It would be clearer if you would actually answer my question. I will try again:
From your post, I take it that to you “Palestinian land” means any privately owned land which is owned by Palestinian Arabs, as determined by the Israeli court system. Is that correct?
Simple yes or no question.
Would you mind summarizing the court ruling you are referring to?
It depends on what this court ruling says. In my country (the United States), it happens on a regular basis that there is a court ruling that Citizen X is on the land of Citizen Y and must leave. Land disputes happen on a regular basis and the normal resolution is that the court adjudicates the dispute. Are you claiming that this does not happen in the Israeli system? If so, I’m going to need some cites from you. And if not, then what exactly is the problem for you?
Also, please answer my question from before:
What concessions should the Palestinian Arabs make, in your view?
Why do you keep ignoring this question?
What concessions should the Palestinian Arabs make, in your view?
What concessions should the Palestinian Arabs make, in your view?
What concessions should the Palestinian Arabs make, in your view?
Would you mind defining the concept of “proportional response”?
For example, if the United States bombs a terrorist training camp and kills 100 people without suffering any of its own casualties, does that fall outside the concept of “proportional response”?
And if so, does that mean that the United States’ actions were immoral? illegal? Something else?
This raises an important point. It seems that Hamas is deliberately putting the residents of Gaza in the line of fire in part because they know Israel will be criticized for any harm. If people would put the blame for this harms where it belongs – on Hamas – then Hamas would have a lot less incentive to do this kind of human shielding. So by criticizing Israel for these sorts of casualties, people are in a very real sense harming the people they are pretending they want to help.
You’re about to go on a gish gallop but I’ll play along until it gets ridiculous. Yes, “Palestinian land” means land owned by Palestinians. Sometimes the Israeli courts even back that up. I have posted links to two such cases where the Israeli courts ruled in favor of the Palestinians but the government and/or the military ignored it.
I already gave the cites. If you really are interested in an honest debate you can look them up.
I have made myself quite clear on this: The Palestinians should have to make absolutely no concessions to be treated morally and legally by the Israelis. There should be no requirements made on Palestinians to stop Israel from stealing their land.
A lasting peace will require many concessions by both sides but it starts with Israel unilaterally stopping the illegal actions.
The irony seems completely lost on this crowd. And it’s not even a novel tactic.
They know the backwards logic and ethics that exist in the minds of these men, they know the moral bankruptcy of their souls, that would raise raw numbers above intent, and so the cynics of Hamas use the fools in the left of this world to echo the horrors of the Israelis while ignoring the far worse intentional crimes of those who instigated the entire cycle of violence in the first place. What’s the deaths of a few jews and a hundred Palestinians compared to increased sanction and negative attitudes towards the actions of Israel in its DEFENSE around the world. Plus one for the forces of murder and intentional chaos and genocide and hatred, and their fool supporters who blindly give them the oxygen they need to breath and thrive.
I simply asked you to define a term you were using. It was a reasonable request and there is no need to attack me for it.
Ok thank you for clearing that up.
All I saw was one case where the courts decided that Jews were on privately own land; ordered them off; and they were indeed evacuated. In other words, a land dispute was adjudicated by the court system just like land disputes are resolved by the court systems in countries all over the world.
Are you claiming that this is not how things work in Israel?
Ummm, I’m a little confused. Earlier, you said this:
Are you retracting this claim? Also, are you claiming that even today, there are decisions of the Israeli courts over land disputes which are being ignored by the Israeli military? Last, can we agree that it’s illegal to fund terrorism?
You missed the part where the Palestinians still didn’t have their land back; meanwhile high government officials are lobbying for the settlers. In Kafr Bir’im they never got all their land back and what they did get back was razed.
You quoted my pertinent statement:
A lasting peace will require many concessions by both sides but it starts with Israel unilaterally stopping the illegal actions.
“Illegal” says who? The corrupt UN, which allows serial human rights offenders to sit on their human rights councils and commissions? The Palestinians and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, because they want it to be “illegal?”
One could easily argue the WB “occpuation” is perfectly legal because before 1967, it had been annexed by Jordan in 1949, an action only recognized by UK and Pakistan. Therefore, WB was “terra nullius.”
As noted above, in some cases by Israeli courts of law.
