Probably not, but it will will give succor to those who would support the settlements no matter what. Who holds the deeds to those lands, and in what country(s) do they reside? It seems that laws involving illegal immigration and trespassing might be involved.
Generally, I believe, the land is owned by the Israeli government. Authorized settlements, at least, have to be built on either state land or private Israeli-owned land and be granted government authorization. Illegal settlements, of course, are another question.
But when people talk about settlements being a problem they are always refering to illegal settlements built in the Occupied Territories, no one is trying to tell Israel what it can build on its own land. Seeing as around 500,000 settlers are living illegally on land that is not part of Israel that’s quite a problem.
Easy solution: the 500,000 declare sovereignty and form the nation of New Isreal or East Israel.
No, people are complaining about the authorized settlements in the territories too, not just the illegal ones. And your numbers are wrong. There are about 267,000 West Bank settlers, not 500,000. And most of the 267,000 settlers live in authorized settlements. Very few settlers live in unauthorized or illegal settlements.
Again, in terms of definitions, an authorized settlement is one that’s built on Israeli government land in the West Bank with the prior approval of the Israeli government, an unauthorized settlement is one that’s built on Israeli government land in the West Bank without the approval of the Israeli government, and an illegal settlement is one that’s built on private Palestinian land in the West Bank without the approval of the Israeli government.
Why is settlement activity any less unethical in Jerusalem? Is the notion that you can achieve peace without some sort of compromise on Jerusalem? If we can’t achieve peace without Jerusalem and Israel is not going to compromise on jerusalem then why is settlement activity in the Wb any more of an onstructin to peace than jerusalem construction?
Israel may not want to relinquish control of jerusalem to the palestinian but perhaps they can relinquich control to the Tibetans of something.
Because Jerusalem is part of Israel and the capital of Israel.
If they had committed genocide, there would not have been peace with Egypt, they would not have had the overwhelming US support they have enjoyed over the decades. there would have been perpetual war and Israel might not exist right now. When the Ottomans killed the Armenians, they were not surrounded by majority Armenian countries, people might no forget quite so easily if they were.
That’s because there is regime change. If the nazi party was still in power we might not forget so easily.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
There is stil a great amount of antipathy towards Japan in Asia. When North Korea got the nuke, people weren’t worried about them using it on China or Korea, they were worried about north korea nuking Japan.
Aside from the juxtaposition of a Jewish genocide of Palestinian after they experienced the holocaust, it would have made their future FAR more uncertain.
I gave my reasons - because I think being a settler is unethical because one reasonably ought to know it stands in the way of a peace settlement. Israel will never, in my opinion, relinquish control over its capital city, regardless of the settlers’ existance or not, and IMO it is unreasonable to expect it to. Therefore, being a “settler” in that particular location is not standing in the way of a peace settlement.
I suppose if the Palestinians are equally set on that issue, then being a settler anywhere doesn’t matter and for the same reason - but I seriously doubt this is the case. There are three basic demands in play:
1 - control over Jerusalem;
2 - a Palestinian “right or return” to Israel proper; and
3 - control over all or substantially all of the WB.
The Palestinains must realize that they will not, through negotiation, get all three.
Of these three, I suspect that:
-
No current or imaginable Israeli gov’t will ever voluntarily relinquish control over the city of Jerusalem. It’s a non-starter.
-
No Israeli gov’t will ever give an unrestricted Palestinian “right of return”. Though they may well compromise and provide payments to those actually dispossessed by the various wars; and
-
Every Israeli gov’t realizes the necessity of giving back substantially all of the WB, though they are not above slicing off this bit or that, whatever they can get away with.
The Settlers make a compromise on point 3 harder than it otherwise would be.
I’m guessing there is something missing in this sentence. I assume you mean that Israel ought to hand over control of Jerusalem to some third party agency. This is a non-starter as well - there are none which have acumulated enough trust in that part of the world. Certainly not the UN - their performance during '67 have sorta immunized the Israelis against trusting them.
Well it engages in its own form of racial oppression.
Its not as pronounced or severe as it was in South Africa, Serbia or the Mongol Empire but its hard to argue that there isn’t legal and institutional discrimination against Palestinians.
For examples laws like: Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law - Wikipedia
seem discriminatory.
My understanding is that Israeli arabs are second class citizens.
I think this bears repeating. Its not that israel does stufft that noone else in the world does, its that we tend to criticize people that do this stuff, unless its Israel. If its Israel then we say "oh, ermm, well, theyr eally shouldn’t do it and i don’t really support what they do but umm ermm, HEY LOOK OVER THERE, ARMENIAN GENOCIDE!!! Israel’s not as bad as THAT!
Of course there’s discrimination against Palestinians, but how are Israeli Arabs “second class citizens”?
Not everywhere: Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law - Wikipedia
See above.
While I don’t like that particular law, I can certainly see why a state that is at war with, or having a prolonged conflict with, persons from a particular geographic area or state may not wish to grant automatic citizenship to persons from that area or state.
I disagree with the description of Arab Israelis as “second class citizens”. There is no doubt that they can face discrimination from some in the majority population.
Wait, did they implement the two state solution and not tell anyone?
You’re omitting any mention of the views of the other side that would have to agree for it constitute either peace or a settlement. You cannot have a negotiation, in any situation anywhere, that starts with anything being unilaterally declared non-negotiable. Doesn’t work.
No, but Palestinians still aren’t Israeli citizens, so I don’t really understand why you’re asking.
I don’t agree. If by “we” you mean “official UN organizations”, Israel gets far more than its purportional share of opprobrium.
You’ve read the uplift wars haven’t you.
No, you are misreading what I’m writing.
I’m stating it as my opinion that Israel would never agree to this concession. From what I know of Israelis and Israel, they won’t.
Of course you can have a negotiation where certain things are declared non-negotiable. The other side may make you pay for that, of course, by increasing their demands in other areas - but the Palestinians are starting out with a lousy hand, and one that is getting worse and not better over time.