Israel to Build New West Bank Settlement

[subsuelo]

... the Israeli government has announced another new West Bank settlement expansion that will violate the US-backed road map. Israel says it will establish a new settlement to replace a settlers’ outpost it hadn’t approved. Up to 1,400 housing units will be built under the plan. Last month, the Israeli group Peace Now reported settlement expansion increased nearly 60 percent in 2008.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/4/headlines#9">Democracy Now! - read more

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. In direct violation to how many UN Security Council resolutions? n/t

[ixion]

2. so... if Mexico started builing in Texas or California, do you think we'd mind?

I mean, this very close to what is going on. Is there any wonder that there's a problem?

[rateyes]

3. Surprise, fucking, surprise...

we should cut off all aid to Israel. Now.

[bunnies]

4. Yep. Time to cut 'em off completely.

This is a big "fuck you" to the world from Israel. Time somebody said it back.

[Jefferson23]

5. Israeli government showing their true intent for peace, which is that they

don't want peace. They just take what they do want and say FUCK YOU.

[subsuelo]

8. As always, it's all about stealing the land from the indigenous population

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Actions speak louder than words, don't they.

[subsuelo]

7. It's so stupid.

'Leadership' on both sides are pretty stupid people, but this takes the cake IMO. Gee let's pour gasoline on the fire!

Obviously - obviously - the goal is not putting out the fire, is it.

No, Israel's goal has nothing to do with putting out the fire. In fact, as demonstrated time and time again, the real goal is to steal Palestinian land. Israel is quite content with a raging conflict, as long as more and more land is stolen from the natives.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

11. Apparently, low-level resistance is an acceptable trade-off to maintain the status quo.

[Idealism]

9. When will people realize that the Israel is the biggest barrier to peace?

Implicit backing of illegal settlements that violate international law? Check

About to elect a right wing Neo-conservative warmonger that has stated in the past his disdain for the Oslo Accords and that "9/11 was good for Israel?" Check

Imprisons the indigenous population on baseless accusations or for protesting against the IDF's crimes? Check

[oberliner]

15. Netanyahu never stated that "9/11 was good for Israel"

Here is what he allegedly said, according to Ha'aretz:

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html

Nowhere does he actually say that "9/11 was good for Israel" although Ha'aretz did choose that headline for their article about his comments and it has since been widely disseminated as such.

In any case, I'm not sure why that statement would indicate that Israel is a barrier to peace. It was a stupid comment but I don't know that it indicates anything other than Netanyahu's tactlessness.

[Idealism]

17. That is the least disgusting segment of my post

Implicit backing of illegal settlements that violate international law? Check


Imprisons the indigenous population on baseless accusations or for protesting against the IDF's crimes? Check

These are but two of the examples of oppression, I can find you dozens more.

[oberliner]

20. I certainly share your desire to see an end to the settlements

Hopefully, we can move towards a two-state solution that is acceptable both to Israelis and Palestinians.

[Idealism]

21. Agreed

I don't know "acceptable to both" will be possible, given the likely make up of Israel's government as of the next elections. The Likud charter explicitly denounces the idea of a two-state solution. Mitchell needs another miracle, here's to hoping for one more! :toast:

[oberliner]

31. Likud is not in power

Let's hope it stays that way!

[Idealism]

32. Cheers to that!

[LeftishBrit]

42. Indeed, let's hope it stays that way!

People like Netanyahu are definitely part of the problem, not part of the solution!

[LeftishBrit]

43. I agree, and hope the Likud doesn' t get in.

'Mitchell needs another miracle, here's to hoping for one more!'

Agreed. But as he did contribute to a miracle here, let's hope! After all, at one time Paisley seemed at least as extremist as Netanyahu; and Sinn Fein not a much nicer organization than Hamas.

[Chulanowa]

29. Perhaps you'd like to stop calling them "settlements"?

A settlement is when people move into legal or truly property. People settled Iceland. People settled Choctaw land (it was bought, though the circumstances were fishy)

These are not settlements.

They're not squatters, either. Squatters move into abandoned property unlawfully.

These are land seizures and colonization attempts, Oberliner. If you're going to call them "settlements" you might as well go full Norman Rockwell and call them "homesteads."

These colonies are illegal under the UN charter, are a violation of the UN resolution 242, and are, under article 49 of the Geneva Conventions, are a war crime.

So then. Let's call them what they are. Criminal enclaves. Aggressive colonies. Theives' dens.

I'll tell you now, the Palestinians are being a lot more restrained about this than the Muskogean people were!

[oberliner]

33. Perhaps you'd like to notify the UN, Jimmy Carter, and Desmond Tutu

All very critical of their continued existence, but all referring to them as settlements.

[Chulanowa]

35. It's the war on language, basically

These people call them "settlements" because if you said "Israeli colonies" people would just stare blankly. It's much like how the Contras became "freedom fighters" and "our boys," remember?

Carter has a habit of using these sort of word-softening techniques. He was on the right track with his "apartheid" comments, but his train was late - By the time he'd said anything, it'd slipped past "apartheid"...

[Shaktimaan]

28. Because many people don't think they are.

Implicit backing of illegal settlements that violate international law? Check

The settlements may be unethical, they may be one of the major barriers to a peace agreement, but they aren't illegal. At the very least, the current existence of settlements and the expansion of existing ones is certainly not illegal. Their status is covered in treaties between the Palestinians and Israelis... for the time being their existence is legitimate.

Imprisons the indigenous population on baseless accusations or for protesting against the IDF's crimes? Check

I don't know what you're referring to here. Protesting is fine. Attacking soldiers isn't.
What kind of "baseless accusations" are you talking about?

Regardless, I don't think any of these things have made Israel the largest barrier to peace. Both sides are responsible. No one's actions though, IMO, have been more consistently opposed to a permanent peace settlement than Hamas'. Israel, for all its mistakes, has actually taken positive actions and made concessions to the Palestinians for peace. Hamas has done nothing but obstruct any kind of opportunity for peace that's presented itself. And it is exactly those actions which has led the Israeli public to all but abandon the peace process for now and put their faith in a right-winger like Bibi. Most Israelis supported the land-for-peace concept. But only as long as it actually works. No one is willing to trade land for violence. Hamas' actions have undermined the very foundation of the peace process.

[Idealism]

34. I think you are narrowing you focus to Hamas here

They have only been in power for 2 years. Why had peace not developed under the appeasement Fatah government? They even had Western-backing, and even they couldn't get a fair deal from the Israeli's. Hamas gets the fingers pointed at them for the past two years, and rightfully so- I believe they share in the blame, but what about before that? Israel has gone against their word at Oslo, continued expanding the settlements and stealing more land, and has tried to even squelch journalists from reporting the truth about these colonies.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=israeli+settlement&itemNo=1045655
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/2009130101043786259.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060043.html

And yes, the settlements are illegal under international law, and each year the U.N. votes on a resolution condemning their illegality, but to no avail. Israel knows they are illegal and they turn their heads. Israel has even enacted several laws over the years to internally legalize dispossessing land from the Palestinians. You are aware of this, right? The Jewish National Fund Act (that was submitted by an ultra-Nationalist MK) being the most recent racist legislation to come out of the Knesset. This law made Jewish National Fund land available for people of Jewish descent only, obviously a highly discriminatory law. The majority of the land under the control of the Fund (13% of the land in Israel) was transferred to it by state and was originally in the ownership of Arab refugees or "displaced persons." Here is a copy of the bill translated into English.


http://adalah.org/features/land/kkl-law-jul07-en.pdf

Just two quotes to highlight here:

"Despite whatever is stated in any law, leasing of Jewish National Fund’s lands for the purpose of the settlement of Jews on these lands will not be seen as improper discrimination.”

