This issue came up when Coldfire strongly disagreed here. It’s a good debate topic, because both sides hold strong views.
I don’t believe that the settlements are an important cause of Middle East tensions, because [ol][]Arabs started attacking Israel decdes before settlements even existed, and they have never really made peace with Israel.[]Although one might worry that settlements could stand in the way of a Palestinian State, that didn’t happen. A Palestinian State was actually offered two years; unfortunately the Palestinian Authority turned it down.[]When Palestinians attack settlers, the media may focus on the questionable status of settlements. But, Palestinians attack the “non-settlement” part of Israel all the time. The most horrendous attacks were not in settlements or against settlers.[]ISTM that the goal of most Arabs is to destroy all of Israel, not just the settlements. That’s a stated goal of many and their actions bear it out.[/ol]
That does not mean the settlements may not be a cause in fact of the continuation and exacerbation of the Arab-Israeli (or, more particularly and more accurately, the Palestinian-Israeli) conflict. If the original cause of the conflict between the Hatfields and McCoys was a dispute over land, that doesn’t mean their tendency to kill each other for generations thereafter was not a “cause” of the ongoing conflict.
Turned it down in part because . . . Anyone? Anyone? . . . Israel insisted on annexing the lands in the West Bank that have been taken over by settlers, and used the presence of settlers there as a reason why the land could not be (would not be) returned. If I take over your house, and then agree to give it back to you so long as I can keep your bedroom, and you refuse, that does not mean the insistence on keeping your bedroom was not a cause of my refusal.
Even if true, this has nothing to do with cause and effect of the conflict at large. Media reports are a by-product of conflict; they do not generate conflict. Usually.
“Most Arabs”? Even if this were true – which it is not – this is irrelevant to the question of whether the settlements exacerbate, inflame, and perpetuate the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It is IMO indeniable that they do. The Israelis have taken land that historically belonged to the Palestinians, and in order to ensure that it cannot be given back, they race out and settle on it. The presence of Israeli settlers on Palestinian lands has in the past presented huge roadblocks to peace and undoubtedly will continue to do so in the future. To argue that they are not a cause of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is so removed from reality as to be delusional.
And let me state for the record that I think Arafat was nuts to turn down Barak’s proposal, and that to a certain degree the present sufferings of the Palestinians are a direct result of that IMO very bad decision.
That doesn’t mean I think the settlement issue is entirely unrelated to the conflict.
december: *I don’t believe that the settlements are an important cause of Middle East tensions, because
1.Arabs started attacking Israel decdes before settlements even existed, and they have never really made peace with Israel.*
Um, just because there were other causes of tensions before settlements existed does not imply that settlements aren’t a major problem now. In fact, the primary cause of Middle East tensions with regard to Israel has always been territorial. Arab states then resented what they saw as Western powers “assigning” Middle Eastern land to Jews in order to solve or atone for what was fundamentally a European problem (European anti-Semitism and the Holocaust). Similarly, Palestinians now resent Israeli occupation of what they see—even by the standards of the Western-power “assignments”—as their own territory.
None of this IMO justifies in any way assaults on Israeli civilians, in the occupied territories or elsewhere, but it’s simply silly to assume that control of the land isn’t a genuine issue.
2.Although one might worry that settlements could stand in the way of a Palestinian State, that didn’t happen. A Palestinian State was actually offered two years [ago?]; unfortunately the Palestinian Authority turned it down.
Another illogical conclusion. Even if the PA was wrong to reject the offered conditions, that doesn’t imply that the settlements aren’t a genuine problem. The Jewish peace organization Jews Against the Occupation cites Rachelle Marshall in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs of December 2000:
You may think that the Palestinians ought to have accepted Barak’s offer, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t sincerely think it was unacceptable, nor that they don’t sincerely consider Israeli settlements in the occupied territories unacceptable.
3.When Palestinians attack settlers, the media may focus on the questionable status of settlements. But, Palestinians attack the “non-settlement” part of Israel all the time. The most horrendous attacks were not in settlements or against settlers.
Another illogical conclusion. Just because Palestinian terrorists attack in Israel as well as in the OTs doesn’t imply that the Palestinians in general don’t really mind having Israeli settlements on what they consider their own lands. Terrorists strike anywhere they can where they think there’s a chance of causing terror: duh.
4.ISTM that the goal of most Arabs is to destroy all of Israel, not just the settlements. That’s a stated goal of many and their actions bear it out.
“Most”? “Many”? Could we get some figures and some cites for them, please? I personally know several dozen Arab people and not one of them feels that way.
