|
| quote: |
Inner City Blue said this in post #5 :
I guess I wanted to ask about the protests of the settlers that don't want to leave or the ones that claim they will then just go settle in the West Bank.
I consider it kind of counter-productive. Many people point fingers at the Palestinians, at the same time the settlers to a degree exacerbate the situtation. Why settle in a place people are fighting over? I see no reason to try to extend a conflict that you can help by not settling in a region with so much bloodshed. |
Interesting point, about the Gaza settlers relocating to the West Bank. I agree it's counter-productive if the settlers are allowed to move to the West Bank.
My understanding is that the Disengagement Plan also includes a portion of the West Bank: northern Sumaria. And it includes a phased reduction in checkpoints and bases throughout the West Bank. For the time being, it does not include disbandment of any West Bank settlements. The fact is that Sharon does not have the political clout to disband anything in the West Bank right now due to Likud party politics. He had extreme trouble getting the Gaza disbandment through, and that was for only 7000 settlers. We'll have to wait for Labor to come into power there before we'll see WB disbandment on any level.
I believe the ultimate result, whether it is done by Israel unilaterally or as part of a negotiation, will be something very similar to Barak's last offer at Taba. Israel will pull out of the WB but retain about 4-5% of it just over the border where 70% of the settlements are concentrated. The remaining 30% that are further into the WB will be disbanded. Whether anyone likes this are not, it's going to be how it settles out, by hook or by crook.
- woolfe
| |