If a farmer has a grove of olive trees, and an Israeli settlement comes along and pushes him out of it, that’s illegal. Yet it has happened. In some cases, the courts have ordered this reversed or stopped, but, alas, not in all cases – and as noted above, the settlements have not always bothered to obey the courts.
Settlement building that involves seizure of land from Palestinians currently occupying it is one of the bigger obstacles to peace. It isn’t as bad as rocket launches, but it’s bad, it’s ugly, it’s evil, and it is illegal under Israeli law.
Settlement building in unoccupied land is somewhat more justifiable; it’s troubling, but there isn’t any specific law that prohibits it. The land, as a region, does not belong to the Palestinians. (If anyone, it belongs to Jordan…but Jordan doesn’t want it.)
Even assuming that’s true, it’s simply a matter of petitioning the court system for relief. Show me the specific court order which has been ignored. Otherwise your claim is incorrect.
Then again my question: What are some of the “many concessions” required of the Palestinian Arabs?
Also, do you agree that the Palestinian Arabs must unilaterally stop their illegal actions, e.g. the rocketing attacks against civilians, the use of human shields, attempting to steal Jewish land, etc.?
I think the problem here, Deeg, is that you’re conflating two separate issues, that of national rights and that of individual rights. It’s a very American thing to do, but it’s not really relevant here.
Yes, individual Israelis and the Israeli government has taken land from individual Palestinian, and while this is something that should be corrected, as things go it’s a relatively minor issue. That’s because the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is about sovereignty, not ownership. When Arabs say “Palestinian lands”, they aren’t referring to land owned by individual Palestinians, they are referring to lands that they believe should be part of a Palestinian state. Even if Israel returned all the land to what they believe to be is owners, it wouldn’t come close to solving the conflict, because that land would still be *ruled *by Israel.
You don’t think that returning all the people to their land would have an impact on who gets elected in Israel? or are you proposing returning the legal right to the land but not letting the owners back into the country?
I agree it’s not a big deal in terms of the overall conflict, but at the same time, Deeg gets to define his terms however he likes. Here, has defined the term “Palestinian land” to mean private land owned by individuals who are Palestinian Arabs; and that ownership is to be determined by the Israeli court system.
His argument is (or seems to be) that Israel is in the wrong in the overall conflict because individual Israelis are stealing or attempting to steal “Palestinian land” as he has defined that term. He says that Israel must unilaterally stop this behavior as a precondition to peace without any concessions on the part of the Palestinian Arabs.
I see a few problems with his argument. First, he needs to demonstrate that there really is land theft going on as he has defined it. Of course land ownership disputes happen all the time all over the world and these disputes are regularly resolved by the courts. To be sure, there are probably people who claim to have won in court but the authorities won’t enforce their rights. But such a claim needs to be backed up with a specific cite to the court decision at issue. Because private parties to disputes are not reliable sources about the dispute. Many of them will make any claim to a newspaper and many newspapers will uncritically accept such claims.
So far, Deeg has failed to substantiate his claim about theft of “Palestinian Land”
Perhaps more importantly though, Deeg seems to be ignoring far worse behavior on the part of the Palestinian Arabs. Where is his call for them to stop the rocketings, kidnappings, incitement, and so on? Where is his call for them to stop attempting to steal Jewish land? Where is his call for them to unilaterally cease these behaviors?
Why can’t there be an international buffer between the Palestinian West Bank and Israel state proper, manned by the UN or some neutral peacekeeping force in perpetuity? (Gaza would be separate issue due to Hamas being belligerent more than Fatah) Has this ever been broached as an alternative?
I would think that Israel would object to having international troops there on land it considers its own. I don’t know what the Palestinians, or which faction of them, thinks about it.
This has been tried before, and was a notorious failure.
The UN had peacekeeping troops between Israel and Egypt prior to the '67 war.
What happened was, Nasser ordered them to leave, so that he could threaten Israel … and, tamely, they left.
They proposed that the UN allow the peacekeepers to deploy on the Israeli side instead, but Israel refused to trust them after that.
Since then, it was conventional wisdom, in both Israel and other ME countries, that one could not actually rely on UN peacekeepers as a barrier between belligerent nations.
I simply asked you to define a term you were using. It was a reasonable request and there is no need to attack me for it.