Settlements are sucking the State and citizens dry?!

Let's point out that Emily Amrosi, gorgeous though she is, is a settler and a columnist for Bibi's Pravda, the Yisrael Hayom freebie. So whatever she says has to be taken with more than a little pinch of salt.
The settlers have received grants to live where they do, so have no mortgages.
Their public transport is subsidised while in Israel it has reached TfL levels.
They have their own exclusive road network, built at the Israeli tax payers' expense.
The occupation and maintaining the settlements over the past 40 years has cost the middle class in Israel more than 40 billion dollars in taxes.
So yes, the settlements and the occupation are sucking Israel and its citizens dry. And now Israel has woken up.
When the settlers go back to Israel, they will have equal rights to Israelis. Until then, their behaviour and the perks they receive are fair game.

Very interesting - quite a revelation - I did feel myself sympathising with Emily Amrosi's experiences. But as I read it all, I did think "Well why BE a settler?". It's a reasonable question surely. And more reasonable, now I've read Joe Millis's further background info.

Walinets, why BE a Jew? If they all disappeared, by your reckoning, it would save everyone a lot of trouble.

Astonishing that you think Jews should be barred from living in some places. Presumably you think the same about Arabs?

millis, yet anothet comparison with the Soviet Union. Pravda functioned in a state with no free press. Israel is not like that - and you should be ashamed for suggesting that it is.

amber: "Walinets, why BE a Jew? If they all disappeared, by your reckoning, it would save everyone a lot of trouble.
Astonishing that you think Jews should be barred from living in some places. Presumably you think the same about Arabs?"

amber - what I wrote was "Why BE a SETTLER?", a quite different subject. The settlers are living in areas they ARE legally barred from, by international agreement, aren't they? And taking over land from local Palestinians. In which case, they have no grounds for complaint, they don't HAVE to be there, do they?

Walinets, no.

Jews ARE legally entitled to be on land in Judea and Samaria, as decreed by the League of Nations. Please investigate this. There is no "international agreement" at all - where did you get that from? And they are NOT "taking over" land from Palestinian Arabs - that is another modern myth. The land on which settlements are built were NEVER Arab, neither as part of an Arab state, nor privately owned.

It is interesting that you think some areas should be Judenrein? Do you think the same of Arabs living, say, within the 1948 armistice lines?

While Jews may be entitled to live in the territories, it is not very wise for them to do so. If we want Israel to continue to exist, as I suspect you do, then Israel relieving itself of areas that are home to a non-Jewish majority is the way to go. Otherwise, it's either a single non-Jewish state between Med and the Jordan or it's apartheid. Israel's choice.

Jonathan, whilst I agree that this is a problem for Israel, I utterly reject your accusation of "apartheid". You should be very careful about using such words, as it plays right into the hands of whose who wish to delegitimize Israel altogether - in other words, peole who wish to destroy it.

My question to you is this: who should Israel give this land to?

Why? Israel's Defence Minister Ehud Barak, a man with, I suspect, much more security experience than you or I and a man who has devoted all of his adult life to protecting Israel, says that if Israel doesn't relinquish the territories to the Palestinians, then it will become an apartheid state.
Binyamin Netnyahu, like that old warhorse Ariel Sharon (is he still with us?) before him, appears to recognise that too when he says that Israel doesn't want to rule the lives of another nation which doesn't have the same rights as the Jews. That's apartheid.
So are you saying that Barak, Netanyahu and Sharon wish to delegitimise Israel or wish to destroy it? I don't think so, do you?
As for whom the land should be given to. That's fairly obvious - the Palestinians who live there. Let them run their own lives. And I know some would claim that there isn't such a thing as a Palestinian (even though succesive Israeli governments have recognised them as such, even Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin's), but they self-define as a nation as such, so it ill behoves us to argue otherwise.

Jonathan, it isn't Israel's choice. They will ony have a choice when they have someone with whom to negotiate, and when the Palestinians give up on the idea of killing all Jews.

Ah, yes. Again a quote from Ehud Barak (and the late great Yitzhak Rabin before him)> "Peace is made with enemies." I believe they know/knew more about the situation than you or I.

Sometimes, I get the feeling that some of Israel's supporters away from Israel are very happy to fight to the last Israeli to have an Israel in their image.

Jonathan, peace is not made with enemies who are currently trying to kill you. Such twee soundbites are not a way to conduct your national survival.

So again, I ask, who does Israel give this land to? Did such a formula work well with Gaza?