“For the purpose of every law, the association documents of the Jewish National Fund will be interpreted according to the judgment of the Jewish National Fund’s founders and from a nationalist-Zionist standpoint”.

[Shaktimaan]

74. I am narrowing the focus to Hamas, and I'll tell you why...

it isn't that I'm disregarding the impact that Israel's actions, particularly settlement building have had. Even taking them into account I really believe that it has been Hamas' actions over the past 15 years or so that have been most poisonous to the peace process.

They have only been in power for 2 years. Why had peace not developed under the appeasement Fatah government?

Lots of reasons, including settlement expansion, the failure of Camp David 2000 and subsequent intifada, and even Baruch Goldstein. Fundamentally I think what happened was a collapse of the tentative trust that the two sides placed in each other with the signing of the Oslo Accords. While all of these things contributed significantly to this collapse I think it was Hamas that played the largest role. At the time of the initial signing of Oslo the atmosphere in Israel was one of tentative hope. For the first time the government was enacting policy that the Peacenik left has been endorsing for years. The belief was that if Israel gave the Palestinians enough freedom to begin governing themselves, buttressed their economy so they'd have hope for the future, froze settlement expansion (even temporarily) and created a timeline for resolving the remaining, stickier obstacles to a permanent peace treaty, that they would seize the opportunity and a two state solution would be both possible and desirable for both sides.

The reaction from Hamas was total rejection. Rejection of not only the terms or the details but of the entire concept of a permanent peace with Israel. They used the increased freedom that Israel allowed them under Oslo to ramp up terrorism to an unprecedented degree. To be fair, Arafat did not have any good options available, but his decision to do very little to reign in terrorism meant to Israelis that he was either unwilling or unable to meet his responsibilities. From their perspective the two might as well have been the same thing. Any peace plan has both carrots and sticks, the process was bound to fail if Palestine only offered sticks in return for Israeli carrots. Hamas was ensuring that Israel only got sticks.

It was the insecurity that Oslo brought to Israel that ushered in Likud's victory and the subsequent uber-expansion of settlements, which had a predictable reaction from Palestinians. Had Israel's initial concessions and goodwill during Oslo been met with a huge decrease in terror, (which is the only real carrot that Israel was after), the Israeli reaction would almost certainly been completely different. (Bear in mind, I'm obviously grossly oversimplifying the situation here to make a point.)

This same scenario repeated itself in a slightly different form with the evacuation of Gaza. Again Israel offered the Palestinians an opportunity. They left greenhouses behind, which had given the settlers a decent economy and the Palestinians had shown that they could refrain from firing rockets (there had been none for months), so everyone had reason to feel optimistic about the situation. In addition to Gaza, Sharon had also torn down two WB settlements and the assumption was that more were to go if the Gaza pullout proved beneficial to Israel. Unfortunately, Hamas, IJ, etc., immediately used the Gaza pullout as an opportunity to advance rocket attacks on Israel. For months Israel did not really respond at all, not wanting to inflame the situation, hoping that the spike was temporary. Several months later Hamas won the election and the feeling amongst the Israeli left was one of utter defeat. Not only did their entire strategy fail but even the underlying concept of land-for-peace, that had previously brought such a stable peace with Egypt, seemed questionable. (Not only was it failing in the OPT, Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 was bringing similarly dismal results.)

Every prediction of the hard right had proven to be correct. The left wing peace movement in Israel became disillusioned and pretty much disintegrated. And it was this movement that had formed the engine of the peace process within Israel. Hamas did more to destroy the belief within Israel that peace was even possible at this point than any other single group. Which was their goal, of course... to kill any real chance of peace before it got off the ground, which looked like a real possibility back in the early 90's. (Which is why they reacted sooo violently to Oslo's signing.)

The peace process is just that... a process. If every tentative step forward by Israel ends up being used to Hamas' advantage and their detriment then it removes any real incentive for Israel. Of course it has to work both ways. Any Palestinian progress has to be met with carrots for them as well. However so far the Palestinians haven't made any progress at all. Not with Israel nor within their own government. Now Fatah sucks to begin with, so they began with two strikes against them. But Hamas' electoral win brought them to the brink of civil war. If the Palestinians only had a competent, honest and strong government committed to peaceful co-existence with Israel then I truly believe that we would see much greater motivation from within Israel to both curb the settlements and meet the Palestinians halfway regarding negotiations. I could be wrong of course, but that's what I honestly believe. (Mostly because it has been Israel's pattern thus far.) And until Palestine is able to unify itself towards a common goal, Israel won't consider it in any way beyond how to best use their resources and best protect itself from its population. Israel isn't Palestine's friend. It is only interested in Palestine's success so much as it also benefits Israel. Hamas has convinced Israel that Palestine brings more potential risks than benefits.

Israel has gone against their word at Oslo

Ah, but they didn't. Israel fulfilled its responsibilities under Oslo. When Hamas began increasing terrorism settlement expansion was actually frozen. Up until that point everything Israel had done was beneficial to the Palestinians. And don't knock the Israeli contributions to Oslo, they were significant. (In fact, they still are.) Now, can you name any tangible benefits that Oslo brought to Israel?

And yes, the settlements are illegal under international law, and each year the U.N. votes on a resolution condemning their illegality

Well, UN resolutions aren't exactly the most meaningful arbiters of legal issues. At any rate, I disagree with you here. I think that some settlements are clearly illegal while some are not. But this post is already too long so I'll hit that another time and explain my reasoning.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. The settlements are illegal, not merely unethical...

The existance of the settlements is not legal and international law is not created by the Israelis or Palestinians. I know you've read this information before and I'd be interested in knowing why it's almost like you've chosen to ignore the information that's been posted for you in the past on the Geneva Conventions and international law that states that the settlements are illegal. If it's a case of forgetting, that's fine, but if you've chosen to ignore it because the facts don't suit you then I consider that to be rather disingenous of you...

on edit: Dear Shakti, my presense at DU is sporadic at best right now, and because I want to ensure this time that you retain and remember why Israeli settlements in teh West Bank are illegal under international law, I'll return after the weekend when the temperature here has dropped to bearable levels and being inside an unairconditioned house doesn't feel like sticking yr head in a furnace. I shall be in a happier, cooler mood and also have more patience to go through this again...

Until then, stay cool!

[Shaktimaan]

79. I am not being disingenuous...

I am disagreeing.

Look V, I know the arguments in favor of and against the assertion that all settlements are illegal. The fact of the matter is that there is not any court with any jurisdiction to rule on the matter which has actually taken the issue to task. So any arguments either of us make are ultimately just academic. I realize that you believe this is an ironclad case without leeway for debate, but considering the amount that the issue is, in fact, debated, I would respectfully disagree. There are enough well-respected legal minds on either side of the argument to convince me that the actual, objective answer is ambiguous at best.

Bear in mind I'm not arguing that each and every settlement in the OPT is legal. My understanding is that some are certainly illegal on several different grounds. However, IMO not all of them are. So if you really feel like going over this again then I'm more than willing. I don't actually remember if we ever did get around to finishing the discussion.

So let's do it like this... I'll name a specific settlement and you can demonstrate what international laws it is violating. Sound good? Or would you rather make a more general argument?

