Higgly Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) According to this Washington Post article, close to 40% of Israeli settlements have been built on Palestinian private land. This includes 86% of Ma'ale Adumim, the settlement that Israel has built to cut the West Bank off from East Jerusalem and 35% of Ariel, one of the largest settlements. There are major implications. Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions which forbid the settlement of occupied lands and which specify that land registries in existence before the occupation must be respected. I recall seeing a video bite in the many, many hours of video reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It was taken after a suicide bombing. An Israeli-American woman was shown looking plaintively into the camera and asking "Why do they hate us? We don't hate them." Here is a Ha'aretz article backing up the UN report and further describing how some 75% of Israeli built settlements were built without valid permits, further proof that Israel has been enforcing neither the Geneva Conventions nor its own laws. The international community has been saying for years that the settlements are illegal under international law. Now it turns out they are illegal under even Israeli law. The appearance of this artcicle on the eve of US Middle Eastern Envoy George Mitchell's visit has to be seen as a challenge to the Obama administration. If it does not seize on this opportunity to leverage a just peace for the Palestinians, then clearly nothing has changed in US foreign policy, new adminstration or not. --------------- Edited to correct spelling of Ma'ale Adumim and East Jerusalem Edited January 30, 2009 by Higgly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 the settlements. the big nasty bear in the room that israeli apologists refuse to acknowledge as one of the major problems in this conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 the settlements. the big nasty bear in the room that israeli apologists refuse to acknowledge as one of the major problems in this conflict. Exactamundo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 ...talking to yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 ...talking to yourself? Not if you are listening, LOL... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 ...talking to yourself? hey dancer what do you think of the settlements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 hey dancerwhat do you think of the settlements? Heh heh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 The settlement shouldn't be removed if they've been there a LONG time with proper permits. This is about Israel's apparent continued expansion rather than ethnicly cleaning the West Bank of Jews...right? Since the Arabs lost this land in a war intended to eliminate Israel, one might ask what right anyone OTHER than Israel has to it...really. The Arabs should just get used to it (we got used to multiculturalism & immigration) and get on with the business of peace. You have to view the West Bank from the military's POV, as well. It is a potential jumping-off point for Arab armies (as in the past) to attempt to cut Israel in two at its narrowest point. So I doubt the Israelis will give up controlling the Eastern border of the WB for security reasons. Same with the Golan Heights. It is an ideal artillery platform to shell deep into Israel. ------------------------------------------------- For what can war, but endless war, still breed? ---John Milton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 The settlement shouldn't be removed if they've been there a LONG time with proper permits. they are illegal. maybe you missed the memo. This is about Israel's apparent continued expansion rather than ethnicly cleaning the West Bank of Jews...right? Since the Arabs lost this land in a war intended to eliminate Israel, one might ask what right anyone OTHER than Israel has to it...really. they are illegal. The Arabs should just get used to it (we got used to multiculturalism & immigration) and get on with the business of peace. get used to illegal settlers in their territory? settlers who see all of the territories as israel? get used to israeli controlled roads that separate palestinian towns, villages, schools and hospitals from each other? i don't think the settlers are about "multiculturalism" and "business of peace". you make funny statements. You have to view the West Bank from the military's POV, as well. It is a potential jumping-off point for Arab armies (as in the past) to attempt to cut Israel in two at its narrowest point. So I doubt the Israelis will give up controlling the Eastern border of the WB for security reasons.Same with the Golan Heights. It is an ideal artillery platform to shell deep into Israel. good old "self defense" argument to continue to break the law. have you ever thought that maybe if israel followed the law, that maybe people wouldn't be as pissed off at them and israel wouldn't need to feel threatened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) they are illegal. maybe you missed the memo.they are illegal. get used to illegal settlers in their territory? settlers who see all of the territories as israel? get used to israeli controlled roads that separate palestinian towns, villages, schools and hospitals from each other? i don't think the settlers are about "multiculturalism" and "business of peace". you make funny statements. good old "self defense" argument to continue to break the law. have you ever thought that maybe if israel followed the law, that maybe people wouldn't be as pissed off at them and israel wouldn't need to feel threatened? Spare me the "illegal" line. Surprise attacks by nations wishing the destruction of another are also illegal. Currently, France occupies former German land...is this also 'illegal'? As for the 'self-defence' line: Israel has been attacked via the West Bank in the past. You make funny statements, too. ----------------------------------------------- Let's have another cup of coffee. Let's have another piece of pie. ---Irving Berlin Edited January 30, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Spare me the "illegal" line. Surprise attacks by nations wishing the destruction of another are also illegal. Currently, France occupies former German land...is this also 'illegal'?As for the 'self-defence' line: Israel has been attacked via the West Bank in the past. You make funny statements, too. ----------------------------------------------- Let's have another cup of coffee. Let's have another piece of pie. ---Irving Berlin spare you the "illegal" line? why? when it's illegal, it's illegal. it's very simple and a perfect reason for israel to stop the increasing of the settlements and start finding a way to remove them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 The settlement shouldn't be removed if they've been there a LONG time with proper permits. I love the "proper permits" part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 spare you the "illegal" line?why? when it's illegal, it's illegal. it's very simple and a perfect reason for israel to stop the increasing of the settlements and start finding a way to remove them all. What? No mention as to how Israel arrived on this "occupied" land? Re: stopping settlements. My response was: "The settlement shouldn't be removed if they've been there a LONG time with proper permits. This is about Israel's apparent continued expansion rather than ethnicly cleaning the West Bank of Jews...right?" Or, is it about the ethnic cleaning of an area? In which case I'm against removing these long term settlements. However, it is my understanding that numerous newer settlements have been contructed without the Israeli government's okie-dokie. They should be removed. ----------------------------------- If you can play on the fiddle---How's about a British jig and reel? Speaking King's English in quotation---As railhead towns feel the steel mills rust water froze In the generation---Clear as winter ice This is your paradise... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 What? No mention as to how Israel arrived on this "occupied" land?Re: stopping settlements. My response was: "The settlement shouldn't be removed if they've been there a LONG time with proper permits. This is about Israel's apparent continued expansion rather than ethnicly cleaning the West Bank of Jews...right?" Or, is it about the ethnic cleaning of an area? In which case I'm against removing these long term settlements. However, it is my understanding that numerous newer settlements have been contructed without the Israeli government's okie-dokie. They should be removed. ----------------------------------- If you can play on the fiddle---How's about a British jig and reel? Speaking King's English in quotation---As railhead towns feel the steel mills rust water froze In the generation---Clear as winter ice This is your paradise... Ethnic cleansing the West Bank of Jews. I love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I love the "proper permits" part Well that's how it's done apparently. Israel's position on settlements revolves around when peace treaties were signed with various parties plus various religious considerations...if wiki is any source on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement Israelis supportive of settlement respond that they are religiously justified in owning the land. Furthermore, the Israel Foreign Ministry asserts that some settlements are legitimate, as they took shape when there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, and thus they did not violate any agreement.[26][27][28] Based on this, they assert the following specific reasons for accepting settlements as legitimate: Prior to the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, the eruption of the First Intifada in the late eighties, down to the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in 1994, Israeli governments on the left and right argued that the settlements were of strategic and tactical importance. The location of the settlements was primarily chosen based on the threat of an attack by the bordering hostile countries of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt and possible routes of advance into Israeli population areas[citation needed].These settlements were originally thought of as contributing to the peace and security of the state of Israel at a time when peace treaties had not been signed. Some supporters of the settlements still cite these reasons.[29][30][31][32][33][34] Many religious Jews assert the biblical Jewish connection to the areas in dispute, arguing that their claim to build is equal to the biblical Jewish connection to the other areas in Israel. ---------------------------------------- Ninty-nine and a half just won't do... ---CCR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Ethnic cleansing the West Bank of Jews. I love it. As well you might...as this is what it would amount to if Israel's position on the subject of settlements is ignored. Wars were fought. Land was lost. Land was given back. Land is still in question. ----------------------------- It's a Daisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 It does not matter when the treaties were signed. What matters is that the land registrations pre-date the occupation. Treaties only pertain to the cessation of hostilities. The land registry pre-dates even the invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 As well you might...as this is what it would amount to if Israel's position on the subject of settlements is ignored. Wars were fought. Land was lost. Land was given back. Land is still in question.----------------------------- It's a Daisy. Not any more. Read the memo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) It does not matter when the treaties were signed. What matters is that the land registrations pre-date the occupation. Treaties only pertain to the cessation of hostilities. The land registry pre-dates even the invasion. Blah, blah, blah...and how does various Arab-Israeli Wars affect all this? If the Arabs actually won a war and were holding Israeli lands, would all this hand wringing and fretting be occuring? Doubt it. --------------------------------------------- Well it's 40 below and I don't give a **** Got a heater in my truck and I'm off to the rodeo... Edited January 30, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Not any more. Read the memo. I'd suggest that the memo is somewhat unilateral...or there'd be no problem. -------------------------------- A good many dramatic situations begin with screaming. ---Jane Fonda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I'd suggest that the memo is somewhat unilateral...or there'd be no problem.-------------------------------- A good many dramatic situations begin with screaming. ---Jane Fonda I guess you missed the part that relates to TOP SECRET IDF DATABASES. Otherwise, there'd be no problem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 What? No mention as to how Israel arrived on this "occupied" land?Re: stopping settlements. My response was: "The settlement shouldn't be removed if they've been there a LONG time with proper permits. This is about Israel's apparent continued expansion rather than ethnicly cleaning the West Bank of Jews...right?" Or, is it about the ethnic cleaning of an area? In which case I'm against removing these long term settlements. However, it is my understanding that numerous newer settlements have been contructed without the Israeli government's okie-dokie. They should be removed. meaning that you are okay with israel breaking international law. does this mean that you're okay with others breaking international law or you feel it's okay for only israel to do it? lets get this out in the open. just because they're not "ethnically cleansing" the west bank, it doesn't mean that it's okay and it's not illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I guess you missed the part that relates to TOP SECRET IDF DATABASES. No. Apparently some group inside Israel claims Israel didn't "pay" for some of these various lands. However, it goes back again to when these settlements were built. Post Six Day War? Post Yom Kippur? Believe it or not, there was a time (and may still be) when Arab armies attcked Israel in attempts to destroy it. I always find it interesting that many folks never take these events into consideration when discussing the situation. --------------------------------------- Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations. ---Yasser Arafat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 meaning that you are okay with israel breaking international law. does this mean that you're okay with others breaking international law or you feel it's okay for only israel to do it?lets get this out in the open. just because they're not "ethnically cleansing" the west bank, it doesn't mean that it's okay and it's not illegal. I don't believe in "international law". It isn't placed across the boards to all parties equally. The only time I hear anyone ranting about international law it is in regards to Israel. Like now. ------------------------------------------------ The victory march will continue until the Palestinian flag flies in Jerusalem and in all of Palestine. ---Yasser Arafat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 If the Arabs actually won a war and were holding Israeli lands, would all this hand wringing and fretting be occuring? Doubt it. I can't think of a single reason why my hands wouldn't be wringing unless Arabs were holding these lands after having just repelled an invasion by Israel. If this occupation however persisted beyond a reasonable time and degenerated into anything like what has actually happened, then you could count on my hands wringing quite loudly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.