Now, I like this guy and in general I like to read arguments that are well thought out or at least have a point of view that is based in something. THIS argument has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. (it's kinda' like how the Israeli government actually says on at least 3 of their gov't sites that there are not really Palestinians - that they are really Jordanians. Really? If you are going to use that argument, at least choose a group of people that they ACTUALLY are like... like the Lebanese... they live on the coast, there is a mix of people with different backgrounds and religions, they live in villages, towns and cities (ok, not that the Jordanians don't, but there really are more Bedouins and my goodness you can look at them and notice the difference!). Oh, and for those who don't know, the king of Jordan is half British/ half 'Saudi' (before it was Saudi Arabia, it was a bunch of other things, but they are from the Hejaz area on the west coast (Mecca and Medina). Just FYI. And the queen is Palestinian, who was born and grew up in Kuwait) lol
To sum up what I got from his article (and this is a quote): "No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them -- not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that. The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns -- even before negotiations."
Now, why do I think this is a stupid reply? So, he is saying that the settlements are needed because if the Israeli's want to keep having kids, they need extra space. He uses the example that xx person can't even build an extra room for their new baby if they wanted to. (granted, I've never heard that rule, if that is a rule that you can't build extra rooms, it's from their own government over zoning rules, because that wouldn't be an issue to anyone over land. UNLESS, you are taking over someone else's land, which is the whole point of those actions being found illegal under international and -in many cases - local law!) He is saying that there is apparently no room already in the cities and towns and villages and so they must keep growing physically as a country - even if they just 'take over' other people's land, because - goodness!- how else are they going to live with their families.
Now, I find this incredibly stupid on two main counts. 1. I have never heard that Israel was crowded to that degree where housing was so much an issue. I mean, they have 7.4 million people in a land area that is a bit smaller than New Jersey. New Jersey has a population of around 8.7 million people. For all purposes, they are pretty normal in size and 'limited space' is not a main issue.
2. He ACTUALLY wrote this with the Palestinian territories, 2 feet away (and technically controlled by Israel with 'limited' self-rule) who has a population of around 4 million people in a area the size of 6,020 sq. km. That is compared to the 7.4 million Israelis in 20,330 SQ KM!!!
Outside of the idea that he is claiming a land squeeze, while the people he wants to take the land away from are living in MUCH smaller areas with, foot-by-foot, more people in that area- let's look at other areas of the world:
Egypt- Cairo has around 6.8 million people (the metro area has up to 22 million)
USA - Washington, DC metro area has around 5.4 million people
China/HKAD - Hong Kong has around 7 million people
No city in Israel ever even shows up on ANY list of crowded cities of the world (or high population density, etc). Which makes this entire argument rather stupid, in my option. If you are going to defend the settlements - choose a solid argument. I would actually prefer you to say, "well, we took over that land and so should be able to build as we like!" But, they don't like to admit that they are in control over that area (it's better to say there is a current Palestinian state and gov't of sorts), but that is going into what you say and what you do.
Final note: "That's why Haj Amin al-Husseini chose war rather than a two-state solution in 1947. Why Yasser Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in 2000. And why Abbas rejected Olmert's even more generous December 2008 offer."
The US will never be able to help if they really believe these statements. Often time what 'looks good' means that there is something in each of those things that was much worst than the alternative. (btw, there was a 'moderate' answer to the whole thing in 1947, but everyone ignores that and likes to say it was a universal rejecting of the proposal. But, that is a whole other issue) If you are saying, let's give you control over land that you are already supposed to have control over, but we will still control your water, import export, security and you can't immigrate to our side, even if you marry one of our citizens, because of who you are - that is still a problem and there isn't much 'good' coming from that.
The one point that he was fine with, is that the current government is pretty darn corrupt. That is pretty obvious. BUT, I find one main reason for that- anyone who could has pretty much left the territories to places where than can live without worrying about dying from starvation or Israeli fire and to places where they can actually LIVE and be content with life with those things that we take for granted that everyone should have. There are still good people there, but if you knew that there was almost certainly that 3 of your 10 kids will die before they reach 28, would you stay? If you were not allowed electricity or water because of what the controlling state said, would you stay? No- you would leave! In the end- yes, people want a better life for themselves and their kids. But, if you give up everything you have to to safe, but live in a prison, is that worth it? Is that actually better and are you actually safe?
For the record, I do approve of two states, but as both sides build up more and more paranoia and action/reaction responses, the future is not looking so great. Do I think the Arabs (outside Palestine) will one day take over Israel in a war? No. The Arabs have their populations content and to go to a war has more risk right now than benefits. They would not win (sorry, but I don't see THAT happening in conventional ways) and they would lose many allies that they really do value, both in opinion and in money :)
I think Israel has greater internal issues and their paranoia and own debates over how and who they consider their own citizens to be (religious state or not? What do you do with Orthodox Jews?) will be more detrimental to their development and success as a nation. I hope that they eventually get their act together and that BOTH sides to start to use language that is correct, understanding to both sides and sympathetic to both sides. Because, in the end, if Israel doesn't succeed as a nation, the Palestinians will come back which can be seen as a bigger 'loss' for Israelis who will then be living again in an Arab state.
