Wow, Henry B. You’ve been jumpin all over these forum threads.
Its fun isn’t it?
To answer your question, and forgive me if I seem to be trivializing it, We pay for our homes (land?) the same way everybody else does- By borrowing from the bank and paying through the nose for the rest of our lives, if we live that long.
By the way, and I think that this was pointed out previously in this thread, although I don’t know for sure since its a pretty old thread, the settlement towns in Judea Samaria and Gazza, unlike some Jewish towns within the green line, were built along side existing Arab villages and cities. Not a single Arab community was displaced by what are today refered to as “settlements”. Settlements were built, populated and developed while the neighboring Arab villages remained in place and continued to grow and prosper.
Does anybody really think that by evacuating towns that did not displace local Arabs (west bank settlements), Israel will satisfy the Palestinians historical claims to abandonded villages which according to their view, were actually displaced by Israeli cities within the green line?
Unfortunately as I am on the road, I shall have to be brief.
With government subventions at rates more advantageous than in 1967 territories.
Of course detials vary as to the level of subvention according to whether it is a sponsored settlement or wildcatting - which may be of course purely private.
For those who may not realize this, the reference to the area of the West Bank as Judea and Samaria is typically found in “Greater Israel” propaganda. I may presume our dear poster is of that line of attack.
Politically it doesn’t strike me as being very much different than the habit in certain Arab circles of speaking of al-araadi al-muhtelah al-'arabiyah fi difet al-ghrabiyah, a circumlocution meaning the Arab Occupied Lands in the West Bank [And Ghraza] which implies all Israel is Arab occupied territory. Substitute Philistiniyah depending on the flavor of the propaganda.
Of course, as to the second point, perhaps it is technically correct, but rather does gloss over expropriations of Palestinian lands (non-urban) for (a) settlements per se -of course always for ‘reasons’ varying form security to title dispute (b) service right of ways to the settlements. Few to none of which have been conducted with proper regard to indigenous rights.
Yes, prosper, that would be the term that springs to mind in regards to the Palestinian economy. Prosper. Rather like the bantustans in SA back in the good old days when the sand nigs knew their place.
Bait and switch, 2 seperate if related problems. The P obsession with land of course arises from 1948 disposessions – those claims and greviences have to be resolved through some kind of compensation / swap. Further settlement expansion in WB and Ghraza simply rubs salt into the wounds.
I forgot, should one desire a reasonably balanced, if imperfect sourcing for settlement issues, http://www.fmep.org/reports/ strikes me as easily accessible.
After all this time this thread gets some fresh activity?
akohl, I think that you are missing the point. (Amazingly henry has one this time.) Who did you pay? If it is the Israeli government that is selling you the home, or who is giving some developer the right to sell it to you, then it is land that sold by a nonowner. Israel never annexed this land, remember? Occupied land is not owned by its occupier, it is managed by its occupier. Its occupier takes on the responsibilty of the welfare of its inhabitants. Yes, it must balance that responsibilty against its own security needs, but not against a desire for cheap homes or against Biblical fufillment.
Of course, you and collounsbury make the same point. (Odd, isn’t it?) While some Arabs would be satisfied with an economically viable Palestine with a future for its children, many others are fixated on the concept that all of Israel is, to them, Arab land occupied by Jews. These segments of the Arab populous include many of those predisposed to terroistic violence and will continue to resort to violence so long as Israel exists as a Jewish state. There is no “compensation/swap” that will satisfy many of that segment.
Any constructive solution must provide a reliable way to shut those activities down. Going back to 1967 borders with jobs and investments in Palestine and pay-outs for lands left behind (by both Arabs in Israel and by Jews who fled Arab atrocities in Arab lands) won’t be enough to do that.
Settlements make it worse and put other Israelis at risk defending the Biblical vision or cheap home vision of the few.
Trusting that Arafat’s PA would shut them down if given a negotiated settlement that they agreed to is unteneble given the record of the PA in aiding and abetting terror efforts.
So each side, please play out for me, how you would constructively accomplish this needed part of any solution?