Apologies Jonatha, missed your previous reply.

It is all very well to say "give it to the Palestinians" - but which Palestinians do you mean? Currently, this would entail making concessions to Fatah and Hamas, who just got into bed with each other for temporary political expediancy. Both are terror groups which reject Israel as a Jewish state, and Hamas is indeed committed to the genocide of the Jews in its own founding charter. Fatah, meanwhile, pumps out a steady diet of incitement against Jews per se through its state controlled media, and in its education system.

These are not signs of people wishing to make peace. Indeed, Hamas rejects any peace agreement, and openly mocks the idea of peace talks, and refers again and again to the only true path being the jihad.

You have to deal with realities, not theoretical fantasies. This conflict is not about land - and never has been. It is about whether a non-Islamic state can exist in the Middle East in peace - and there is no sign at all that the Arabs have changed on this.

Jonathan, didn't the experience of the withdrawal from Gaza and sections of Judea and Samaria tell you anything?

Are you disputing the views of Ehud Barak? Or other Israeli leaders, including Begin and Sharon? Are you more qualified than they to determine Israel's future?
If I may, what is your security background? Have you been Chief of Staff with six citations for bravery (the most in Israeli history)? Did you save Israel in the 1973 War by crossing the Suez Canal and encircling the Egyptians?
Again, I answer, to the Palestinians who are a majority on the West Bank. And as enemies go, they have been too busy building their state to get involved in destroying a state which, let's face it, is a regional economic superpower - an OECD mamber - with huge numbers of planes, tanks, guns, ships, submarines and highly-trained and motivated soldiers, as well as a reupted nuclear stockpile. None of the neighbouring states can boast that, let alone the Palestinians.
Why are you putting Israel down? Why do you want to fight to the last Israeli?

The mistake with the Gaza withdrawal, as both sides now thankfully acknowledge, is that it was done unilaterally and with the intention of killing off any negotiations. All unilateral moves are stupid, from declaring a state to grabbing land to create "facts on the ground". They have a tendency to come back and bite you on the bottom.

Jonathan, that is silly. To list someone's credentials as if this somehow puts them beyond any disagreement is plain silly. Barak is a politician. All politicians say things publicly which they do not really think, for several reasons, not least to keep the Americans happy and "make the right noises".

Israeli politicians are well aware that they have no negotiating partner for peace at the moment, and Fatah's pact with Hamas just pushed such a possibility even further away.

Look Jonathan - we've done this. We withdrew from Gaza. What was the result? The Palestinians put all efforts into attacking Israelis, spent nothing on state building, and violence increased. This is because the goal is not building a new state, but destroying another one.

There is no getting round this.

It isn't Israel that will determine the conflict, it is the Palestinians, on whom you seem to place no responsibility at all. It is they who drive it.

Israel is not as strong as you think Jonathan - one Iranian bomb will destroy it forever.

Jonathan, what has the unilateral aspect got to do with the continuing jihad against Israel? Why did the Palestinians not take the opportunity to nation build?

And what choice did Israel have? Hamas does not want to talk - it has shown no sign of wanting to talk, or make any concessions.

Funny that you think Israel should leave Judea and Samaria under the same circumstances which worked out so badly in Gaza.

Oh nonsense Jonathan. Barak said the things you claim (source please?) as a politician, not as a commander of a military unit.

You simply have not addressed how either:

1. The unilateral move fuels the jihad.
2. How, in your opposition to unilateral moves, and Hamas' refusal to talk, a solution can be found.

Barak said what he said as a man who cares about Israel's future. He's also a person who has contributed and continues to contribute to Israel. Would that you were so helpful.
Unilateral moves don't work because one side has no stake in it. Also, the intention of this particular unilateral move was to kill the peace process.
Israel refuses to talk to Hamas, not vice versa.
Israel is a very strong state, its neighbours are not. It would be helpful if Israel's friends would stop doing her down.

Anyway, I think we know where we both stand. I'm in favour of a strong Israel with a strong - 80-85% - Jewish majority, while you, whoever you are, are in favour of portraying Israel as some weakling that needs to be protected.

Before Barak was a politician, he was, and remains, a highly-decorated soldier, who commanded not only Israel's military but its Sayeret Matkal. In fact, he was one of its best commanders.
When it comes to Israeli security, I doubt very much he or Netanyahu or Sharon or any other Israeli leader would do what the Americans say if they felt it would cause security problems.
As for Iran, I rather like the fact that some security services seem to have them tied up in knots over their still-delayed nuclear programme.
If you think that you are more qualified than they, than as they say on Dragons' Den: "I'm out." There's no reasonable debate to be had with you. There must be some here who don't want to run around in circles.
Joe Millis appears to know what he is talking about, as does the one who goes by the name Advis3r. And Richard Millett, too.