[Violet_Crumble]

81. You most definately are...

When you've already had it explained to you before why the settlements are illegal under international law, and return to repeat the same 'disagreement' as though yr not even aware of the facts, that's either one-eyed partisan blindness or being disingenous. The fact of the matter is the settlements have been repeatedly deemed to be illegal under international law, and it's not a matter of you deciding that you don't think those legal decisions have got any jurisdiction or not. They exist and there's no ambiguity about them. As for picking and choosing individual settlements and deciding some are legal and some aren't - all of them are illegal under international law and there are no exceptions....

[azurnoir]

10. Didn't israel agree not to do this at Annapolis?

right before they got another large sum from our government?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. What the gov't agrees to verbally and publicly, and what happens on the ground

are sometimes very different.

In this conflict, it's the public pronouncements, charters, pledges that count.

[azurnoir]

13. It seems like in this

the "moderates" are the ones who say one thing and do another and the "extremists" are the ones who say exactly what they are going to do.

[delad]

14. how true n/t

[oberliner]

16. When has Likud ever done what they said they would do?

They are the king of the backtrackers!

[IndianaGreen]

23. Israel is as credible as Baghdad Bob

and Bob was witty.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. I guess a one state solution is truly what they want.

I hope that it goes relatively smoothly when it happens. :shrug:

[subsuelo]

19. cleansed of the native Palestinians, of course

[IndianaGreen]

22. The 2-state solution has been the excuse for endless appropriation of Palestinian lands

followed by settlement construction. The hell with the 2-state solution and all the bullshit we have been fed for the last 41 years!

[delad]

24. absolutely

it's funny how zionists always carry on about how a one state solution is really the death of Israel, but at the same time we can all see that a two state solution is just an excuse for Israel to bring about the gradual expulsion or starvation or death of the majority of palestinians

[Shaktimaan]

26. Give me a break.

the gradual expulsion or starvation or death of the majority of palestinians

Well, seeing as how many Palestinians have been starved, expelled or killed so far I'd say that Israel's grand plan is failing pretty badly. When do you think that the tiny fraction of a percent of Palestinians that the above applies to will become a majority?

I mean, the Palestinian population is growing pretty quickly... Israel isn't "gradually" getting rid of them. "Gradual" implies that something is occurring, slowly, over time, but not SO slowly that its opposite is happening.

[Idealism]

27. The West Bank may have a 5.1% population growth rate

but Gaza sure as hell doesn't, and this is where the collective punishment is literally starving people that the poster you are replying to is referring to (I assume). Of the 53% of Gazans who are 16-and-under, 70% of them are malnourished. Malnourishment makes it extremely difficult for females to ovulate, which means less births.

[Shaktimaan]

75. I don't understand...

are you suggesting that Israel is purposefully keeping Gazans malnourished so that 14 and 15 year old Palestinian girls will ovulate less often and thus give birth to fewer children? (Are there usually very many 15 year old Gazan girls giving birth?) Because that is not only quite an accusation to make without proof, it would also be quite a wacky plan for any government to attempt at all.

The poster said quite clearly that Israel is trying to expel, starve and kill most of the Palestinians. I assume he thinks that the plan is to get rid of them so that Israel can take all of the land. Since Israel left Gaza a few years ago and is not likely to return, it would seem that there wouldn't be much of a point to enact a policy like this in Gaza anyway. If this plan were a real policy of Israel's, wouldn't they be targeting the West Bank Palestinians instead?

Look, dude said that Israeli support of the two state solution is actually just a cover for a government conspiracy to starve, kill or expel the majority of Palestinians. Are you sure that this is a statement you actually want to defend?

He believes this, despite the fact that since 1967, not one Palestinian has been starved to death, very few have been killed (compared to any similar conflict anywhere), and it's likely that more have been offered Israeli citizenship than have actually been expelled. (who's expelled? expelled to where?)

Gaza sure as hell doesn't, and this is where the collective punishment is literally starving people

No, no, no. No one is starving in Gaza. Really. If people were really, literally starving in Gaza then we would have seen a picture of it. Also, this is obnoxious of me to bring up, but in light of the "starving" accusation I feel it's appropriate. There is a zoo in Gaza. With large cats and other big carnivores. People who are literally starving do not keep zoos, especially ones with animals that eat hundreds of pounds of meat a week. There is a big difference between malnourished and starving. No one in Gaza is starving. Literally, anyway. People there may be figuratively starving, but I don't really know.

[delad]

36. of course israel is getting rid of them

look at the palestinian population centres in the West Bank and compare them to 20 years ago. Israel is encroaching upon palestinian land and stealing it from under their noses or just barring palestinians from living in certain areas or refusing building permits and demolishing homes or building walls through their lands. Does it matter that the population is increasing if the land they are permitted to reside on is being gradually reduced through theft?

[Shaktimaan]

76. You do realize that there is a big difference...

between your initial accusation and the one you just voiced, right?

At first you said that Israel was using the 2 state solution as an excuse to bring about the expulsion, starvation or death of the majority of Palestinians.
Now you are saying that Israel is encroaching on their land by refusing Palestinians building permits, demolishing homes or building walls.

Does it matter that the population is increasing if the land they are permitted to reside on is being gradually reduced through theft?

Does it matter? Matter how? I don't know. All I was pointing out was the absurdity of your initial statement. Charges of ethnic cleansing and genocide devolved into "refusing Palestinians building permits" pretty quickly there.

[delad]

39. I'll do you one better

i'll give you a kit-kat

[Shaktimaan]

25. 41 years?

The two state solution is only around 15 years old, unless you count all of the time people were proposing it before it had any kind of official commitment from either side.

Neither side has, thus far, made the kind of political sacrifices that the two state solution requires to be successful.

[Chulanowa]

30. You must have missed the 90's

Arafat bent over backwards until his keffiyeh was riding up his asscrack to meet the demands of the Oslo Accords.

"Increase your security! Reduce your police!"
"We'll talk about Jerusalem after you use Palestinian money to build a new road that makes it so Palestinians won't have to go through there anyway!"
"You need to control your people! Nevermind ours opening fire and chucking stones at you, quell the protests!"

Arafat pretty much cut his own throat to try to meet the Israeli and American demands, all on the futile hope of getting back 64% of the 22% of Palestine that the Israelis were willing to negotiate about, and maybe get a sniff from East Jerusalem's sewers while he was at it.

The Palestinians have nothing left to sacrifice. The ball is in Israel's court. The ball has been in Israel's court since 1948. They just don't want to play.

And for the record, the two-state solution has been the one on the books since 1947. The only time it was unofficial was when the Brits were trying to figure out how to keep the promise they made to the Jews in 1916 while also keeping hte promise they made to the Arabs in 1916...

[henank]

37. This is delusional

Arafat bent over backwards until his keffiyeh was riding up his asscrack to meet the demands of the Oslo Accords.
You must be joking! Did you forget the 2nd Intifada

"You need to control your people! Nevermind ours opening fire and chucking stones at you, quell the protests!"
Protests? Is that what you call the hundreds and thousands of suicide bombings and shootings from 2000 to about 2005 with over a thousand Israeli civilians killed?!

The Palestinians have nothing left to sacrifice. The ball is in Israel's court. The ball has been in Israel's court since 1948. They just don't want to play.
NOW we get to it. Israel has to answer since 1948! In your opinion it is the very existence of Israel that is the problem here. Gotcha. Glad your true colours have come out at last.

And for the record, the two-state solution has been the one on the books since 1947.
Correct. And the Arabs rejected UN resolution 181. THERE is your root cause of Arab misery ever since.