In any case, it’s another illogical conclusion (that’s four in a row for you!). Even if some, or even “many”, Arabs would always want to wipe out Israel entirely no matter what the circumstances, that doesn’t mean that settlements aren’t a serious political problem in the eyes of many others.
In preview: well, Jodi said most of this better than I did, but this is going out anyway. To recap, let us all recall that what “settlements” mean in practice is near-total Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are subdivided by Israeli-controlled roads to which only Israelis have free access, and which require Palestinians to submit to multiple checkpoints and detours just to go from one area of what they consider their land to another. How can anyone imagine that such a situation is not a serious cause of conflict in the region?
I’d say the settlements are, along with water rights and the status of East Jerusalem, the major cause of Israeli-Palestinian tension.
As far as general Israeli-Arab tension, with the exception of tensions that are raised over the Palestinian question, Israel’s relationship with the Arab world is decent, with the exception of Iraq, who’s leader stirs up anti-Israeli sentiment as a way to distract attention from his country’s problems, Syria, who’s still mad about the Golan, and Lebanon, which is upset about Shaaba Farms and the earlier occupation. Most of the rest of the Arab world, though, while not having a great relationship with Israel, has at least reconciled itself to her existence, and has quiet ties. For example, there’s a joint USAID/Israeli/Moroccan research project working on desert agriculture research. See http://www.desertagriculture.org/index.html )
From the Palestinian standpoint, the existance of the settlements mean a few things. First of all, they see the settlements as visible reminders of Israeli presence on their land in the West Bank and Gaza. The settlements also feed the fears of those Palestinians who worry that Israel will go ahead and annex Gaza and the West Bank…they see the settlements as the first wave of a general immigration program to force the Palestinians out.
From the Israeli standpoint, the settlements commit the Israeli government to maintain a presence in the West Bank and Gaza to protect the settlers.
Have you ever been to a “settlement” in the West Bank? I have.
Most the the West bank is empty unfertile desert. Tundra grows for a few months a year. When you stand on top of a hill, as far as they eye can see, all to be seen is empty rolling hills. From high-points, you can see clear across to the mountains of Jordan.
THE SETTLEMENTS AREN’T BUILT ON ANYONE’S FORMER HOUSE!!
They’re small isolated gated communities built on what was empty desert. No one was living there; There were no houses taken from Arabs to build the settlements.
(Nomadic Beduins were living there raising sheep, and they continue to live there peacefully co-operating with the Israeli “settlers”)
The one exception you may point to is Hebron, which is a real city. The Jews living in Hebron did kick people out of their houses, but to understand that, a little history lesson is in order.
Jews lived in Hebron for at least 500 years (since the Spanish expulsion in 1492). In 1929, without provocation, the Arab community massacred the Jews living there, and kicked the survivers out. In 1967, when Hebron fell to Israel, some of those same Jews and their descendants came back and reclaimed their old houses. Arabs were kicked out of houses in this case, but they were homes that had been Jewish only 40 years earlier.
Again – I’ve been to the West Bank, and can tell you that exactly the reverse is true.
EVERYONE GOES THROUGH CHECKPOINTS!! That’s how a checkpoint works. Everyone has to stop. The soldiers decide who to let through and who to ask more questions to. Its just like customs.
Roads leading only to Jewish settlements, are only allowed to be used by people with a legitimate reason to go to those settlements. Arabs can use them if they have a reason to go there.
On the other hand, roads leading through Palestinian controled Area A, are usable only by Arabs. Jews caught in Area A will be shot.
Its the Jews who are more limitted in where they can go.
The Arabs starting shooting Jews around the turn of the 20th century when Jews came to Ottoman Palestine and began buying land in large quantities. This predates the Holocaust and any European land-assigning by at least 35 years.
MHAND, please proceed to the podium to pick up your Literalist Of The Year Award. Also, a new dictionary, in which you might look up the word “analogy.”
And those high points would be…settlements - at least they were back when I was last on the West Bank.
The ‘settlements’ were strategic. Every one (then) was on a hill top with panoramic views of the Palestinians below (the general topography being just as you say). Clear ground around, really good security (obviously) and a sense of keeping an eye on their patch of land – but that could have been me. Not nice, though, to think your every move might have been watched, slightly ‘1984-ish’.
At the time I recall thinking an interesting comparison lay with the Crusader castles to the north.
I had no idea the Jews were more limited in their movements than the Palestinians…someone ought to let ‘em know. I hear they’re not geting out enough what with the curfews an’ all.
