palestinians build 'settlement' near jerusalem and receive evi

[bud]

this is interesting; build palestinian settlements on palestinian land, before it's annexed and settled by israel.

a group of around 250 palestinian activists comprised of people from the surrounding villages have built a settlement on land they say is privately owned by palestinians.

”This is a popular response to Israel’s plan to expand its settlements, especially in this area,” Muhammad Khatib of the Bil’in Popular Committee told

+972

.

they were soon met by israeli police who handed them eviction notices. the activists had prepared a petition in advance and have received a 6 day warrant delaying the eviction.

this is not the first time that palestinian activists have done this. on two previous occasions, smaller groups have attempted the same thing and at the end, they were evicted and their posts were demolished.

[jbg]

Bud, do you have anything better to do other than inveigh against Israel? Did it ever occur to you that Israel's existence is threatened daily?

[TheNewTeddy]

I'd actually like to see the response to this rather than an attack on the author.

[dre]

Bud, do you have anything better to do other than inveigh against Israel? Did it ever occur to you that Israel's existence is threatened daily?

[Guest American Woman]

I'd actually like to see the response to this rather than an attack on the author.

Just so you know, the author used to be "dub" - and came back as "bud" after he was banned. I don't see jbg's response so much as an attack as a genuine question - it is all bud does here and all dub did - as well as a couple of others that I won't get into. I understand your point, so thought a little background info might help.

[TheNewTeddy]

I don't care who he is. I'd still like to see an answer. If you'd like I can post my own take on the topic in another thread.

[bud]

Bud, do you have anything better to do other than inveigh against Israel? Did it ever occur to you that Israel's existence is threatened daily?

jbg.. i would respond to your question, but i don't see how posting about palestinians building a settlement on their own private land has anything to do with israel's existence.

[Canuckistani]

If this land is owned by Palestinians, and they settlers have permission from the owners to settle there, I can't for the life of me see what justification Israel is using to prevent this.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's exactly what the Caledonia protesters said about their Haldimand tract in Ontario.

[jbg]

If this land is owned by Palestinians, and they settlers have permission from the owners to settle there, I can't for the life of me see what justification Israel is using to prevent this.

The "Palestinians," if you want to call them that, went to war against Israel in1967. The war started between Egypt and Israel and the Palestinians, under the nominal aegis of Jordan, leaped in, despite Israeli entities to stay out. They lost the war and now are boo-hooing for the land they lost. Now they want a mulligan?

Under the rules that apply to any country besides Israel if you start a war and lose it you lose territory.

And by the way is Kaliningrad (link, excerpt below) going back to Germany?

Russia's smallest oblast (region) of Kaliningrad is an exclave located 200 miles away from the border of Russia proper. Kaliningrad was a spoil of World War II, allocated from Germany to the Soviet Union at the Potsdam Conference that divided Europe between the allied powers in 1945. The oblast is a wedge-shaped piece of land along the Baltic Sea between Poland and Lithuania, approximately one-half the size of Belgium, 5,830 mi2 (15,100 km2). The oblast's primary and port city is also known as Kaliningrad.

Known as Konigsberg prior to Soviet occupation, the city was founded in 1255 near the mouth of the Pregolya River. The philosopher Immanuel Kant was born in Konigsberg in 1724. The capital of German East Prussia, Konigsberg was the home to a grand Prussian Royal Castle, destroyed along with much of the city in World War II.

Konigsberg was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946 after Mikhail Kalinin, formal "leader" of the Soviet Union from 1919 until 1946. At the time, Germans living in the oblast were forced out, to be replaced with Soviet citizens. While there were early proposals to change the name of Kaliningrad back to Konigsberg, none were successful.

[Canuckistani]

The "Palestinians," if you want to call them that, went to war against Israel in1967. The war started between Egypt and Israel and the Palestinians, under the nominal aegis of Jordan, leaped in, despite Israeli entities to stay out. They lost the war and now are boo-hooing for the land they lost. Now they want a mulligan?

Under the rules that apply to any country besides Israel if you start a war and lose it you lose territory.

And by the way is Kaliningrad (link, excerpt below) going back to Germany?

Russia's smallest oblast (region) of Kaliningrad is an exclave located 200 miles away from the border of Russia proper. Kaliningrad was a spoil of World War II, allocated from Germany to the Soviet Union at the Potsdam Conference that divided Europe between the allied powers in 1945. The oblast is a wedge-shaped piece of land along the Baltic Sea between Poland and Lithuania, approximately one-half the size of Belgium, 5,830 mi2 (15,100 km2). The oblast's primary and port city is also known as Kaliningrad.

Known as Konigsberg prior to Soviet occupation, the city was founded in 1255 near the mouth of the Pregolya River. The philosopher Immanuel Kant was born in Konigsberg in 1724. The capital of German East Prussia, Konigsberg was the home to a grand Prussian Royal Castle, destroyed along with much of the city in World War II.

Konigsberg was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946 after Mikhail Kalinin, formal "leader" of the Soviet Union from 1919 until 1946. At the time, Germans living in the oblast were forced out, to be replaced with Soviet citizens. While there were early proposals to change the name of Kaliningrad back to Konigsberg, none were successful.

Is this it official Israeli position on this?

[jbg]

Is this it official Israeli position on this?

I would have no clue.

Certainly that is the position regarding Jerusalem and parts if not all of the Golan Heights. I believe Israel is officially open to negotiations on other territories but Arab insistence of "right of return" and other unrealistic demands are fast destroying any chance of an outcome constructive to the Palestinians.

[Canuckistani]

You used my comment as a spring board, don't know why in that case. This is apparently Palestinian land. If the owners of the land have no problem with this (this I don't know) why would Israel? If Israel wants to make annexation of all Palestinian lands official policy, well let them. Be more honest than what they are doing now. Might be too big a chunk of reality for their American backers to swallow tho.

Thing is, Israel is caught in a bind. If they annex the Palestinian lands, but don't ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, they will have a huge minority, that by demographics will become a majority, as enemies within their midst. Israel will become the New South Africa - well, some people think they already are. Ethnic cleansing will sure kick the crap out of the eternal claim to victim hood by Jews. IMO, Isreal is much better off retreating behind pre '67 boundraries, let the Palestinians have their shitty little bit of land and have Israel come out being the good guys. Any attacks by Palestinians would then be state to state attacks, with the Israeli army able to kick ass and militarily occupy the land to restore peace, with the full backing of any right thinking nation. It would be a lot better than any alternative I can see. Israel should hire me as their PR advisor.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Canuckistani

[jbg]

IMO, Isreal is much better off retreating behind pre '67 boundraries, let the Palestinians have their shitty little bit of land and have Israel come out being the good guys. Any attacks by Palestinians would then be state to state attacks, with the Israeli army able to kick ass and militarily occupy the land to restore peace, with the full backing of any right thinking nation. It would be a lot better than any alternative I can see. Israel should hire me as their PR advisor.

The problem there is that state-to-state war already happened. If they returned the land and were forced to return in a state-to-state war, they'd be in same bind.

Same s*** different day.

[Canuckistani]

The problem there is that state-to-state war already happened. If they returned the land and were forced to return in a state-to-state war, they'd be in same bind.

Same s*** different day.

Much less of a bind than their current policy puts them in. Israel may not have a choice between wonderful and terrible, but less bad is better than more bad.

[jbg]

Much less of a bind than their current policy puts them in. Israel may not have a choice between wonderful and terrible, but less bad is better than more bad.

The problem is that the Arab inhabitants have shown no inclination to accept even pre-1967 Israel. That means that as sure as sunset follows sunrise the Arabs will launch a war against a shrunken Israel with insecure boundaries. To prevent being wiped out Israel will again have to strike pre-emptively. It will thus have the same ethnic cleansing v. South African conundrum it now faces.

[bud]

Under the rules that apply to any country besides Israel if you start a war and lose it you lose territory.

what utter nonsense. stop pretending that it's okay to disregard law.

israel, once again, shows its disregard for law. even when its own:

The residents of the area E1 were evicted Sunday night but their tents were left standing, in line with the Supreme Court's temporary injunction.

here is israel's leader talking about the palestinian settlement, on palestinian land:

"When I was informed of this I immediately ordered its eviction which was indeed performed in the best possible way last night."

Netanyahu added: "We will not let anyone damage the contiguity between Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim."

what's interesting are the comments made by people below the article. here is a taste of some of them:

Only idiots would leave this to the not-Supreme court. Citizens need to rise up and move that fake court to gaza where it belongs

another:

Either Israel has a high court and

it is respected ,or just dismantle it completely and admit that we have total military rule,with of course,some extremist religious rule thrown in.

A high Court is not there only if we happen to agree with it.Much as I wish for a peaceful 2 state solution,by not leaving those tents and people,and by injuring them(even unintentionally,Israel is playing into the hands of all of its critics and ignoring its own law.It is obviously a Netanyahu ploy to look 'strong' before elections.Again I have to say "Not In My Name'.

but most of the comments are like this:

the high court is a clear and present danger to israel

the high court regularly abuses its power and it regularly sides with law breaking arabs.

the high court has not the authority to determine israel's borders.

the determination of israel's borders belong to the prime minister and his government.

israel and israelis are flushing themselves down the toilet and into a self-admitting fascist state.

[bud]

The problem is that the Arab inhabitants have shown no inclination to accept even pre-1967 Israel.

i sometimes wonder how much nonsense you'd be able to post in one thread:

1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

[DogOnPorch]

The problem is that the Arab inhabitants have shown no inclination to accept even pre-1967 Israel.

Fatah logo...note the inset map of a state made up of Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan. Seems that even "moderate" Fatah seeks Israel's destruction. I assume the Mufti's gold dome signifies that Jerusalem...or al-Quds as it would be renamed...is the capital.

[TheNewTeddy]

Most Palestinians want a single-state solution.

[jbg]

i sometimes wonder how much nonsense you'd be able to post in one thread:

1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

http://www.jewishvir...ace/recogn.html

Except it wasn't translated into Arabic at the time.

[TheNewTeddy]

Despite that, most Palestinians and especially Israeli Arabs want a one state solution.

For those who don't know that means a single country, whatever the name, that is democratic and free, end story.

Or in other words.

An Israel that is not Jewish.

[DogOnPorch]

Despite that, most Palestinians and especially Israeli Arabs want a one state solution.

For those who don't know that means a single country, whatever the name, that is democratic and free, end story.

Or in other words.

An Israel that is not Jewish.

And not named Israel...

[GostHacked]

Palestinians building on Palestinian land ... what exactly is the problem here?

[TheNewTeddy]

And not named Israel...

Why not? If that's how they can create a "one-state" country, just by naming it Israel, I don't see why they would not avail themselves of the opportunity.