Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Barak Talks Tough to Settlers
Speaking before the Yesha Council (an umbrella group for Israeli settlers), Defense Minister Ehud Barak said flat out that the Israeli government will dismantle illegal outposts, and "If it won't be through understanding, it will be done quickly and by force." Barak said that this was simply a matter of the rule of law -- and he's right. But the fact that these settlements are a tremendous injustice and barrier to peace is also worth noting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The "settlements" are like a microcosm for all of Israel. Think about it. Whatever can be said about the settlers and settlements , see if it can be said and is being said about ALL of Israel.
Settlers are governed by military law. Israel isn't.
Settlements are illegal under international law. Israel isn't.
Settlers (by and large) oppose a two-state solution. Israelis as a whole by and large support it.
What an utterly inane comment.
all of Israel is seen as an illegal occupation (by some)not everyone agrees about Israel's founding being legal.
all of Israel is seen as being under military rule (by some) furthermore settlers are governed by Israeli law same as anyone else
re: two state your right unless you change the phrasing to "support of a 'viable' palestinian state".I've read pro-palestine sites that argue that the land in question for 2 state will create a disconnected non-viable mess of a palestinian state. Some people mock two state or any other "concessions" since they see ALL of Israel as an unjust occupation. Not everyone makes a distinction between a little occupation and a lot. So in the eyes of some ANY support for ANY of Israel is seen as rabid zionism .
re: inane-well not everyone is a genius like you but at least I'm not rude and insulting.
The fact that "some" people believe something isn't sufficient to make that belief valid. For example, that some people don't accept that Israel's foundation was valid under international law doesn't change the fact that it was, in fact, validly created, and there isn't a particularly serious legal argument to the contrary.
To try and make policy based on the admitted fact that some people have foolish beliefs is a recipe for awful policies. It makes more sense to try and keep ourselves grounded in solid reasoning, rather than anchoring ourselves to the muck of stupidity.
Post a Comment