[Chulanowa]

40. Everything that doesn't pat Israel on hte back is "delusional" of course.

You must be joking! Did you forget the 2nd Intifada

I sure do! You do remember that the roots of the Intifada was a combination of Israel's complete unwillingness to follow Oslo, and Palestinian's dissatisfaction with Arafat? It's what's called a "popular uprising," Henank. Arafat had no control over the Second Intifada. He eventually decided to coast along with it, since the other option was, very likely, having his head turned inside out by Hamas, Fatah, or Islamic Jihad. Prior to doing so, he had well over a hundred men from those groups tried and executed, to Israel's approval.

Protests? Is that what you call the hundreds and thousands of suicide bombings and shootings from 2000 to about 2005 with over a thousand Israeli civilians killed?!

No, it's what I call protests. You know, those things where people walk the streets with banners and slogans and such? Yeah, Israeli forces opened fire on those folks. Funny how those plastic-coated steel bullets are still pretty good at killing people, huh?

Over a thousand Israelis killed? While I don't dispute your numbers, I do wonder where your concern was for the 1,300 Gazans killed in a few weeks. There wasn't any from you, was there Henank? Why not?

NOW we get to it. Israel has to answer since 1948! In your opinion it is the very existence of Israel that is the problem here. Gotcha. Glad your true colours have come out at last.

Not the existence of Israel, no. Wipe your chin.

Since 1948, Israel has been the party with all the power in this mess, Hanank. Israel is the party with the military. Israel is the party with international clout. Israel is the party with ally nations. Israel is the party with a stable government. Israel is the party that is permitted to stockpile weapons. Israel is the party with an economy. Israel is even the party that has all the water rights. Israel is also the party that is doing all the occupying.

Israel's got a whole lot of power, doesn't it? And yet, it is the Palestinians who are expected to give, and give, and give. The Palestinians must concede this. The Palestinians must surrender that. The Palestinians must make sacrifices here, and here, and here. What is Israel giving? What is Israel conceding? What is Israel surrendering? What is Israel sacrificing?

Nothing. NOTHING.

Israel is the party with all the power. Thus, the ball is in their court. Israel is the only party involved that can actually do something to make any sort of peace. The US can't force Israel to do anything when it comes down to it, because that would just result in a worse situation. The other Arab nations can hem and haw, but they're not going to try anything after two asskickings. And the Palestinians... What the hell can the Palestinians do, really?

No, sorry. if Israel wants to be the only player at the table, then it has to be the one doing all the work. Thus like I said. The ball is in Israel's court.

Correct. And the Arabs rejected UN resolution 181. THERE is your root cause of Arab misery ever since.

Correct? You just said that it was a new idea from 15 years ago! :rofl:

However, the Palestinians didn't reject it. Because they had no say in the matter - and I'm talking about both Arabs and Jews here. Paraguay gets a vote on 181, the Palestinian folks don't. Kind of messed up, huh?

Now I could argue that the Arabs were right to vote against it - the Palestinian Arabs were set to get completely fucked by 181. Something about giving Israel total control of all the sources of fresh water in the region, the vast majority of productive land, and the (At the time) supposedly oil-rich Negev, together with all the ports and infrastructure... While the Arabs get herded to a gravel pit in Gaza and lots of salty rocks in the Eastern portion of the territory.

I could argue that... Well, I guess I just did. But you're right, the Arabs rejected UN resolution 181. So did the Cubans, the Indians, the Turks, the Greeks, and originally, the Haitians and Filipinos (they changed their votes, not that it mattered, the votes of the US and USSR were the only ones that counted).

Of course, Israel ALSO rejected 181. Look at the map of Israel according to resolution 181. Then look at a map of Israel in 1966. Then look at a map from 1968. Look at a map from yesterday. If Israel truly accepted resolution 181, it would have pulled back to the 1948 borders after the Israeli-Arab war ended. It didn't. In fact it colonized. If Israel were dedicated to resolution 181, it would have stepped back from the land it took in 1967. It didn't; instead it colonized. And it continues to colonize, on land that Israel doesn't even try to pretend belongs to it.

The Arabs who had a vote rejected resolution 181. Israel discarded it shortly after. Curiously it's the Palestinians who got royally fucked by both parties, even though they had no say in the matter! So I wonder. Does Syria's rejection of that UN resolution justify all the resolutions Israel has ignored since? Do Hamas' war crimes justify Israel's war crimes?

Is this little strip of land really the one place on earth where two wrongs actually do make a right?

Again it comes back to who holds the power. Should the people of Gaza and the West Bank be punished for the bullheadedness of 1948 Iraq? Israel apparently thinks so. YOU clearly do, since that's your argument here. There's no logic or moral strength to your position, but I suppose some people must simply bat for the winning team no matter what.

[henank]

44. Your comment is so

confused, incorrect and garbled, I hardly know where to begin.

Arafat had no control over the Second Intifada. He eventually decided to coast along with it, since the other option was, very likely, having his head turned inside out by Hamas,
Load of nonsense. The intifada was his idea from the beginning, and Hamas was a negligible force at the time.

No, it's what I call protests. You know, those things where people walk the streets with banners and slogans and such?
More rubbish. Those "protests" were violent riots with stone-throwing and physical assaults.

While I don't dispute your numbers, I do wonder where your concern was for the 1,300 Gazans killed in a few weeks.
You know nothing about me and what I feel about the Gazans killed. We were not discussing Gaza. We were discussing the events of the 2000 intifada.

Since 1948, Israel has been the party with all the power in this mess,
This is so funny I've been hard put to stop ROFLing all over the place. In 1948 Israel had barely 600,000 inhabitants. There was no state of Palestine. Palestine was Israel. The newborn Israel was surrounded by and attacked by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. Their populations together number in the several hundred million.

Israel is the party with the military. Israel is the party with international clout. Israel is the party with ally nations. Israel is the party with a stable government. Israel is the party that is permitted to stockpile weapons. Israel is the party with an economy.
You're darn right! Because the Israelis put that famous Jewish brain to work and built up a vigourous and thriving society. If the Palestinian Arabs had tried even half as much, they too would have a thriving society instead of their miserable existence in refugee camps because none of their beloved brothers would deign to have them. If their Arab brothers had donated to the Palestinians a fraction from their enormous oil-wealth of what the Jews gave to their brothers in Israel, their economy too would be vigorous today instead of a basket case dependenet on international aid.

Correct. And the Arabs rejected UN resolution 181. THERE is your root cause of Arab misery ever since.
Correct? You just said that it was a new idea from 15 years ago! (about resolution 181)
Excuse me??? Where did I say that? I told you, you're delusional. Better get back on those meds stat.

However, the Palestinians didn't reject it. Because they had no say in the matter - and I'm talking about both Arabs and Jews here. Paraguay gets a vote on 181, the Palestinian folks don't. Kind of messed up, huh?
You're talking bs again. There was a vote in the UN (or was it still the League of Nations?). Everyone had a vote except for Israel because Israel didn't exist at the time. Messed up? You bet! It still passed though, and the Arabs still rejected it. You can't change history.

UN resolution 181

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. Switching their votes from November 25 to November 29 to provide the two-thirds majority were Liberia, the Philippines, and Haiti. All heavily dependent on the United States, they had been lobbied to change their votes.<67>

The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal from the Mandate Territory of Palestine. Both the United States and Soviet Union supported the resolution.

In favour
Switched to in favour
Abstained
Against
Absent

The 30 countries (53%) that voted in favour of the partition were: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukrainian SSR, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The 3 countries (5%) that were previously not in favor but voted in favor to the resolution due to United States pressure were: Haiti, Liberia, Philippines.

The 13 countries (23%) that voted against resolution were: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

The 10 countries (17%) that abstained were: Argentina, Chile, Republic of China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. One state (2%) was absent: Thailand.