I must say the JC has a very strange editing system here that makes messages leapfrog others. It puts things out of kilter and, I suppose, someone with less than honest intent might abuse the system to make it seem their message hasn't been answered.

Jonathan,

Do you believe everything Barak says, just because he is Barak, or do you think for yourself sometimes?

You have studiously avoided the questions I put to you, exposing the incoherence of your position.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that Israel should not make any unilateral moves, but then castigating it for not leaving Judea and Samaria unilaterally. Hamas does not want to talk, and has made its position explicitly clear, repeatedly. It is sad that you still don't get the message.

And when did I say that Israel is a weakling which needs protecting? That's called putting words in people's mouths, and usually comes from not being able to argue in any nuanced or intelligent fashion.

Cohen, you are simply cutting and pasting previous postings.

Really, we deserve a bit more sophistication than that.

Amber, surely you noted my previous posting about editing that could be abused by those with less than honest intentions. I found it strange, to say the very least, that your posts also had a tendency to move about.
When it comes to Israel's security, I am more likely to accept the analysis of someone who actually served and continues to serve Israel. Certainly more than someone who cannot even bring themselves to give their own name and can make up all sorts of maysers about themselves.
But be that as it may. I have answered your questions to my satisfaction. I'm sorry that you cannot accept the responses and continue to harrangue in a very silly and repetiticious way. I see no point in wasting either of our precious time. Perhaps you would be good enough to tell us where you stand on Israel holding on to territory that will ensure that it controls a non-Jewish majority.

But Jonathan, that is a silly position, because there are lots of Israeli military heroes, and guess what? They don't all hold the same view.

And, I am not aware that Barak is advocating what you claim - an immediate Israeli withdrawal from the entire Judea and Samaria? What about Jerusalem?

And how doesw that tally with your contention that Israel must not do anything unilaterally? Time and again you ignore the fact that Israel does not have a negotiating partner - and that is the crux of the problem.

Still waiting to hear your way of dealing with the West Bank. Or are you just happy at playing the house troll?

That is how it is with these pseudo zionists Jonathan.

They want and demand the land.

It's ours ! It's ours !

God gave it to us !!!

Balfour gave it to us ( not true )

The League of Nations gave it to us ! ( not true )

But of course they don't want the people that go with it.

You are right. One State or an apartheid province.

Maybe Amber might be coaxed into telling us of other options. Or maybe he IS happy to be the house troll.

House troll? I love it. Indeed the sham is the house troll.

Jonathan,

Repeatedly labelling someone a "troll" does not hide the fact that you have not been able to reconcile the demands you place on Israel - i.e. no unilateral moves, but should withdraw from Judea and Samaria immediately, even with no negotiating partner on the Palestinian side.

Come on, deal with the issue.

Armbach, your little display says a lot more about you than about me. I do not claim any of the things you accuse me of. That is a sure sign of a losing wicket - when one is reduced to assuming what someone else thinks, rather than reading what they say.

But you raise a good point. What are the options?

the answer is - there are very few options in the current climate. When one side wants to make peace, and is prepared to make concessions for it, whilst the other side does not even recognize the other side's right to exist, then no solution is possible. It is not possible to force peace when only one side wants it.

The Palestinians have shown time and again that they have adopted a rejectionist stance. Israel withdrew from Gaza - result, more violence, not less. Israel withdrew from large sections of Judea and Samaria - result, the intifada, which murdered over 1000 Israelis.

Your answer is "more of the same", even though this policy has proven to be an abject failure.

And you are quite wrong - the League of Nations did indeed grant Jews the right to live in Judea and Samaria, and indeed anywhere in what was then Palestine (80% of which is now Jordan).

Pray what is a "pseudo Zionist" as opposed to a "Zionist"?

Now perhaps you will tell me your solution.

Amber, you aren't worth the effort of going around in circles. I wish you a good-ish life. Are they paying you well to be house troll?

no answer came the loud reply

I once heard that the city of London had house trolls but I thought they lived under bridges.

jONATHAN, A PATHETIC COP OUT.

Armbach, I gave you a detailed response. You have not given anything.

Empty words from empty people who just parrot what they are told.