No entity can control guerilla terror all of the time. Given proper incentives, however, for a authority with street legitimacy reasonable control can be achieved. Lebanon, Jordan.
Peace is not going to be made between virgins. Like Northern Ireland, it will be made between 2 parties which really don’t care very much for each other. The Brits neither trusted nor liked Gerry Adams et al, but in the end, the bullet was bitten.
Not that Bush giving Sharon effective carte blanche is going to get anyone anywhere anytime soon. The fat thug and the dim son want to waltz down the same dead end as Lebanon, well. Another few years of senseless violence.
So, Collounsbury, if I understand you correctly, your position is that Israel could entrust its security from these forces who have dedicated themselves to revenge and to Israel’s destruction at any cost, in a situation of enmeshed borders to the point of a shared Jerusalem, to a Palestinian authority that has made peace with the enemy by compromising on issues such as “the right to return” and given up on some parts of pre-1967 borders (in return for other concessions … that is what any negotiation is about …). That such a PA would have enough “street legimacy” with these forces of violence as to provide security in enmeshed populations. That such a PA would be able to do what it currently says it cannot do and that such an entity could be expected to be true to its word to do so, even though it has been well documented to continue to aid and abet terror efforts even while stating that it is against such tactics. Israel could safely ignore this track record. Given proper incentives. That some incentives exist that would override the costs involved in controlling such terror groups, which include potential assasination attempts against the leaders who have so “sold-out” on the dream of a satisfying revenge.
We may be getting into an argument about facts which I don’t have time to go and dig up. But if anyone can find the relevant information, I hope they post the url.
Having said that, and being willing to stand corrected by research if neccessary, I dispute the relevance of your point, Collounsbury.
I remember getting a very small subsidized loan that was a development town entitlement, which would have applied to homes purchased in development target areas within pre-1967 Israel as well. And when I say small, I mean very small. It was less than 1/2 percent of the cost of the home. In addition, I believe that there are certain dispensations, leniences with regard to undersigning the loans that the mortgage banks give to all home-buyers, with the exception of those who buy homes outside of '67 Israel.
The bottom line is that the success of Jewish towns and villages in Judea and Samaria is not due to loan subsidies but rather to the desire of people to purchase homes there, just like developing residential areas in the U.S. or anywhere else.
First of all, I am not on any line of attack. I am answering a question relating to the question “who’s land is it?” “Line of argument,” would be a better way of characterising it.
Secondly, the terms Judea and Samaria are no more ideological (even less, as I am to argue) than the terms, “West Bank”. Judea and Samaria are legitimate geographical terms based on the Bible and archeology. West Bank, on the other hand, makes no sense in geographical terms and makes sense only as a way of attaching the area to the Arab world instead of Israel. Can someone who lives on top of a 900 meter mountain be living on a river bank, especially when that river (bed, its actually dry in most places) is several hundred meters below sea level? Geographicall, all of Israel could just as easily be included in the term “west bank” as the areas now refered.
As far as comparing my terminolgy to the Arabic nationalistic place naming you mention, well, I don’t know what places those names refer to. But assuming they refer to places, within pre 67 Israel, the comparison is way off.
I refer to places in areas which are now “disputed” and these Arabic names refer to places in an internationally recognized sovereign country, ie Israel. I would not, in a political context, refer to parts of Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria by their Biblical Jewish names. That would be an act of semantic hostility towards those countries.
In contrast,before, 1967 Judea and Samaria were not internationally recognized parts of any sovereign country. Since 1967, Israel did not annex those lands, like it did East Jerusalem and the Golan heights. So they are still disputed.
Thats all that I have time for now. You and DSeid made some other points
that I would like to address. I’m just taking them in order that they appear in the thread.
Just one short answer to DSeid:
Who did I pay?
The previous owner, who bought it from the builder. Its just like buying a house anywhere else. Why do you think it would be different?
