Israel to demolish more Palestinian homes

[Remiel]

Do you mean to say did any |RCs refuse to sell to Jews?

No, not exactly, though that is relevant too.

I refer to the Israeli settler/Jerusalem mindset that this thread is about. How can it be a coincidence that all 20 housing units were by Jews in a Palestinian neighbourhood? Because at least some of the Jews moving into those new apartments bought that land as part of keeping in out of the hands of Palestinians. That is why I asked whether any RC offered to buy so that the Jews would not be able to get in, because it would signify them going out of their way to make a suboptimal economic decision just to keep out Jews. Do you not think that moving into a neighbourhood where you will be surrounded (not just bordering) by supposedely hostile Palestinians would not also seem suboptimal unless there were something else going on?

[M.Dancer]

No, not exactly, though that is relevant too.

I refer to the Israeli settler/Jerusalem mindset that this thread is about. How can it be a coincidence that all 20 housing units were by Jews in a Palestinian neighbourhood? Because at least some of the Jews moving into those new apartments bought that land as part of keeping in out of the hands of Palestinians. That is why I asked whether any RC offered to buy so that the Jews would not be able to get in, because it would signify them going out of their way to make a suboptimal economic decision just to keep out Jews. Do you not think that moving into a neighbourhood where you will be surrounded (not just bordering) by supposedely hostile Palestinians would not also seem suboptimal unless there were something else going on?

To be sure that homes sold by arabs bought by jews are bought en masse...the reasons are simple....and also, yes roman catholics would have refused to selle to jews and only to other catholics to keep jews out...but in the end market forces ruled.

[naomiglover]

More demolitions.

East Jerusalem homes demolished

The Israeli authorities have used bulldozers to demolish three buildings in occupied East Jerusalem.

Israeli officials said the action was taken to enforce court orders against - what they called - illegal and unpopulated structures.

But residents say two of the buildings were inhabited by Palestinian families, while the third was a warehouse.

Israel has been under international pressure to stop demolitions in the area.

The US has described such actions as damaging to peace efforts.

Palestinians accuse Israel of discriminatory planning practices which deny them building permits, often leaving them no choice but to build illegally and risk demolition.

"I have to express my deep concern about the latest developments in East Jerusalem," European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said. Mr Barroso was speaking at a news conference attended by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in Brussels.

"These are counterproductive developments. Settlements and demolition of houses are illegal, they are against international law, they constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two state solution impossible," said Mr Barroso.

Mr Fayyad said Israel's actions were "inconsistent with the need to continue to have the concept of viability for a two state solution".

The demolitions came a day after Israeli authorities approved the construction of 32 new homes in a Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem.

Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain.

Under international law the area is occupied territory.

BBC

[Bonam]

Try constructing a building in the middle of a city here in Canada or in the US without any sort of authorization or permit. The government here is sure as heck gonna demolish that as well, or much more likely stop you before the building ever gets off the ground.

And yet Israel is supposed to just allow people to build whatever they want, wherever they want? More blatant hypocrisy against Israel.

If people want to build something, they need to go through the proper channels to have the development approved. This is true in any civilized country. If certain groups feel that not enough of their development applications are being approved, they should seek a legal remedy.

[naomiglover]

Try constructing a building in the middle of a city here in Canada or in the US without any sort of authorization or permit.

It's not for Israel to decide whether they are legal or illegal. The Palestinian homes were in East Jerusalem, which does not belong to Israel.

[Bonam]

It's not for Israel to decide whether they are legal or illegal. The Palestinian homes were in East Jerusalem, which does not belong to Israel.

On the contrary, Israel considers all of Jerusalem to be its indivisible capital.

[naomiglover]

On the contrary, Israel considers all of Jerusalem to be its indivisible capital.

Who cares what Israel thinks. Legally, under international law, it does not belong to Israel.

Even U.S., Israel's closest ally acknowledges that East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel.

[GostHacked]

Try constructing a building in the middle of a city here in Canada or in the US without any sort of authorization or permit. The government here is sure as heck gonna demolish that as well, or much more likely stop you before the building ever gets off the ground.

And yet Israel is supposed to just allow people to build whatever they want, wherever they want? More blatant hypocrisy against Israel.

If people want to build something, they need to go through the proper channels to have the development approved. This is true in any civilized country. If certain groups feel that not enough of their development applications are being approved, they should seek a legal remedy.

I'd like to know when these buildings were constructed. That could shed some light on this.

But let's look at another thing. Israel gives permits for Jews to build settlements in Gaza. We know that it is on Palestinian land (if there really is such a thing now) , and what of those? Yes the West Bank has been abandoned by the Jews, I guess seeing the errs of the settlements.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who cares what Israel thinks. Legally, under international law, it does not belong to Israel.

