Settlements

[Toddsterpatriot]

A treaty can make it okay to "steal land in war"?

It's a legal treaty, as will be the one the Israelis make when the occupation/war is over. Don't hold your breath. Settling on occupied land is not legal.

It's a legal treaty,

But German land was stolen.
Abi says stealing land in war is a war crime.
Was Abi lying....again?

Settling on occupied land is not legal.

Tell that to the people living on the stolen German land.

 

[cnm]

14 to 1 in the security council. That must be a record.

 

[cnm]

Because land stolen by non-Jews always goes to the victors and fuck the Jews.

I love the way Israel is presented as all Jews. The victimhood is strong in that one. Apart from that, all they have to do is make a treaty where their borders are defined and get off occupied land, simples.

 

[cnm]

Tell that to the people living on the stolen German land.

That land is not occupied. I can't help your reading comprehension. Perhaps some more home schooling.

 

[cnm]

But German land was stolen.

Was ceded in the treaty, if that is the case.

 

[Coyote]

This came up on another thread, and I want to explore it because I think the concept of 'settlements' is largely misunderstood and has become a soundbite with people not really understanding or exploring what the term means, other than its bad and Jews are doing it.

Let's start by defining it.

Coyote defined it this way:

Housing built on occupied/disputed territory taken in war by the occuping/opposong force and deemed illegal under international law.

I would define its common usage this way:

Housing with Jewish residents on land on the "wrong side" of the Green Line.


I think both these definitions require a re-thinking from a legal perspective, a moral perspective and a solutions perspective.

The problem, in my mind, is with the assumptions made:

1. The Green Line is significant legally, as opposed to the Oslo lines.
2. The presence of Jews is problematic in certain areas (while the presence of Arabs is assumed).
3. The presence of Jews is incompatible with peace (while the presence of Arabs is assumed).
3. "Illegal" building by Arabs is to be forgiven, or justified, or actively supported while "illegal" building by Jews is condemned (double standard).
4. That the demographics from [insert random point in time] must not be changed, even with natural growth.

There's probably more, but I'll let them come up in conversation.

Perhaps we can start with Coyote's simplest definition: Housing built on disputed land.

Should no housing be built on disputed land? Even considering natural growth? How do we know which land falls into the disputed category (both legally and morally). Is there land which indisputably belongs to one side or the other? Does a housing freeze apply to both sides, or only to one?

Lots of questions. I'm sure more will come up.

The problem with this particular disputed land is this: it is the hoped for territory of another state. It was territory taken in war. And as settlements expand - the possibilitiy of a contiguous land available for a state decreases resulting in a swiss cheese affair that is impossible to govern.

Either Israel needs to man up and make a decision and take the territory (AND it's people) into it's state - or stop settlements until the peace process is concluded.

 

[cnm]

14 to 1, has that ever happened before?

 

[Coyote]

This is a mild moderator warning here - but Shusha has put together a good topic. Let's respect it.

 

[cnm]

Either Israel needs to man up and make a decision and take the territory (AND it's people) into it's state - or stop settlements until the peace process is concluded.

It's obvious Israel cannot man up, but will snivel while stealing more land until all is taken.

 

[cnm]

but Shusha has put together a good topic.

Hilarity. He/she listed assumptions as facts to be respected.

 

[Coyote]

but Shusha has put together a good topic.

Hilarity. He/she listed assumptions as facts to be respected.

As discussion points - so discuss.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell that to the people living on the stolen German land.

That land is not occupied. I can't help your reading comprehension. Perhaps some more home schooling.

That land is not occupied.

It was stolen from Germany.
Germans were kicked out.
It was in all the papers.

 

[Coyote]

Topic is not Germany - get on topic please.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Topic is not Germany - get on topic please.

Isn't the topic stolen land?

 

[Coyote]

Topic is not Germany - get on topic please.

Isn't the topic stolen land?

Read the OP. It's the issue of settlements in Israel/Palestine.

 

[Indeependent]

Because land stolen by non-Jews always goes to the victors and fuck the Jews.

I love the way Israel is presented as all Jews. The victimhood is strong in that one. Apart from that, all they have to do is make a treaty where their borders are defined and get off occupied land, simples.

The borders are defined by where Arabs get their asses kicked after they attack.