It would be nice to get some thoughtfull responses before sunset today so that I could print them up for a nice relaxed weekend read.
akohl, let me try to explain the question one more way. A museum owns a work of art. They had bought it from a collecter who had bought it from some other collecter who got it from the museum doesn’t know where. The museum discovers that the work of art had been stolen by Nazis from a Jew in WWII and the children of the family want it back. It doesn’t matter that the museum bought it, it isn’t the museum’s, it should be returned. Somewhere along the line someone had sold something that wasn’t theirs to sell, and all subsequent sales are invalid.
So was this land bought from Arab owners by a developer, or deeded over to a developer by the Israeli government? The former had a right to sell it; the latter did not have the right to sell or give it away. If the former then it may be legal but is still an obstacle to Israeli security. If the latter then it is illegal too.
The facts are not at my fingertips here. I will try, although I’m not promising, to get them as they relate to my specific case since its an interesting question to me personally.
Regarding the question about Jewish selttlements in general, which is actually more relevant, my understanding is that most of the settlements were established on land which was publicly owned by a government that did not have international recognition for its annexation, unclaimed, or Jewish owned prior to Israel’s conquest of the area.
Why did you assume that the land that my house was built on was previously owned privately by an Arab?
Already done. I may add you could review The Economist’s materials on Israel. Even better, the EIU Israel-Palestine country reports, which would be available at a decent library. You may, when looking up the EIU report wish to pay particular attention to the section on the housing economy in the region.
How very disingenuous. That’s not terribly interesting or novel, but of course you do. The relevance is there are subsidies to settlement in occupied territories. Settlements which are both illegal on their face under international law and which undermine chances for a reasonable accommodation with the Palestinians.
Indeed the poor old Mitchell report made this very point way back when. Let me quote from an analysis from The Economist back in 10 May 2001:
One may further note the analysis in
“Israeli settlements and the Palestinian uprising
Apr 26th 2001 | EAST JERUSALEM”
As one can see, from such data (and see below) while the market is not irrelevant to settlement activity, it is clearly a secondary point as typically house building does not occur in free markets on disputed lands – for market reasons.
The bottom line is that settlements in The West Bank and Ghaza are not legal, whether they are successful or not, by commercial or other means is entirely irrelevant.
Further the issue of language, naming and The West Bank :
Yes, you are answering the question, in a wonderful spin of disinformation and half-truths. Line of attack, line of argument….
Now to the real disinformation.
[quote]
Secondly, the terms Judea and Samaria are no more ideological (even less, as I am to argue) than the terms, “West Bank”.
[/quote
Ah yes, of course you would think so, you genuinely believe the propaganda. That’s fine, the hardline Palestinians say the same motherfucking thing about Israel – it’s not ‘ideological’ in their view to use the old historical name, Philistine…. I give this argument as much credence as yours.
To be clear, that would be none.
Yes, it is entirely unideological to unearth terms not used in thousands of years, outside certain ideological circles. It would make perfect sense, of course, to refer to Iraq as Ur and Babylon – after all they’re legitimate terms based on the Bible and archaelogy.
And of course it wouldn’t be ideological at all for Germans to refer to Western Poland as ‘Prussia’ and Czechoslovakia’s western districts as Sudetenland, to the exclusion of reference to their current actual names. Yes, nothing ideologically charged about that, eh what?
Bullshit. Motherfucking bullshit. Insofar as all geographical terms are inherently up to human definition the objection is ridiculous. The West Bank simply refers to lands along the – and get this little piece of innovation – west bank of the Jordan river. Positively illogical, insofar as the West Bank territory is earthshakingly strangely located along the west bank of the Jordan river.
Regional designation. See above. Easy enough. No more illogical than unearthing names of long vanished ancient kingdoms –ooh which just happen to have Jewish connections and thus assert and argument as to ownership—versus the bland designation of West Bank (region).
Odd you are so unacquainted with the term – Arab occupied territories. It’s been the favorite for years. I noted the same semantical plays to assert ownership. Arab Occupied Territories in the West Bank and Gaza. The real part, as I noted and you oddly gloss over, is the implied assertion that there are more occupied territories, the turn of phrase implying that. I presume you are capable of reading the plain English translation I provided and can connect Gaza and West Bank with real places, eh yes?
Odd you can recognize this but not recognize the semantic hostility in re the assertion of ownership over the West Bank.