Well, we know that you don't care. Still, Israel has the last word on this matter...not you or "international law".

Even U.S., Israel's closest ally acknowledges that East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel.

"Even the U.S"....supports Israel's policies and practices with money and hardware.

[jbg]

Who cares what Israel thinks. Legally, under international law, it does not belong to Israel.

The so-called distinction between the Old and New City is a figment of the 1948 Armistice Line and nothing more. When Israel declared independence and that independence was recognized by the U.N. the surrounding states simultaneously attacked Israel. Israel, to everyone's surprised, clawed back from the invasion. Israel was put under heavy pressure to stop fighting in place at arbitrary locations when the nascent IDF (or maybe it was still called the Haganah) was succeeding militarily. The Armistice Line thus has no historical or other significance.

Splitting Israel at the Armistice Line makes about as much sense as using the center-line of Bloor Street to split Toronto, with areas to the south being in either the United States or a "liberated Canada".

[ToadBrother]

Who cares what Israel thinks. Legally, under international law, it does not belong to Israel.

Even U.S., Israel's closest ally acknowledges that East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel.

Which means very little since the US clearly isn't going to make a break. Israel won the area in war. In no other war in history do I recall a victor simply handing land back just because the loser (whose allies started the war in the first place) demanded it.

If you want East Jerusalem returned, then you must start demanding the return of the Kurils to Japan, Bohemia to Austria and Danzig to Germany. Otherwise you have to explain why Israel is the target of your demands, and not those countries holding territory lost by losers in a war.

[ToadBrother]

Well, we know that you don't care. Still, Israel has the last word on this matter...not you or "international law".

I'd be interested to see what "international law" actually states that. The UN certainly had some idea of partitioning the region, but continued attempted invasions by surrounding countries, with a lack of any kind of response from the UN in Israel's defense suggests to me that whatever small value there was in the original partitioning, the reality is the Palestinians lost the territory via wars fought on their behalf by simpering morons. That's what you get when your big bad pals with their big bad guns turn out to be incomprehensibly incompetent.

"Even the U.S"....supports Israel's policies and practices with money and hardware.

Yup. The US has made that very clear over the last half century.

[Bonam]

But let's look at another thing. Israel gives permits for Jews to build settlements in Gaza. We know that it is on Palestinian land (if there really is such a thing now) , and what of those? Yes the West Bank has been abandoned by the Jews, I guess seeing the errs of the settlements.

There are no Israeli settlements in Gaza. Israel does not and has not in recent years approved the building of any such settlements in Gaza. Please consider learning at least such basic facts about the conflict and its history prior to opining on the subject.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

Which means very little since the US clearly isn't going to make a break. Israel won the area in war. In no other war in history do I recall a victor simply handing land back just because the loser (whose allies started the war in the first place) demanded it.

If you want East Jerusalem returned, then you must start demanding the return of the Kurils to Japan, Bohemia to Austria and Danzig to Germany. Otherwise you have to explain why Israel is the target of your demands, and not those countries holding territory lost by losers in a war.

Which means very little since the US clearly isn't going to make a break. Israel won the area in war. In no other war in history do I recall a victor simply handing land back just because the loser (whose allies started the war in the first place) demanded it.

The narrative that the war in 1967 was defensive is debateable and partially true at best.

The war was actually preceeded by attempts by both sides to increase the ammount of water they were drawing from the River Jordan. In 1964 Israel started using its national water carrier to pump water out of the Jordan Basin reducing the ammount of water that flowed into Hashemite territory. Arab states responded by starting a water diversion project of their own to divert water from the Litanny river to a dam at Mukhaiba. Israel bombed Syria in 1965 over the water diversion project, and that set off a constant series of skirmishes along the border that eventually lead to the war.

The question of "who started it", isnt as straight forward as you think. A more accurate description would be that the war was over a dispute over who controlled the Jordans headwaters, with BOTH sides being willing to throw down to defend their respective positions.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The question of "who started it", isnt as straight forward as you think. A more accurate description would be that the war was over a dispute over who controlled the Jordans headwaters, with BOTH sides being willing to throw down to defend their respective positions.

...a moot point, as certainly there is no debate about which side won.

[dre]

...a moot point, as certainly there is no debate about which side won.

Yes a moot point... UNLESS people are using the half-truth that it was a "defensive" war as justification for keeping some of the territory.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes a moot point... UNLESS people are using the half-truth that it was a "defensive" war as justification for keeping some of the territory.

What was Nasser doing leading-up to June 1967?

[dre]

What was Nasser doing leading-up to June 1967?

Booting the UN off the Sinai, and putting troops and tanks there, closing the straights of Tiran, and other provactive shit.