[Chulanowa]

48. And your rebuttals have no fact to them.

Load of nonsense. The intifada was his idea from the beginning, and Hamas was a negligible force at the time.

No, I'm afraid the second intifada was in fact no single person's idea. As I said, it's called a "popular uprising". It eventually came under the unofficial leadership of Islamic Jihad and Hamas. The PLO and Fatah piddled around then finally jumped on hte bandwagon some time later. I would say I find it hard to imagine Arafat was behind it all, given his increasing senility, his utter silence about the whole ordeal (seriously, Arafat, being silent? It was a first!) and all the agrafitti calling for his death...

More rubbish. Those "protests" were violent riots with stone-throwing and physical assaults.

Yeah, people tend to get violent when you shoot at them, don't they? Of course, the Palestinian Arabs weren't the only ones to get all violent and rock-throwy. Jews in Nazareth and Tel Aviv had their own stone-chucking riots and violence targeting Arabs and Arab businesses.

You know nothing about me and what I feel about the Gazans killed. We were not discussing Gaza. We were discussing the events of the 2000 intifada.

You are, or at least you're making a pitiful attempt at it, sourcing propaganda for your claims and justifications. Myself, I'm discussing the whole shebang, Hanank. And I'm afraid I certainly do know what you feel about dead Gazans. Glee. After all, you're here justifying and excusing everything else Israel has done, blaming the victim left and right, I don't really need you to tell me what you feel, in order to see it.

You're darn right! Because the Israelis put that famous Jewish brain to work and built up a vigourous and thriving society.

Of course, unfettered and eternal US and Western funding and support has nothing to do with this?

I know I'm right. Thus, Israel can't act as though it is the aggrieved party. It's absurd. You can't have all the guns, all the land, all the money, and all the allies, then claim that you're the one being abused by the people you are occupying and bombing. It's absurd. It's like China claiming to be the aggrieved party when Tibetans protest, or Turkey's claims that the Armenians are being mean and cruel when they speak of the genocide Turkey waged against them.

If Israel wants peace as badly as it claims, then it is really the only one who can do the lifting for peace. That's the position it's put itself in. if Israel doesn't want peace - and this latest flurry of colonization tells me they don't - then they can't expect the Palestinians to stop fighting with every means at their disposal.

If the Palestinian Arabs had tried even half as much, they too would have a thriving society instead of their miserable existence in refugee camps

Again, perhaps if they had some no-questions-asked, here's your money and we'll look the other way support from the west...

Sadly, the Palestinian Arabs have tried. There's only so much that can be accomplished with a military that uses death squad tactics, assassinations, and group reprisals riding your back. Why open a business, if your occupier is just going to bomb it and everything else nearby, if some fuckhead with a rocket launcher came from your neighborhood? Why plant orange trees, if your occupier is just going to bulldoze them in order to make one of their own colonies "safer"?

You're blaming the victim again. Can you imagine it going the other way? Do you blame Jews for the Holocaust? Do you blame Native Americans and Australians for their exterminations? I can't imagine you do. But you blame the Palestinians for their situation, a situation created by and perpetuated by Israel and its allies!

because none of their beloved brothers would deign to have them.

The Palestinians lived in Palestine. Why should they have to move somewhere else? It's not that other nations won't have them. It's that... well, it bears repeating - they are Palestinians. Why should they have to move away?

If their Arab brothers had donated to the Palestinians a fraction from their enormous oil-wealth of what the Jews gave to their brothers in Israel, their economy too would be vigorous today instead of a basket case dependent on international aid.

Do you realize how goofy this phrase is? "If only other nations gave them aid, they wouldn't be reliant on international aid!"

And really. You think Israel is going to let a couple billion in liquid funds come into the occupied territories from "enemy states"? I don't. Remember, we're in agreement - Israel's the one holding all the power here.

Excuse me??? Where did I say that? I told you, you're delusional. Better get back on those meds stat.

My mistake, I had you confused with Shaktimaan. Sorry.

You're talking bs again. There was a vote in the UN (or was it still the League of Nations?). Everyone had a vote except for Israel because Israel didn't exist at the time. Messed up? You bet! It still passed though, and the Arabs still rejected it. You can't change history.

You're going on about "UN Resolution 181" and asking whether it was the UN or the League of Nations? Double yew tee eff?

And we're in agreement - everyone had a vote except the people the vote was about - the Jews and Arabs living in the Palestinian Mandate. I'm glad to see we're both in agreement that this last gasp of colonial brush-warring is ludicrous. Maybe someday you'll start accepting other facts about the situation, too.

You've failed to answer my question (of course) - Does King Faisal II's refusal to accept the creation of Israel in 1948 rightfully damn the Palestinians of today? You seem terribly eager to hold all Arabs responsible for the actions of a few, Hanank.

Further, does the refusal of those Arab monarchies in 1948 to follow UN Resolution 181, entitle Israel to discard the same resolution in entirety, and ignore all further UN resolutions? If so (and it must be so, because that's exactly what's happened, and you seem to have no problem with that) then doesn't this make Israel no better, and in many ways worse than its supposed enemies?

[subsuelo]

50. Thank you for taking the time, Chulanowa

There's so much disinformation out there...

[Chulanowa]

56. It's not the volume, it's the repitition

Two hundred years ago, my own people were getting the same sort of treatment. My people in particular, were told point-blank by Andrew Jackson that they could either sell their land, or the US Army would come in and kill them all and take it. They sold and were shipped to Oklahoma. A few years later, tribes further west decided not to sell, and were the "terrorists" and "barbarians" of their day.

Back east, people cheered for the Wounded Knee Massacre because they felt it was justified by the defeat of Custer at Little Bighorn.

Same shit, different country.

[Shaktimaan]

62. Let me get this straight...

You're saying that it was Iraq that actually started the Israeli War of Independence? NOT the Palestinians?

You learned this where?

[Shaktimaan]

60. where do you hear this stuff?

Arafat bent over backwards until his keffiyeh was riding up his asscrack to meet the demands of the Oslo Accords.

Arafat only had a single real responsibility under Oslo, to provide security for Israel. But during the Oslo years, terrorism increased exponentially. So Arafat did not manage to meet any of his responsibilities from Oslo. Additionally, he stole a billion dollars from his own people and squirreled it away in Europe.

Arafat pretty much cut his own throat to try to meet the Israeli and American demands, all on the futile hope of getting back 64% of the 22% of Palestine that the Israelis were willing to negotiate about, and maybe get a sniff from East Jerusalem's sewers while he was at it.

What are you talking about? Arafat did not ever offer any concessions at all. He demanded the same things he has always demanded.

The Palestinians have nothing left to sacrifice.

What have they sacrificed thus far? They are demanding the exact same things that they were demanding back in 1947, no negotiations. They have not even been willing to refrain from terrorism.

The ball is in Israel's court.

Israel has made concessions and upheld all of its responsibilities under Oslo. The Palestinians have not, and did not.

The ball has been in Israel's court since 1948.

How so exactly? Look at 1948 Israel and tell me exactly what Israel could have done to foment peace. For that matter, look at Israel now and tell me what Israel could do to foment peace. You can't force anyone to accept peace, no matter how much stronger than them you are.

And for the record, the two-state solution has been the one on the books since 1947. The only time it was unofficial was when the Brits were trying to figure out how to keep the promise they made to the Jews in 1916 while also keeping hte promise they made to the Arabs in 1916...

"The only time it was unofficial...?" What are you talking about? That makes no sense.

In 1947 the UN proposed partition. It doesn't mean anything unless the nations involved agreed to it. It's not binding. It's not a law. It's just a suggestion. Once it was rejected that was it. It ceased to have relevance. It was NEVER official in any meaningful way. It was an official suggestion by the UN to the Jews and Palestinians. That's all. It was never any more binding than the Peel Plan's partition proposal.

And between 1947 and 1989, no one was working towards implementing it on either the Israeli or the Palestinian side. Until then all of the Palestinians living in the WB were Jordanian citizens and Jordan was insisting that the WB belonged to Jordan. And the official Palestinian position was that Palestine should be where Israel is, not where the WB is.

Only in '89 was the possibility of a two state solution raised again.

[LeftishBrit]

41. There has NOT been commitment to a 2-state solution for 41 years.

If there had been such commitment 41 years ago, it would probably have happened by now. It has only been seriously accepted by many (but not enough) as a desirable solution for about the last 15 years. And both sides have to seriously get off their rear ends and get this into effect. It will mean compromises and sacrifices on both sides, but both sides - though the Palestinians far more the Israelis - are damaged by the continual delay in achieving this goal.

[Chulanowa]

49. As I've been asking Henank (with no lucid response....)

What, exactly, do the Palestinians have to concede, to surrender, to give?

More importantly... why the fuck should they?!

Israel is illegally occupying and colonizing Palestinian land. THAT is the main cause of all the problems we're seeing today. Israel is demanding that the Palestinians give stuff up in order for Israel to think about following international law.

This is as if I mugged you, stole your wallet, and stated demanding you give me your car in order to get your wallet back. I'm entitled to beat you until you agree to my terms, and if you try to fight back, I get to shoot you.

Look LeftishBrit, I imagine your heart is in the right place here, but you're buying the bullshit. The Palestinians owe nothing to Israel to get Israel off their land. The Palestinians have nothing to concede, except their claims to the land they would be making the concession for. That's insane.

[LeftishBrit]

61. International agreements are always a bit more complex than individuals' ones

In an international situation - any such, not just I/P- , it's rarely just 'you stole my wallet; give it back!' but more often 'you stole my wallet; give it back; but that still doesn't give my big brother the right to steal your sister's wallet'. There are usually repercussions that need to be dealt with.

The main point here is that I ENTIRELY agree that Israel has to get out of the Occupied Territories; but at the same time the Palestinian government have to accept that they cannot take over the rest of Israel. At the moment there are contradictory messages from different people: sometimes it comes across as just 'get out of the OTs'; sometimes it's 'get out of the land entirely'.

I support complete withdrawal to something closely akin to pre-1967 borders, including the division or internationalization of Jerusalem, so long as borders are made secure; but at the same time I support Israel's right to live within that territory without further attack. And that's where both sides have to reach an agreement.

[Chulanowa]

69. It's a moot point

If the Palestinian "government" can't forcibly reclaim their own land, then obviously they cannot take the rest of Israel, can they?

Something "closely akin" to 1967's borders? How about a perfect match to them? Once Israel does that, then there can be serious talk of busying the hatchet (so to speak). Israel cannot demand an end to violence, while continuing its own violence - And occupation damn sure is violence. Once Israel has removed itself to the 1967 borders, then it can honestly be on the moral high ground.

Legally, they should return to the 1948 borders... But damn well everyone knows that's got no chance of happening, so, not much point to aiming for that.

[LeftishBrit]

72. The exact details of an agreement are not up to me. but up to both negotiating parties..

But the 67 borders are my preferred basis.

'If the Palestinian "government" can't forcibly reclaim their own land, then obviously they cannot take the rest of Israel, can they'

I think the Israeli argument here is that if they return to the 67 borders unilaterally without a peace agreement, the borders will be less secure and the Palestinians in a better strategic position to attack the rest of Israel.

[Chulanowa]

73. Well, the whole situation can be securely laid at the feet of Britain anyway...

So there's that :)

You're missing my point. There are no "negotiating parties". There's one party, backed up by unlimited military might, making demands, and another party, expected to meet those demands or be hit with that military might. If the Palestinians had the military capability of Israel, or even the backing of a few states that could possibly counter the US, then there would be "negotiating parties"

But as I said, it's a moot point. There is nothing to discuss. Israel is illegally occupying a lot of land. If they want a "safety barrier" between themselves and Palestine, then they can move their own citizens to a more secure location within Israel, and build such a barrier area within the bounds of the country they're protecting. All having that boundary insilde Palestine does is provoke more of what they claim to be defending againt.

[Shaktimaan]

77. Man, that's a cop out.

Well, the whole situation can be securely laid at the feet of Britain anyway...

That's like blaming all of the violence of Partition, Kashmir and Pakistan's civil war at the feet of the British too. It's just a way to relieve the real parties of their responsibility.

The British didn't really have that much to do with the conflict in Palestine. It isn't like they were able to exert much control over either group. They couldn't prevent the Zionists from emigrating any more than they could prevent the Arabs from attacking them.

[Shaktimaan]

63. So explain something to me then...

what makes it all exclusively Palestinian land?

[Chulanowa]

70. You're kidding, right?

Well, there's UN resolutions 181 (that your friend Hanank was going on about) and 242. There's also Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions.

[Shaktimaan]

78. Sure I'm serious.

I want to hear your explanation as to why all of this exact land belongs exclusively to the Palestinians.

Well, there's UN resolutions 181

The Partition Resolution? The Palestinians rejected that over 60 years ago. It's meaningless. UN GA Resolutions are nothing but suggestions. They aren't binding in any way unless all of the affected parties agree to them. Besides that, the land in question it isn't the same land in 181. You're arguing that East Jerusalem is Palestinian land, right? According to 181 that land belongs to the UN. So this point actually contradicts your assumption.

and 242

242 doesn't even mention the Palestinians at all. It certainly doesn't specify what land belongs to whom.

There's also Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions.

Nothing in Article 49 indicates that the Palestinians should be the only group with exclusive rights to all land outside of the Green Line.

Actually, if it suggests anything it would seem to be the contrary. Art. 49 states: "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive." During the War of Independence when Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem it forcibly transferred the entire Jewish population of the area into Israel. Jordan's violation of article 49 seems to indicate that the land in question can't belong to either group exclusively, doesn't it?

Remember, I asked you, "what makes it all exclusively Palestinian land?" I'm not arguing that it is all exclusively Israeli land. Or even that any of it should be Israeli. But you keep referring to it all as "Palestinian land", so I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why you think that is.

[Chulanowa]

80. Talk about selective reading!

The Partition Resolution? The Palestinians rejected that over 60 years ago. It's meaningless. UN GA Resolutions are nothing but suggestions. They aren't binding in any way unless all of the affected parties agree to them.

I don't know if you realize... but here you're basically saying that no, Israel does not have any right to exist, if the measure that created it is "meaningless" and "just a suggestion unless all affected parties agree".

Besides that, the land in question it isn't the same land in 181.

Wars of conquest tend to have that effect, don't they?

You're arguing that East Jerusalem is Palestinian land, right? According to 181 that land belongs to the UN. So this point actually contradicts your assumption.

Actually I said nothing of East Jerusalem. Bear in mind that the whole of Jerusalem would have been UN controlled. Basically the plan was to give each state three parcels of intersected land with the big city in no one's hands. It was a really dumb idea, but there it is. Seriously, I wonder if anyone at the discussion even had a goddamn map of the place...

242 doesn't even mention the Palestinians at all. It certainly doesn't specify what land belongs to whom.

You don't even know what Resolution 242 states, do you Shaktimaan? It calls for Israel to withdraw from the territories it captured in the 1967 war. Israel has pretended to have no idea what this could possibly mean, and you're dancing to that tune as well. Of course, Israel's real eager to state that Section ii of Article 1 applies. Only to Israel, of course.