No, they were internationally recognized territory for the once and future establishment of some kind of Palestinian state.
As for Dseid’s mischaracterization of my argument, again, asked and answered. We’ve had this discussion and you know bloody well that your characterization and understanding of the process is not mine.
I refer you once more to the IRA example and Great Britain as well as my past posts on this very issue, which I don’t feel like regurgitating for you as you know as well as I how to use a search function.
By the way, to add in reply to akohl’s disingenous question: the assumption would be because as in most of the 3rd world, land registers are fucked up, that traditional land holdings throughout the region were oft unregistered under the legal register (the old Ottoman register, e.g.) for tax and conscription reasons, that overlapping and conflicting claims are prevalent, etc.
These problems are well-known as obstacles to development throughout the developing world - typical indeed of non-developed country conditions.
Your post is full of profanities. You also failed to grasp some of the points I made, probably because you read my post too quickly and in the wrong state of mind - probably anger.
I didn’t have time to go through the whole think thoroughly.
Hopefully, I will get a chance to go through it next week along with some other posts in this thread. Unfortunately, your post is not suitable as an enjoyable weekend read mainly because of the profanities. So its going to have to wait a bit longer for a response.
Yes I am punishing you Collounsbury. Please don’t cry too much.
akohl If not bought from someone then it was land that is under Israeli control by virtue of occupation alone. Whether or not Jordan had any right to annex it is irrelevant, it was never Israels to distribute.
Coll I don’t bloody motherfucking know what bullshit you are saying is misrepresented. Having fucking bloody well read your motherfucking posts in the past, I think that it represents fairly acurately your godamned positions, at least to the best of my fucked up ability of understanding them. Whew. What power these words have. :rolleyes:
akohl your security ideas would also be appreciated.
Well, no. It was Jordan, which had annexed that land back in 1948 (was this action internationally recognized, or just condoned?), and was using it as a staging ground for its attacks against Israel and as a place to store refugees in squalid conditions. Pre-1967 borders could have been made into a functional Palestine at any point before 1967 if only the Arab powers had so desired that to occur. (Talk about “motherfucking bullshit”!)
I think you are confusing private ownership with the domain of the state. The state, whether a administered by a democracy, dictatorship, or military form of governance has underlying ownership over all property. The government can take your house away from you, destroy it, and build a highway through it if it wants to. If its a nice guy government they will give you a chance to appeal and at least offer you fair compensation when they ignore that appeal. The government can also allot un-owned property to developers or to homesteaders for free or to the highest bidder… You get the idea. And yes it is by virtue of their rule over the land that governments are able to do this.
Israel’s rule over Judea, Samaria and Gaza is no different. They can allot plots of land, set municipal boundries and so on. Its all by virtue of the Israeli government’s rule over the territories that they are able to do this and by virtue of their rule over the rest of Israel that they are able to do this there as well. Its no different from any other government doing its job.
Of course we would have every right to be critical of a governemt that exploited its authority to dispossess people of their private property unfairly. Well my point is that Israel did not do that here. Private land was not confiscated from individuals in order to obtain the land that my house was built on. The developer might have purchased the land from some previous private owner or he may have been alloted the land by a government that was dealing with land that was at its disposal and did not neccesarily have to be purchased from a private owner.
So I think you are wrong to insist that the land was not Israel’s to distribute. It had to administer the territories. And allocating land for residential areas is part of that task. You seem to imply that every bit of land in the Middle east that is not currently owned by an Arab, had to be purchased from one sometime in the past or it is not rightfully owned.
Actually, I am not confused. It is different when the state excercises its domain over land that is part of it vs when it excercises domain over occupied territory that it has not annexed. It has a right to excercise domain over occupied land only for the purpose of serving the occupied people and for its own security needs.
[slight hijack]I’d like to be clear on this one point. IMHO it sure appears that Isreal claims extraterritoriality over the settlements and access to the settlements. That is, Israeli law and not Palestinian law applies? Would this be a fair characterization? Along the same lines, what areas have Israel officially annexed? Thanks [/slight hijack]
DSeid,
If you weren’t confused on that point then you are simply being unfair in that you are disregarding completely the rights of Jewish people to make our homes here.
