Does creating new settlements within the geographical region promote Israel’s security or conversely, will it undermine it?
Does making new settlements in the West Bank promote Israel’s security or conversely, does it undermine it?
A2A. Thanks for asking.
The pros and cons are already here with the answers of others.
Of course, one can suppose that their views, it is the opinion of amateurs in this topic, since none of them interfering with security issues in their everyday lives. Such a
statement could be justified, if the unanimity reigned among professionals. But
there is no unanimity among professionals also and anyone can verify it by reading the article . Therefore, in my reply, I will not address the issue of security, but its moral side. Hence, my answer is:
– Domination over other people regardless of what impact it has on the security
of the State is bad for the morale of Israeli society. We should not spare any effort to put an end to this state of things.
It does promote Israel’s security in a very big way. It was proven beyond any doubt when Israel “disengaged” in 2005. This unilateral measure that was supposed to advance peace brought rivers of blood on both sides instead.
Security issues aside though, the settlements are a matter of principle. Why should Arabs be able to buy land and build where they want, but Jews should be discriminated against in the most openly antisemitic way? Why is it acceptable to shamelessly go on record with declarations that the State of Palestine simply MUST be Jew-free, Nazi style?
It promotes security.
– The rokets can’t be fired from the mountains whereare Jewish settlements.
– Building itself creates jobs for the Palestinian population – betterpaid one than terrorism.
– Evetybody saw wht happened after Israel left Gush Katif.
– An open secret: intel is easier, when you are inside.
The answer depends on WHICH settlement.
Some ground rules for my answer:
- Israel=recognized country pre-1967.
- West Bank=Captured Jordanian territory in the 1967 battle
- Gaza=Gaza Strip=Former Egyptian controlled territory up to current Egyptian border.
- Hamas=Islamic Resistance Movement
- PA=Palestine National Authority, political wing of the PLO.
- Author=I am an Israeli and know the following from “the news”.
Basis for my answer: When Israel announced in 2003 that it would pull out of Gaza, rockets had been falling IN Gaza for 3 years and at least 1 tunnel had been dug under an army post. The Gaza Strip is lower than most surrounding Israel and can be seen from Israel. An agreement was signed by both side (Israel and PA) that Gaza and Jerico would be first released to the PA by Israel.
Results from the above experiment: Gaza was taken over by Hamas and the Charter of Hamas calls return of all Muslim lands. Thousands of rockets and mortars have been fired into Israel, ships have been stopped carrying arms to Gaza, and tunnels have been dug under the border and people kidnapped.
The West Bank is different. The land is higher and looks down on Israels most densely populated area. If most of the rockets from Gaza miss hitting buildings and people, a rocket from the West Bank WILL hit buildings and people.
While the PA seems to control the West Bank, there are many “gang wars” between Hamas and the PA.
The Hamas Charter in English can be found at:. Islamic Resistance Movement drorg/carryover/documents/charter.html?chocaid=397
NOW THE ANSWER: Yes, settlements advance peace and security. The more interaction between the Jewish and Muslim communities the better, both sides need to recognize the humanity of the other, and that can only be done by interacting. When I walk in Kfar Saba and see Muslims in hijab, I assume that the children and men with them are also Muslim.
Actually, that’s a very good question. The answer is actually, yes. New settlements and expansion of the old ones, promotes Israel’s security. The reason for this, is that every time the settlements are expanded, the IDF sets more outposts within those territories. This makes it easier to stop terror attacks faster, and more efficiently.
This, however, doesn’t make the settlements OK. Settlement in lands that do not belong to Israel, is illegal, and there is no promise that the government won’t destroy it. In fact, when the settlements are illegal, there is a very big chance that they will be destroyed.
There are two obstacles to real peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The first, and most important, is the stopping of terror that the Palestinians commit daily, and not only not condemn by the majority, but also praise the terror. This must stop before any peace is talked about. The second, is Israelis stopping building illegal settlements. Of course the two appear on either side, but there is way more terror from the Palestinian side, and much more illegal settlements on the Israeli side.
According to an old saying, sooner or later the land will belong to whoever farms it. Without a civilian presence attached to the land, Israeli troops can’t stay on the West Bank to keep order for the long term. And without Israeli troops on the West Bank at least until the threat from there is dispelled– which could take decades– Israel would not be a very secure place.
Expanding an apartheid infrastructure might buy temporary security for those benefiting from apartheid, but in the long term it is disastrous because, well… apartheid.
Stinks in the nostrils of observers and all that.
Only thing missing from a South Africa 2.0 scenario is the Palestinians producing a Mandela type.