Actually, if it suggests anything it would seem to be the contrary. Art. 49 states: "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."

Oh, so you agree that Israel should allow for the right of return for all the Arabs and their descendants that were driven out of what is now Israel during the same war? And that the Jews driven from the west bank would be living under Arab authority when they come back? Honestly I'm not sure if the Settlements would be a big deal if they were under Arab rule...

But here's a part of the Article you've missed, while you're trying to skip around and talk about Jordan.

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

In other words, the expulsion of Israeli Arabs from Israel into the West Bank and Gaza - a practice that still occurs - is a big illegal. Establishing colonies in the same territory - ALSO illegal. Unless perhaps those people are the same people who were driven out by Jordan, who have decided they want to come back to live under Palestinian sovereignty (...such as it is) instead of Israel, I suppose.

But you keep referring to it all as "Palestinian land", so I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why you think that is.

Because legally, that's what it is - unless, as you point out, the expelled jews want to go back under the flag of the Palestinian Authority. That the holders of international law refuse to enforce it, does not make breaking that law any more legal.

My suggestion, Shaktimaan, would be for you to stop trying to find an "is" to argue.

[LeftishBrit]

45. This is inexcusable.

Building new settlements at this stage is just going to make it even harder to establish peace and a two-state solution.

[Tripmann]

46. Thats kinda the idea, unfortunately.

[delad]

47. absolutely n/t

[GoesTo11]

51. A settlement doesn't hurt anybody

Why do people get so worked up over those who build, and not over those who destroy and kill?

[IndianaGreen]

52. Let's kick you and your parents out of your homes

and we will build settlements on the land that used to belong to you. What was that thing you said about getting worked up over those who build?

[GoesTo11]

53. Kicking somebody out of their home does hurt

To the extent that settlements are doing that, they are worth condemning. But not merely for existing.

[Crunchy Frog]

64. So you don't mind if I set up a tent or a trailer in your back yard

and make myself at home? I'll keep that in mind in case such a living arrangement would ever be of use to me.

[GoesTo11]

65. That obviously wouldn't be in the same league with kicking me out of my house

We might be able to make an arrangement. You could buy the land or rent from me. If you were just squatting, I'd try to get you to leave. But I couldn't just legally shoot you, except in Texas.

[Crunchy Frog]

66. Don't worry. I won't kick you out of your house.

I'm sure you won't find my loud parties and messy barbques to much trouble. And you won't mind my tapping into your water supply and helping myself. Oh, and you won't get me to leave, because my friends are much more powerful than any authorities you may have on your side, but I know that you wouldn't be so unhosptitable anyways.

Actually, this arrangement is beginning to look really attractive. ;)

[GoesTo11]

67. Hey, are you my teenage son?

[Crunchy Frog]

68. Daddy! I had no idea that was you! What a small internets it is.

:hug: :evilgrin:

[Shaktimaan]

54. That is actually a seperate issue.

Building settlements on land that belongs to Palestinians is against the law... Israeli law. While it has happened and while there are those teenage hilltop settlers who have zero regard for anyone's laws, it isn't supposed to happen at all and the people who are still trying to do so are criminals. So when we're talking about officially sanctioned settlement expansions in the OPT, we're not talking about using land that Palestinian farmers have worked for generations which they're now being evicted from.

That said, don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I hate it when you guys put me in the position of "defending" settlement expansion because I find it both disgusting and a major obstacle to any possible peace process. But if we're going to have any kind of rational discussion about the issues at hand then we have to be honest and accurate as to the historical and present day facts. Especially regarding hot-button issues like terrorism and settlements. So if you're going to make these kinds of emotionally charged statements to get people fired up even if they don't accurately represent reality, I'm going to call you on them.

The most aggressively fought over pieces of land in EJ and the WB are those few areas which have a long history of Jewish inhabitants, as the settlers moving there see them as important parts of their cultural/religious/historical/whatever heritage. It's in those areas, like Hebron, where you find the kind of settlers who aim to drive away their Arab neighbors because they covet their homes.

The majority of WB settlements aren't quite like that though. They're on the tops of the hills while the Palestinians usually farm in the valleys. That doesn't make them any less provocative to the Palestinians or any more ethically defensible to continue building, especially at this point in time, when everyone agrees that they are such an impediment to peace.

But it is precisely because they are so wrong that we should refrain from casting untrue aspersions about them. The truth of the matter is bad enough; there's no need to exaggerate the situation to try and give settlement building a bad name. It's name could scarcely get worse as it is. Engaging in hyperbole does far more to help their cause than it does ours.

[delad]

55. you better be taking the piss

it's a fact that settlers have stolen and continue to steal land that doesn't belong to them and that this is one of the major contributors to violence (along with the illegal occupation). Your attempt to downplay the importance of illegal settlements in this conflict would be derisory were it not for the seriousness of the situation. Also, and very importantly, you left out a vital part of the equation when you didn't mention the settlement infrastructure (eg Jew only roads, road blocks and the Wall) that divides the WB into a series of almost seperate areas (some would call them bantustans).

I am not putting you in a position of "defending" settlements, you did that yourself.


The official database, the most comprehensive one of its kind ever compiled in Israel about the territories, was recently obtained by Haaretz. Here, for the first time, information the state has been hiding for years is revealed. An analysis of the data reveals that, in the vast majority of the settlements - about 75 percent - construction, sometimes on a large scale, has been carried out without the appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued. The database also shows that, in more than 30 settlements, extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even police stations) has been carried out on private lands belonging to Palestinian West Bank residents.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060043.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x256509

[Shaktimaan]

57. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Your attempt to downplay the importance of illegal settlements in this conflict would be derisory were it not for the seriousness of the situation.

I did no such thing. I very clearly said that it was because of the seriousness of the situation that we have an obligation to be factually accurate. You seem to think that because the settlements are one of the major impediments to peace you are justified in playing fast and loose with the facts. I am not defending the existence of settlements in the OPT. I am criticizing the willingness to exaggerate around here.

I am not putting you in a position of "defending" settlements, you did that yourself.

No. When people such as yourself see fit to take liberties with the truth I feel obligated to correct you. Now, you may feel that no one should ever try and correct misperceptions about the conflict unless they also support your position, but I disagree. As I said before, it does not do us any good to repeat falsehoods about the conflict, such as "jew-only roads" or "illegal occupation."

The post I responded to was about Palestinian families being thrown out of their homes to make room for settlements. If such a thing is actually occurring, then by all means, point it out to me. However, if it isn't then I fail to understand why you would encourage people to repeat it as fact. It is because of similar attitudes that people like you actually believe in the existence of things like "jew only roads."

Think for a minute about how it comes across to the average centrist Israeli when he/she hears people complain about something like "jew only roads." They immediately think, "Wow, people out there are actually willing to believe anything they hear about this situation so long as it is critical of Israel." How can you expect any of them to consider the message we are offering when you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the issues that concern them, coupled with what appears to be a real bias against their interests. For a great real-life example of this, just ask pelsar what his (quite liberal) son's reaction was to reading many of the opinions on this site.

Can you explain to me exactly how this benefits the furthering of your cause?

[delad]

58. you're telling me there are no "jew only" roads and

that the occupation isn't illegal?

Did you even bother to read the final paragraph of my post?

Do you know what Jim crow laws were?

Or that in other countries dominated by colonists that laws were passed that discriminated against the local population by ways and means other than stating it explicitly.

In Ireland during the 19thC laws were passed on voting in local elections that required voters to prove their eligibility (owning a certain amount of land or having above a certain amount of wealth). These specific laws didn't explicitly state that Catholics couldn't vote and the fact of the matter was there were catholics who were eligible to vote but in tiny numbers. These were anti-Catholic, although you'd be hard pressed to find the word catholic in there. This is the same with "Jew only" roads. They are Israeli only, aren't they? Given teh facts on the ground, trying to argue that the roads aren't jew (settler) only is a bit disingenuous. Would 'zionist only' roads be better?

The land that the settlements are built on, they are built in many cases on land that belong(s/ed) to Palestinians and contravene Israeli law.

Are you saying that its okay as long as Palestinians aren't being thrown out of their own homes? What about building a settlement that encroaches farmland, 'settler only' roads (is that better?) that require orchards to be ripped up, settler violence, etc?

Palestinians are regularly thrown out of their homes in the West Bank. Have you ever heard of house demolitions in the WEst BAnk/Jerusalem? I swear, if you return the argument that they're knocked down because they don't have permits i will puke. Look at the amount of permits handed to Jews in Jerusalem in comparison to Palestinians and look at the fucking settlements that the crazy zionist bastards keep expanding and building.

For some reason you want me to find a specific family that was kicked out of their home to make way for a specific settler family. That's complete nonsense. Look at the occupation, settler expansion and control that the military exercises over daily life in the West Bank. It's systemic

<snip>
Israel has this month ordered the demolition of a Palestinian village of Aqabah in the Jordan River Valley – "the mosque, medical center, the roads, all the homes and a kindergarten serving more than 130 children" – because it lacked a building permit.
<snip>
http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008/05/15/the_lament_of_iqrit_and_kafr_birim/5264/

"To date, more than 3,000 Palestinian-owned structures in the West Bank have pending demolition orders, which can be immediately executed without prior warning," the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in a report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_demolition_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Current_Demolition_Crises

To summarise; thousands of palestinians have had their houses demolished (or have pending demolition orders) in teh West Bank for not having the proper permits. On the other hand, settlers build on land that isn't theirs, or in fact belongs to individual palestinians (see previous post) without permits (ie illegally).

And you want me to find a specific case of one palestinian family thrown out of their home to make way for a settler family?

[Shaktimaan]

59. We're talking past one another.

Here's the discrepancy between our viewpoints, as I see it. I am looking at each of these issues individually, so when I challenge statements that I find disingenuous it's because there isn't usually any direct relationship between the events described, ie:, settlers are not directly displacing Palestinian families from their homes. OTOH, you are looking at all of the issues connected to the occupation such as the wall, checkpoints, segregated roadways, settlements and house demolitions and are deducing that Israel is engaged in a plan to systematically disenfranchise Palestinians so they can slowly annex their land to Israel via "facts on the ground." Am I on the right track here?

There's a few reasons that I disagree with this assessment but they are all based on the same idea. You're trying to look at the big picture by considering all of the Israeli policies that create hardship for the Palestinians instead of just looking at the individual issues. That's fine, but if you're going to contemplate this on a larger scale then you must consider ALL of the related facets of the conflict, not just the ones which support your argument. By cherry picking individual things you're not getting the full picture.

Most of the things you're criticizing here are extremely recent developments. For decades, up until just a few years ago there weren't any segregated roadways; the wall is also new, as are the majority of the checkpoints, and so on. For years it was common for Palestinians to not only share the roads but to actually work in the settlements.

During the Oslo years, Israel actually began transferring authority for much of the WB to the PA. Around 98% of WB Palestinians live on land under the PA's jurisdiction. Israel re-deployed troops out of the areas and most of the existing checkpoints were dismantled giving Palestinians free reign to travel throughout the area. But after the unprecedented jump in suicide attacks and terrorism during the 90's, followed by the 2000 intifada and subsequent breakdown of the peace process, all of these security measures were rapidly enacted.

Ten years ago Israel's policies towards the WB were entirely different. Yet you're looking at the events of just the few years since as evidence of an overarching anti-Palestinian strategy, while ignoring the actual reasons for them. Yes, there is a matrix of control that Israel exerts over the OPT. Yes, the Palestinians are oppressed and discriminated against. But it is not because of a larger plan to permanently disenfranchise them. To do so would not make any long-term strategic sense for Israel anyway.

Given teh facts on the ground, trying to argue that the roads aren't jew (settler) only is a bit disingenuous. Would 'zionist only' roads be better?

You're really stuck on this, aren't you? No, "zionist-only" roads would not be better. It is just as inaccurate. You're assuming that Israeli-Arabs just de-facto never use these roads and that the policy was enacted to subjugate Arabs. However Israeli Arabs often have family in the OPT and they utilize the same roads as the settlers do. And before the increased attacks against Israeli vehicles the roads weren't segregated at all. It only happened after shooting at Israelis became a regular occurrence. Or do you believe that Israel merely used the Israeli deaths as an excuse to implement a policy they'd been planning all along?

Are you saying that its okay as long as Palestinians aren't being thrown out of their own homes?

Are you even actually reading my posts? What have I written that gives you the idea that I think anything like that?

Look at the amount of permits handed to Jews in Jerusalem in comparison to Palestinians

How? Permit applications don't ask for ethnicity. However the total percentage of Jerusalem residents who are Arab has increased since 1967. If Israel has truly been trying to dispossess them for the past 40 years then it has not been doing a very good job of it. Are they?

[delad]

71. that actually sounds reasonable but

i think the fact that i'm drunk and have just watched one of the best Irish rugby performances in years is making me a little bit soft.

"During the Oslo years, Israel actually began transferring authority for much of the WB to the PA. Around 98% of WB Palestinians live on land under the PA's jurisdiction. Israel re-deployed troops out of the areas and most of the existing checkpoints were dismantled giving Palestinians free reign to travel throughout the area. But after the unprecedented jump in suicide attacks and terrorism during the 90's, followed by the 2000 intifada and subsequent breakdown of the peace process, all of these security measures were rapidly enacted."

Why??? did this happen in a vacuum? Are palestinians congenitally hardwired to hate and kill Israelis? Is this their 'default' position? Maybe, and just maybe, this might have something to do with something some people call "occupation". You mightn't like the response that 'occupation' engenders but if israel has the right to defend itself then by god, the palestinians have the right to fight against occupation. You don't like suicide bombers and rockets then pool some funds and give them apache attack helicopters, hellfire missiles, white phospherous, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons. that should even the playing field.

I suppose what i'm trying to say is; are palestinians supposed to accept occupation? Look at the period you have raised and look at israeli policies in the WB and Gaza strip and look at the increase in settlers. Can you see the connection?

Most of the things i'm criticising are recent? The occupation is most certainly not recent, unless of course you dispute the fact that there is an occupation in the first place. And considering some of the lunatics that haunt these forums i wouldn't be surprised if somebody attempted to claim such a ludicrous position.

One last thing, Israeli-arabs used these roads???? what, like they'd just jump in a car and drive up and use these roads without any hassle??? Are you serious??? what the fuck does something that "might" (and i'd dispute this purely on gut instinct) have happened 20 years ago have to do with the situation now? They are now "jew"(settler/zionist/whatever) roads that transect the West Bank and confine people within certain areas to maintain the safety of settlers/colonists/zionists.

i'm not out to insult you, you're obviously a smart person. I just fundamentally disagree with what you've had to say on this matter so far

Sorry, last thing. Yes, Israel has a long term plan to disenfranchise the palestinians. Look at what Dayan, Meir, Sharon, etc have had to say on the subject. they were pretty straightforward on teh matter