 

[cnm]

As discussion points - so discuss.

2. The presence of Jews is problematic in certain areas (while the presence of Arabs is assumed).

Well that's straight bullshit/hasbara, a disingenuous generalisation rather than a discussion point, isn't it? Or is an Arab presence assumed here?

Israeli authorities have approved plans for the construction of 800 new housing units for Jews in illegal housing settlements across occupied East Jerusalem.
Israel approves 800 settler homes in East Jerusalem​

 

[cnm]

The borders are defined by where Arabs get their asses kicked after they attack.

It was my understanding Israel attacked in '67.

Neither U.S. nor Israeli intelligence assessed that there was any kind of serious threat of an Egyptian attack. On the contrary, both considered the possibility that Nasser might strike first as being extremely slim.

The current Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael B. Oren, acknowledged in his book “Six Days of War“, widely regarded as the definitive account of the war, that “By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed”.
Israel's attack on Egypt in June '67 was not 'preemptive' | Foreign Policy Journal​

 

[Indeependent]

The borders are defined by where Arabs get their asses kicked after they attack.

It was my understanding Israel attacked in '67.

Neither U.S. nor Israeli intelligence assessed that there was any kind of serious threat of an Egyptian attack. On the contrary, both considered the possibility that Nasser might strike first as being extremely slim.

The current Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael B. Oren, acknowledged in his book “Six Days of War“, widely regarded as the definitive account of the war, that “By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed”.
Israel's attack on Egypt in June '67 was not 'preemptive' | Foreign Policy Journal​

Because you always wait for the attacker to stab you before you stab him.
Oh, wait! That's how non-Jews fight!

 

[Shusha]

The problem with this particular disputed land is this: it is the hoped for territory of another state.

Well, no. The problem is that it is hoped for by both states. Hence the dispute part of disputed.

It might be helpful to describe what, exactly, is "disputed". Is Tel Aviv disputed? Gaza? Jerusalem? Ramallah? Hebron? Nabi Saleh? Umm al Fahm? Susya? Nablus? Bethlehem? What parts of the territory are disputed? Precision is important here. I see Area C and East Jerusalem as the two key disputed areas. Agree or disagree?

It was territory taken in war.

Sure. But was it territory belonging to Israel taken by Jordan and subsequently recovered? Or territory belonging to Jordan taken by Israel? (Hint: Its door #1 - Jordan never had any valid claim past its own borders).

See, legally, either way, that war is over. Israel and Jordan and Egypt settled their differences by treaty (aka international law). Jordan renounced the territory. Egypt renounced the territory. That entire conflict is actually resolved. Finished. No longer part of the equation.

What we are dealing with here is the internal, domestic, civil conflict between Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians (Israelis). There has never been a defined border between these two conflicting entities. No land has been taken from either because, at this point, each claims the entire piece. The only legislation which creates borders of claim is the one mutually signed at Oslo. Oslo demands that the final borders be negotiated and not imparted. So....it is a legal error to claim that Israel took land in war.

And as settlements expand - the possibilitiy of a contiguous land available for a state decreases resulting in a swiss cheese affair that is impossible to govern.

Only if you believe that Arab Palestine cannot possibly incorporate any Jewish people into their State. Otherwise it looks just exactly like Israel looks -- a place where both Jews and Arabs live, without consideration of which is sovereign. How many Jews does it take to make an Arab State not viable? 5? 10? 100? 1%? 10%? 20%? How many Arabs does it take to make a Jewish State not viable? 5? 10? 100? 1%? 10%? 20%?

Its not a flood. The land IS actually contiguous. The borders can be placed anywhere. As long as Arab Palestine is willing to consider some Jewish minority. If Arab Palestine is not willing to accept ANY Jewish minority, onc has to ask why Israel is expected to accept an Arab minority.

Either Israel needs to man up and make a decision and take the territory (AND it's people) into it's state - or stop settlements until the peace process is concluded.

I am ALL in for Israel manning up and taking the territory that it wishes to take and gifting the CRAP out of the Arabs who end up on the Israeli side of the unilaterally decided border. And treating those Arabs on the other side of the line like foreigners.

But, I'm curious as to what you mean by "stop settlements". Please clarify.