Greasings and Salivations, Robert! :-) I agree with all of the complaints you make. It is abuse of eminent domain (although perhaps not as bad as you make it out to be, see what I have to say below), ethnic cleansing, restrictions of freedom of movement, etc.
However, there is a good reason for doing it (and I'm not interested in all the stupid "touchy-feely" stuff like "it'll show the Palestinians we're 'serious' about peace, or whatever). The reason is that it will (at least in Gaza, and probably also in the West Bank) shorten Israel's lines of defense. Now that the Gaza settlements are gone, Israel's border with Gaza is basically those two straight lines. Before, Israel also had to defend a bunch of little "islands" in Gaza as well as the corridors to get to them. As long as there were settlers there, Israel had a moral obligation to defend them. Now they are gone and the rather large force of soldiers that had been busy defending them can go to work on other stuff. In terms of eminent domain, I think that the case could be made that this is a proper eminent domain "condemnation" of property. If someone is living in a riverbed (there's an area near Everett where this is the case), and periodically, the government has to send in rescue crews and spend a lot of money in other ways to protect that person, then an eminent domain condemnation of that property is quite appropriate. Of course, my made-up example would be much weaker than the case Israel has against the settlers since one of the functions of the government is to protect its people. Another function is to engage in foreign policy on behalf of the larger community. So even if the settlers were to say that they no longer needed or wanted government protection, some their likely actions (like, killing Palestinians in self-defense) would amount to foreign policy actions. The other thing I think a lot of people are missing is that the whole world has watched (and even applauded) the ethnic cleansing of Jews. When (notice, not "if") the attacks from Gaza get to be too frequent and destructive, how will "the world" be able to retain its consistency by objecting to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians? Of course, moral consistency won't stop the objections, but they will have lost some of their force. (I know, I know. That blood-thirsty "Savage." But there it is.) The last thing is that one of the purposes of the settlements (as early-warning posts) is obsolete. If anything Israel is ahead of the US in UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicls) technology. So the main thing will be to keep the high ground gained in the West Bank to deny line-of-sight observation of Israeli streets and countryside. I suspect that you'll find something like that to be the case with the remaining settlements which will be on the Israel side of "the wall", which WILL be finished. I realize that I could be wrong in my assessment, but I suspect that the Palestinians will discover that Israel now has a bigger hammer over their heads and they have a smaller one in their hands. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. Robert Goodman wrote: > With all the discussion of eminent domain abuse, I'm surprised there > hasn't > been more re Gaza. The USA is paying the compensation, and people are > being displaced entirely on the basis of their being Jewish. Only Jews > are > being required to leave, the only criterion for their being removed is > their Jewishness, and Israel is going to prohibit Jews from moving in in > the foreseeable future. The bizarre thing is that this is not being done > by a Nazi town proud to announce its being Jew-free, but by Israel, and > paid for by the USA. And nobody has explained how Gaza's becoming Jew- > free > is supposed to improve anything. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
