Why Should Israel Pull Out Of The Disputed West Bank? Discuss

Because the world requires them to

But what has the world ever done for Israel or the Jewish people? Apart from attempt time and time again to annihilate us.

The Jews learnt long ago that we cannot rely on the world to safe guard our future; we can only do that ourselves.

If I was the moderator of this site I would delete your answer it is quite frankly ridiculous. The ‘because I said so’ routine will not work with Israel. Next...

Going to take on the whole world are you Robert ? I tried that once and it proved to be very painful.

Otway
What's the point of you being on this site except to post inane one liners and links signifying nothing in particular
If you want to engage ,post something of your own with some substance . Otherwise try the Bds website where you will be better received

Irrespective of what the world says, a withdrawal from the occupation is for the good of Israel.
The occupation has led to Israel controlling the lives of more non-Jews than Jews with most of the non-Jews lacking the same political and legal rights as the Jews. It is swiftly going down the road to apartheid - and that was never part of the vision of zionism's and Israel's founders. it is a betrayal of Zionism and has returned Jews to a position of being objects in history rather than subjects who determine their own fate.
The occupation has poisoned the debate within the Jewish community and between Israelis. It has already led to the death of far too many people, including some at the hands of those who violently supported holding in to the west bank. Is there anything more toxic than that?
Sure, there are legal experts who can argue that it's not an occupation and that the territories are disputed. Some very clever lawyers can argue black is White and vice versa, just look at the acquittal of OJ Simpson and others. That's what lawyers get paid to do.
But when I was in the Israeli army 30 odd years ago, we were taught that rather than being right, it's better to be clever and the clever thing to do now is relinquish the West Bank, dismantle the occupation and start developing the Negev and Galil.

But the point i am making, is that history shows, every time Israel makes a concession, they are rewarded with bombs, rockets and terrorists. How do we know that the same thing wont happen again should we pull out of the West Bank? How do we know Hamas won't take control of the area?

History shows that making unilateral moves is the wrong thing to do. The withdrawal from gaza was unilateral and was intended to put the peace process in formaldehyde, in other words kill it. The withdrawal from lebanon was unilateral too and that's why it led to what it did.
My point is that if Israel wants to continue to be Jewish and a democracy, it's going to have to end the occupation.
The occupation is against core Jewish values and it is for that reason alone that Israel needs to be clever rather than right.

Yes Millis let's surrender Judea and Samaria to make it easier for Hamas to shoot rockets at Tel Aviv Netanya and Ben Gurion Airport when they are refused further outrageous demands for additional capitulation by Israel. I am just repeating what they say themselves. Do you honestly believe that if Israel were to make peace with the Palestinians tomorrow and withdraw from Judea and Samaria there would actually be peace? I do not question your beliefs which are in all probability genuinely held but unfortunately we have no evidence or precedent to lead us, who will be on the front line, that we can hold any store by promises of peace from the Arab side who constantly incite their people to hate not just Israel but Jews.
If you do believe them then maybe you should see this:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/05/video-92-year-old-arab-fondly-r...

Louis René Beres, Front Page Mag

From the beginning, when that primal swerve toward human fragmentation in world politics first became apparent, states and empires have negotiated treaties to provide security. Strictly speaking, these formal agreements, in written form, are always fashioned and tested according to pertinent international law. Oftentimes, of course, disputes will arise whenever particular signatories should decide that continued compliance is simply no longer in their own “national interest.”

For the moment, Israel’s 1979 Peace Treaty with Egypt still remains in place. Still, any continuing regime change in Cairo could spell the “sudden death” of this agreement. The same risks apply even to the extent that the military governing council’s leaders could decide that the treaty with Israel should be terminated.

Any post-Mubarak regime that would extend some governing authority to the Muslim Brotherhood, or to its proxies, could result in a prompt Egyptian abrogation. Although any such willful cessation of treaty obligations by the Egyptian side would almost certainly be in violation of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the governing “treaty on treaties,” there is also very little that either Israel or the “international community” would be able to do in response.

For Israel, this should bring to mind the particular dangers of Palestinian statehood. In June 2009, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu first officially agreed to the creation of a Palestinian state. But, with an apparent nod to prudence, he conditioned this acceptance upon Palestinian “demilitarization.” More precisely, said the Prime Minister: “In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel.”