You are saying that Israel should have, with regard to residential development, operated entirely in service of the occupied people and presumabley, their national agenda as well, which in this case would include keeping Jews out. You would probably object to the Jordanian law prohibiting sale of land to Jews. But you accept that the interest of Arab hegemony should have informed Israel’s aministration.
Well, as the administrators of the territories Israel, and as agents of Jewish nationalism, Israel had an obligation to enable Jews to establish communities here. Certainly with regard to communities that were removed in the past by the Arabs, ie Gush Etzion in the 1948 war and Hebron in the 1922 massacre-riots. Israel’s labour Party governments never really accepted this responsibility. But went along with the settler movement reluctantly. I think its just difficult ideologically for zionist politicians to maintain that Jews have no settlement rights in the land of Israel against the claims of Arab nationalism.
The Jewish people also have rights to live here. These rights have been recognised internationaly in res 242 and in the Olslo accords and in other international declarations. As the administrators of the territories Israel has the obligation to enable Jewish people to live here ALONG SIDE the Arabs, which is what the government did.
My views on security issues?
There’s a limit to what can be accomplished militarilyt. Trust and mutual respect of rights has to be estableished. See me posts
on this earlier in this thread.
Well, since it was not clear, a brief return and I really must work.
No very evidently that is not my position at all. You may desire to reframe my analysis in such terms
That at least is accurate, of course, borders are always a bit enmeshed, eh no? Rather hard to have borders without contact.
Yes, that is the gamble. Either that works, or Israel is at permanent war until demographics finally overwhelm. Insofar as to my read speaking with Palestinians, P-descended Jordanians, etc pre-Intefada II there was a genuine willingness to go with peace with Israel
Ah, you wanna wave your little magic wand and create the perfect negotiating partner? Some nice virgins perhaps?
But this aside, you rather nicely, for your argument if not for a stricter examination, abstract away from a number of items:
(a) The PA effectively (imperfectly but effectively) controlled the situation when
(i) the P’s collectively still had at least minimal faith that negotiations were going to lead to a state (ii) that Israel itself has targeted those very sections of the PA which might otherwise have worked to restrain P extremists inside and out of the PLO
(b) no more are the PA people inclined to turn on their brothers while violence continues and no sign of Israel compromise on state – other than the vague promises of Sharon and the evident bantustanesque policies pursued to date – than Israel is inclined to lay down its arms. When I am getting punched in the face, I don’t just turn to punch my brother, however guilty. Negotiations, a cease-fire and some demonstration by both sides of good faith pursuit. I may add that it has not escaped international notice, or local notice that IDF has largely left Hamas untouched.
It is difficult to parse your point here, but yes it is my analysis that given the proper conditions, a genuine peace may be established. Of course there will always be the extremists who want to blow up the process. The task is to minimize them, to achieve a balance such that the majority of the Palestinians have more to lose than to gain from guerrilla struggle against Israel. Clearly that is not the case now, where the cult of martyrdom is very clearly driven by despair and seething anger. Jordan, Lebanon both have managed to control borders once they were given enough incentives.
Perhaps in your spun world, yes, but otherwise, no.
As to this (in re my somewhat poorly worded ‘once and future’ Palestinian state which may have implied to Dseid I was asserting there was once a P state. I was thinking of this in an ironic sense.)
I believe neither, it was accepted but I do not recall that any (or perhaps better non-Arab) nation recognized Jordan’s assertion of sovereignty which it subsequently relinquished.
As to the squalid conditions, well Jordan has never been a rich country. They might have been able to do more, but certainly the squalor is hard to lay entirely at their feet.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Political positions take time to evolve. Many Arabs thought they could win a military victory, others simply didn’t want to admit the obvious. But that is another issue entirely. Glad you like the phrase by the way, pity it was somewhat misplaced here.
In re akohl’s intervention, well I suppose if one is unable or unwilling to understand the issue of territory versus occupation then everything else follows.
Whew. What power these words have. :rolleyes: