case, that your preferred solution is a single state with one vote for every person Arab or Jew. I know how much the ADL hates it when anybody in the US talks about making the USA more Christian. You wouldn't want to discriminate on grounds of race or religion would you.

"By the way, how d you see this evil occupation ending? It`s gone on for over 40 years and Israel`s keeping the Pals hostage" Funny how those, "hostages" have been offered a key to liberate themselves any number of times. Unfortunately, they've thrown that key away every time.

Howdy Jeff. You always try to come across as reasonable but that's an ugly sentence: "The West Bank is more complicated because no border has ever been established between Israel and the uncivilized, Arab, barbarian hoards to the east." I hope you're joking about the hoards. Should be hordes anyway. By the way, how d you see this evil occupation ending? It's gone on for over 40 years and Israel's keeping the Pals hostage just as much as Shalit, demanding it gets the deal it wants before it releases them. Obviously their captivity isn't as bad as Shalit's but it's gone on 20 times longer. Or don't you think the Pal barbarian hordes deserve human dignity and freedom?

The friesians are in Schleswig, Lower Saxony and the Netherlsnds. What you mean, is the flamish group (flamand) The difference is like Apache and Comanche. If you bring an analogy than with a correct input.

"Please clarify one point. Does that 3% you cite include" It includes what the Palestinians were already offered and rejected.

So it all could add up to having a Belgium in the Middle East with shifting 'borders' between the Walloons and Friesians? The Middle East twist would be that only one ethnic group has a military service obligation? Battling Theocracies as government?

Howdy Winston; In and of themselves, occupations can't be illegal because there is no law against them. On the contrary, occupations are well-defined states of affairs in International Humanitarian Law, are questions of fact (and not of law), and have no expiration dates. There are various ways in which an occupation can end such as being forced out by military action (like Jordan was from the WB in 1967), carrying out an unilateral voluntary withdrawal (like Israel did from the GS in 2005), or by reaching a bilateral peace agreement (like Egypt and Israel with respect to the Sinai did in 1979).

I wonder if you would be as generous if the same request was put to you, dismantle the Jewish presence in Ramle? Israel returned Gaza, look at the results, intensified rocket fire at Sderot and environs Just ask yourself, who attacked whom on Yom HaAtzmaut 1948??

If Israel cannot do it, then is Israel capable of being a partner to peace? Or will religous extremism prevail? The USA and the EU cannot be partners with a country so adrift that its only uniting value is the suppression of Palestinians and the confiscation of Palestinian land. Neither Netanyahu nor Lieberman have the wisdom or courage to unite the Israelis in a peace initiative. Israel is plotting its own self-destruction by refusing to unite behind a plan for peace with justice for the Palestinians. The Western world cannot tolerate such leadership in much the USA finally could not tolerate the Bush-Cheney leadership.

So we pull out,what then?more demands from Israel,no demands from the Palestinian?Is renouncing terror is a concession?Terror is illegal too..The road to peace is a two ways road.One way road will only lead us to a cul-de-sac.I agree that for real peace most of the settlement will have to go,but real peace,not 10 years Hudna.Real peace is without terror, when would you talk about that.i guess never.

evacuating all settlers is not even on the agenda........over 80% will remain in the swapped territories.....as for the rest drastic reductions in subsidies and budget plus a general feel that they no longer serve any sort of national interest and may even be a hinderance to peace will result in slow voluntary return to israel proper reducing the need for coercion to a minimum

I've read that dimantleing the west bank settlements could cost as much as $ 100 billion US.

will demand a one state solution. Prehaps it is not clear enough for Israeli Jews, the current predicament of the Palestinian people is unacceptable and can no longer be allowed to continue. It is either a two state solution in which Israel withdraws behind the greenline with soe minor adjustments. Or the Palestinian people are given full rights in the State of Israel which runs from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan. But the General is right Israel does not have political leaders of the calibre required to make the dcisions to ensure the longterm survival of Israel as the Jewish state.

are concerned.nor is he interested leaving in the golan.as a militray man he understands the value of keeping the high ground when we fight a bitter enemy.

Since an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders is not possible and dismantling Jewish settlements is not possible. It seems inevitable for Israel to get its wish: a greater Israel for all its citizens from dead sea to mid sea with all its citizens jews and gentiles living equally under the law.

Please clarify one point. Does that 3% you cite include the area taken up by such amenities as approach roads, etc, and the no-go areas around the settlements that Palestinians are forbidden to enter? If not, what (adding these in) is the area actually taken up by the settlements?

a military axiom informs us we should embrace the high land.and that we is what we will do. no israeli leader is going to come down from the hills.

just as well.

Pulling out of the West Bank is NOT a concession. That, israelis, should understand. All settlements are illegal. There's nothing else but peace and mutual recognition to negociate for Israel.

"If the Uk was capable of long term strategic thinking,we would have saved us many conflicts. Israel-Palestinian,or India-Pakistan are some of the UK`s long term strategic thinking,and so was selling out Czechoslovakia." It's a bit pathetic mate. Instead of discussing my analysis of Israel's strategic problems, which is hardly that controversial (see Livni's comments on Bibi) you lash out at British disasters from over half a century ago. Is that the best you can do? This is an Israeli website, not one dedicated to Neville Chamberlain and the British Empire. Amd if you really can't think of anything more relevant to discuss, at least balance the picture with examples of British strategic successes, like hanging on against Hitler in 1940 when the rest of the world was at peace with him.

Funny you bring in Churchill, who in exasperation told a delegation of Palestinian Arabs who complained to him of being dispossessed by Zionists that "land was not being taken away from Arabs; that Arabs sold land to Jews only if they chose to do so" (Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace, 1989, p. 522). In fact, the president of this delegation, Musa Kazim Pasha, himself sold land to Jewish settlers and in general Palestinian Arab landowners "turned out to be eager to sell the Jewish settlers their fertile lands -- at very considerable profits" (ibid.). To his credit, Churchill saw through this hypocrisy, various new forms of which continue in the supposedly pro-Palestinian posts on Talkback to this day.

If the Uk was capable of long term strategic thinking,we would have saved us many conflicts. Israel-Palestinian,or India-Pakistan are some of the UK's long term strategic thinking,and so was selling out Czechoslovakia.

With the current situation of course Israel is "incapable"of WB pullout.The Palestinians just seat and wait for Israel to make some concessions.No unity,no recognition,yes terror,yes Qassam.But nothing is impossible,and for real peace Israel's capability will surprise all.Pulling out for a status quo is not the answer.

It is clear that Israel's political and military leadership does not have the political will to evacuate the illegally illegal outposts, let alone the illegal colonies like Ariel, Maale Adumim. After more than 40 years of occupation Israel's leaders are still trying to obstruct and obfuscate. Pleading and asking kindly has had no effect. I am sure that a few years of boycot, divestment and sanctions along with international isolation will convince a clear majority of the Israelis that the time has come to 'bite through the sour apple' as the Dutch say, and give up the ill gotten gains in the Occupied Territories.

If Israel can remove the settlers from Gaza and from the Sinai then it can of course removed the illegal settlers from the Palestinian WB, Golan, Shebba etc. In fact Israel has had decades of experience at 'removing' people, for example the 1,000's of Palestinians who were evicted from their homes and never allowed to return. The countless illegal house demolitions. The forced removal of Palestinians to foreign countries. As several poster have already mentioned; it is not that Israel *can't* it is that Israel *doesn't want to*. Apparently stealing land and resources is more important to Israel that regional peace.

There are people posting here who think the general's just making excuses for continuing the occupation. Maybe, but I think he's touched up on something more significant. Israel is a country with huge economic potential and a talented population, but it is also a country which seems to drift rudderless from one disaster to the next, a country at the mercy of special interest groups obsessed with promoting their own interests, not those of the country. Israel is always capable of reacting decisively and violently to any Arab threat it sees, but where's the strategy for achieving peace with its neighbours, where's the strategy for dealing with increasingly radicalised settlers and haredim? There isn't anything like that, because no Israeli government seems capable any more of taking decisions unpopular with one of the larger special interest groups and dealing with the political storms that that would involve. Dictating Israel's future is thereby left to chance and to outsiders.

Leave the settlers where they are. The Palestinian police will know what to do with them when they are civilians within a Palestinian state. If they break the law, normal police action will be undertaken. Just like with any criminal.

Many people say.... the US congress is like a sausage factory. Well... the Israeli Knesset is a Kosher organization. So that metaphor wouldn't apply. Maybe striving for a consensus in the Knesset is like looking for a light in a dark room. Still, let's not smear the process instead of looking at past results. There's no question, once Sharon decided to evacuate Gaza.... nothing stopped him. So the question becomes, can Bibi overcome his [yes - no] personality.... and provide the heroic leadership that's required. Hmm.... is that so difficult to answer.

"Oh, and regarding the article itself, if Israel is "incapable" of removing the colonies in the West Bank, then surely the only decision left is for the creation of a binational state, no?" Why? Do you think the areas with an Israeli population take up the entire West Bank? Or just about 3% of it? Instead of cleansing a quarter of a million people out of that 3% of it, why not have a state on the remaining 97%?

Giora Eiland deceptively paints Israel's leadership as a bunch of bumbling nebishes who could not even zip open their flies, find their bulbuls and take a leak. They do not know 'how' to evacuate the settlements but they know very well how to lie to the American government about freezing the settlements while patting each other on the back, and they know all too well how to continue to build the settlements. Give me a break.

If they were able to brainwash the soldiers and people to throw out the families of Gush Katif they can do it in Yehuda and Shomron. The only question is at what cost.

not follow the critics in advance the IDF is unwilling to do the job. Last year we had the speech of Prof. Gidi Netzer, a dedicated ResColonel, talking about the disengagment of Gaza. What will happen in the WB many officers asked. How can you handle a job with a conscript militia army and 400.000 Settlers ? The General speaks out what everybody knows and there is no political will to take the burden. The alternative is... Where are the ideas ?

Oh, and regarding the article itself, if Israel is "incapable" of removing the colonies in the West Bank, then surely the only decision left is for the creation of a binational state, no? Secular character, equal rights for all, and the understanding that one demographic is more youthful and is growing faster.

Let's see to your strawman. It's your turn to figure out how to resolve Israel/Palestine, including the savage dehumanization of 1.5 million people in the Gaza ghetto, a continued military occupation over four million people total, the ethnic cleansing of '48 and their refugees, thousands imprisoned without trial, and water cut off while settlements continue to take over the land. Go baby go!

SDHD: "Johnboy will run for the position, since he knows exactly how to solve all the Middle East issues, starting with the relocation of a half million people within a small country such as Israel. " SDHD so loves the word-games that zionists play, because playing such games helps every good zionist to avoid facing up to reality. Dude, that particular zionist is quoted as saying that Israel "can't" pull out of the West Bank. Dude, that particular zionist is using the word "can't" when he should be using the word "won't". Words Have Meaning, and if they DON'T then there is very little point in uttering them. I know that you struggle with such concepts because, well, because you are a zionist, and so you insist on the comfort of meaningless nonsense. Like the nonsense that just spouted from the lips of Maj. Gen (res.) Giora Eiland.

would that be for preparing a Pal state as part of the two state solution? that the Pals don't want anyway. Get real.

Johnboy will run for the position, since he knows exactly how to solve all the Middle East issues, starting with the relocation of a half million people within a small country such as Israel. Go get 'em Johnboy!

From the very beginning of the settlement project Israel never had the least intention of getting out of the occupied territories. First they grabbed the land over the water aquifers and went from there. During the 1990s when Israel was supposedly having peace negotiations with the Palestinians the number of settlements was doubled. If Israel had been truly interested in peace not one new settler house would have been built. Israel has proved to the world that it values land more than it values peace. The question is what will Israel do when the Palestinians decide that they are just not going to take it any more.. The settlements could have been stopped before they began. What a shame that they were not.

If Israel could not get its act together to develop the Negev and Galil, then where would all these hundreds of thousands of people go, assuming that you could just evacuate them like that? Yes, look at the Gush Katif evacuees, and multiply their plight a thousand-fold. We should be like the Sonder Commnados of the Ghettoes, right?

Johnboy, you knowlage of Israel like 6 years old kid. it can't be done. unless you want military take over. by the way 20-30 % of Oficers live in West Bank. Do you want to make them homeless?

Israel could easily dismantle settlements, like it did in Gaza and Yamit. But the political will is not yet strong enough. Apparently the government and much of the public still values the fantasy of a greater Israel than peace and safety for it's children and soldiers. Historic folly. When Israel wakes up, it will cease annexing land illegaly and withdraw to modest boundaries and behave fairly to the Palestinians, who themselves need some major changes. til then, more blood and strife.

Errr, no, that's quite incorrect. Israel doesn't WANT to do it, sure. No question of *that*. But to claim that Israel CAN'T do it? Ohhhh, get real. Of course it can. It could evacuate all those settlements in days, if not hours, if that were forced upon it under threat of war or some other disaster.