But Israel had already attacked Syria a full year before any of that stuff, and there had already been constant clashes along the border. So its facetious and false to say that the conflict began with Nasser on the Sinai. One could just as easily say the first punch was thrown a year before when Israel bombed Syria. Or they could say the first punch was Israels diversion of water away from the Hashemites. Or they could say it was the Arab water diversion project.

Attempts to characterize the conflict as a one sided scenario where the Israelis are the victims of their Arab neighbors are flat out false. What we have is a case of TWO HOSTILE BELLIGERENTS with designs on the same natural resources.

[Bonam]

Booting the UN off the Sinai, and putting troops and tanks there, closing the straights of Tiran, and other provactive shit.

But Israel had already attacked Syria a full year before any of that stuff, and there had already been constant clashes along the border. So its facetious and false to say that the conflict began with Nasser on the Sinai. One could just as easily say the first punch was thrown a year before when Israel bombed Syria. Or they could say the first punch was Israels diversion of water away from the Hashemites. Or they could say it was the Arab water diversion project.

Attempts to characterize the conflict as a one sided scenario where the Israelis are the victims of their Arab neighbors are flat out false. What we have is a case of TWO HOSTILE BELLIGERENTS with designs on the same natural resources.

No what we have is Israel faced with a pan-Arabist movement, led by Nasser, with the clear intent of eradicating Israel as one of its goals. This intent was not to be taken lightly, given that they had previously attempted to do so in 1948 and in 1956.

[dre]

No what we have is Israel faced with a pan-Arabist movement, led by Nasser, with the clear intent of eradicating Israel as one of its goals. This intent was not to be taken lightly, given that they had previously attempted to do so in 1948 and in 1956.

Nope thats just not the whole story. An escalating chain of events and MUTUAL hostility lead to the war, and it was a garden variety dispute over water. The "Israel as a victim" talking point falls flat on its face as soon as its placed in any kind of historical context.

Again what we have is two hostile belligerents competing for the only major water source in an arid region.

The "defensive war" talking point, is and has always been horseshit.

[Bonam]

Nope thats just not the whole story. An escalating chain of events and MUTUAL hostility lead to the war, and it was a garden variety dispute over water. The "Israel as a victim" talking point falls flat on its face as soon as its placed in any kind of historical context.

Again what we have is two hostile belligerents competing for the only major water source in an arid region.

The "defensive war" talking point, is and has always been horseshit.

Of course there was hostility. Who wouldn't feel some hostility towards nations that had tried with all their might to drive you into the sea two times in just the last 20 years? Oh and it's not about being a "victim", it's about being surrounded by hostile states and needing to provide for security.

The whole chain of events talk is pointless. There is a "chain of events" in this particular conflict leading back however far you care to trace it. Some people try to cut it off where the argument seems favorable for their side. But the reality is simple, this has gone on back and forth for so long that it is completely irrelevant what offense was the very first. Some long forgotten deed about 5000 years ago no doubt. What matters is the situation leading up to any particular conflict. In 1967, Israel was faced with imminent invasion from a pan-Arabist movement, and had to ensure its own survival.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

Nope thats just not the whole story. An escalating chain of events and MUTUAL hostility lead to the war, and it was a garden variety dispute over water. The "Israel as a victim" talking point falls flat on its face as soon as its placed in any kind of historical context.

Again what we have is two hostile belligerents competing for the only major water source in an arid region.

The "defensive war" talking point, is and has always been horseshit.

So Israel had plans to invade Egypt, Syria and Jordan?

Edited July 16, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Remiel]

The so-called distinction between the Old and New City is a figment of the 1948 Armistice Line and nothing more. When Israel declared independence and that independence was recognized by the U.N. the surrounding states simultaneously attacked Israel. Israel, to everyone's surprised, clawed back from the invasion. Israel was put under heavy pressure to stop fighting in place at arbitrary locations when the nascent IDF (or maybe it was still called the Haganah) was succeeding militarily. The Armistice Line thus has no historical or other significance.

Splitting Israel at the Armistice Line makes about as much sense as using the center-line of Bloor Street to split Toronto, with areas to the south being in either the United States or a "liberated Canada".

What would you consider non-abritrary? Surely there are large swaths of land throughout Jerusalem that were not surrounded by the city walls when Jerusalem was the capital of the Jews in antiquity. The " indivisibleness " of Jerusalem seems to be based more on the name than on the foundations left by inhabitants of ages past.

[jbg]

What was Nasser doing leading-up to June 1967?

Singing "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" with Tiny Tim on Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In.

[jbg]

The "defensive war" talking point, is and has always been horseshit.

The norm is for countries, even ones that don't like each other to "recognize" other countries. There are exceptions such as the Confederate States of America, and good reasons for not recognizing breakaway, irredentist entities. That being said, when the bordering states chose not to "recognize" Israel and indeed maintained states of war post 1948 they were taking their chances on annihilation or defeat by Israel.