This agreement seemingly represented a “smart” concession, but only if there can ever be any reasonable expectations of corollary Palestinian compliance. In fact, such expectations are entirely implausible. This is the case not only because all treaties and treaty-like agreements can be broken, but because, in this specific case, any post-independence Palestinian insistence upon militarization would likely be lawful.Neither Hamas nor Fatah, now bonded together in a new unity pact, would ever negotiate for anything less than full sovereignty.

International lawyers seeking to discover any “Palestine-friendly” sources of legal confirmation could conveniently cherry-pick pertinent provisions of the 1934 Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, the treaty on statehood, sometimes called the Montevideo Convention. They could apply the very same strategy of selection to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

International law is not a suicide pact. Israel has a “peremptory” right to remain “alive.” It was proper for Mr. Netanyahu to have previously opposed a Palestinian state in any form. After all, both Fatah and Hamas still see all of Israel as part of “Palestine.”

International law need not expect Palestinian compliance with any pre-state agreements concerning armed force. This is true even if these agreements were to include certain explicit U.S. security guarantees to Israel. Also, because authentic treaties can be binding only upon states, a non-treaty agreement between the Palestinians and Israel could quickly prove to be of little or no real authority, or effectiveness. This is to say nothing of the byzantine connections between Fatah, Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

"Advis3r", beyond entertainment and a view on what the suicidal Israeli ultra-nationalists think (especially its supporters who live abroad), I can't be bothered with nonsensical self-serving blog sites, especially if they are named partly after a notoriously anti-Semitic tract.
It's quite obvious you are an anti-Zionist who has no concern for the Jewish and democratic nature of Israel.

Well, I agree that any peace Israel makes cannot be made by unilateral surrender of any land.

We need to keep one thing in mind. The 3 Middle East nation leaders that made peace with Israel were not democratically elected. Turkey had a military run government. In Egypt it was Mubarek, in Jordan it was King Hussein. Turkey is less chummy as a result of a democratically elected government. While we need to let the dust settle from the so called "Arab Spring", the outcome doesn't look favorable.

Should the mood radically change in Israel's favor (highly unlikely), any peace could only be through face to face negotiations without any preconditions or regional conferences.

Obviously you consider elder of ziyon which is named after someone actually called Eldar Ziyoni (the irony obviously escapes you)is nonsensical and self serving apparently you are in a minority since it is one of the most quoted pro-Israel blogs on the web whereas besides the people who come to this site I doubt if anyone has heard of you or in fact cares two hoots what you have to say.
You yourself, as opposed to me, for example do not live in Israel, as such whilst I have no problem with you telling us what you think forgive me for believing that you are completely naive if you think that Israel withdrawing from Judea and Samaria will bring peace to the Middle East. In this I am being pragmatic and you are being idealistic because there is absolutely no evidence to support what you say. We have concluded peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan and yet the citizens of both those countries do not accept that peace and are even now calling for it to be abrogated which in all probability it will be if as expected the Muslim Brotherhood are successful in the Egyptian elections. That will put added pressure on King Abdullah to do likewise if only to preserve his kingdom. The pre-requisite for peace is unconditional Arab acceptance of a Jewish state in the Middle East whose borders fall within the area allocated under the Palestine Mandate everything else is detail. Unfortunately, as things stand that will just not happen unless Israel agrees to conditions including the so-called right of return which guarantees its demise.

BTW Millis you should look at the video of the 92 year old women telling how she wants to massacre Jews as her father did in Hebron in 1929. Or maybe you want to bury your head in the sand.

You claim to live in Israel, "Advis3r". I don't necessarily believe that claim.
There is no need for "unconditional Arab acceptance of a Jewish state in the Middle East", since Israel, as a UN member, is already accepted as the state of the Jewish people.
Also, no one, least of all Israelis, would dare define what constitutes a "Jewish state", lest it opens up a box which makes Pandora's seem like a Fortnum and Mason's picnic hamper.
You be a little touchy about Elder of Zion, the oftquoted by other self-obesessed bloggers bogsite. I wonder why.