And another thing – “You’re not using it!” is generally recognized as a non-starter as a modern rationalization for the seizure of land. Just because it’s desert doesn’t mean it’s free for the taking, and – if the land was Palentinians’ – it doesn’t become less theirs just because they aren’t camped out there en masse.
Well, let’s get the facts straight. How far in history do you want to go, because obviously Jews occupied the land before any Arabs. When the land was the Ottoman Palestine, both Jews and Arabs lived on it. Jews have been emigrating to the land for centuries, with a large immigration around 1900. They then bought “worthless, arid land” from the Arabs, who thought they got the better of the bargain, but the Jews irrigated much of the land and it became valuable. After WWI, it was British Palestine, and when the British threw the whole thing into the lap of the UN, the UN politically and geographically divided the land, one part for the Jews to establish as a state and the other part for the Arabs to do likewise. The Arabs did not bother since they thought they’d drive the Israelites into the Sea. As soon as Israel announced its statehood, Truman acknowledged it (de facto) and Stalin acknowledge it (de jure - not to be outdone), and the Attack began. Miraculously, the Israelites battled half a dozen Arab states to a stalemate.
Before the Attack, there were still Arabs living in the state of Israel (about 900,000), but by the end of 1948, over 700,00 fled and became refugees into what was to be the Palestine state and to a few other Arab nations.
The Israelis did not “race out and settle” the land in what was to be the state of Palestine, but were forced to occupy it in the 1967 war, when again Israel was attacked by several Arab nations. (It was a pre-emptive strike by Israel, but there was no doubt they were to be attacked again.) So, contra to the post that they raced out and settled it, it was Palestine land for 20 years, until Israel occupied it in a war it won. In many wars, a conquering nation does not relinquish the land it won (research the Americans and American Indian conflicts, for example).
Now, finally when the inhabitants of the land set aside for the state of Palestine realize that they are not going to drive Israel into the Sea, at least anytime soon, they are talking about a Palestine state. But this is just talk. They still hope to drive Israelis out of Israel. They consider the state of Israel to be part of the “occupied land.” That is why Arafat rejected Barak’s offer.
“In many wars, a conquering nation does not relinquish the land it won (research the Americans and American Indian conflicts, for example”
Um the American-Indian Wars are hardly a good reference for either modern international law or international norms. The US didn’t make any permanent settlements on land captured in WW2 from the Japanese and Germans. In fact the Geneva conventions specifically prohibit settlements of areas under military occupation and UN Security Council resolutions (voted for by the US among others) have specifically stated that Israeli settlements violate the Geneva conventions.
December wrote:
“I will wait for stronger refutations.”
I am waiting for Your comments, but I have patiance… barbitu8 wrote:
“The Israelis did not “race out and settle” the land in what was to be the state of Palestine, but were forced to occupy it in the 1967 war, when again Israel was attacked by several Arab nations. (It was a pre-emptive strike by Israel, but there was no doubt they were to be attacked again.) So, contra to the post that they raced out and settled it, it was Palestine land for 20 years, until Israel occupied it in a war it won. In many wars, a conquering nation does not relinquish the land it won (research the Americans and American Indian conflicts, for example).”
(Bolding mine)
barbitu8 wrote further:
Now, finally when the inhabitants of the land set aside for the state of Palestine realize that they are not going to drive Israel into the Sea, at least anytime soon, they are talking about a Palestine state. But this is just talk. They still hope to drive Israelis out of Israel. They consider the state of Israel to be part of the “occupied land.” That is why Arafat rejected Barak’s offer.
(Bolding mine, end of quotation.)
These paragraphs above written by barbitu8, shows how reliable the preceding paragraphs are.
Both these myths has been gone through in earlier threads.
If You want to talk about the myth of the war 1967, feel free to post in the thread ”Palestinian bombers have NO excuse. Prove me wrong!”.
We are discussing the 1967 war on page 4, but I think You should read also page 3, or even the whole thread.
I will answer to the questions there, because I do not begin to paste about 2 pages here.
(And as I understand, I have no right to do so, because I should also paste what the other guys are saying).
There You can see what David Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir, among others, says about 1967 war.
I give here the last post dates, so that You can easily find the threads: The last post of this thread was in Great Debates: 07-21-2002 10:04 PM by Halo13. A very good post.
The bullshit that is known as “Baraks Generous Offer” (in Camp David), You can find in the thread: What should the Palestinian do? and a very good map about what was offered in Camp David:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barakeng.swf
(if this doesn’t work here, the address that works is in the mentioned thread, on page 2).
There You can also see what was the later offer, the offer made by Barak at the Taba meeting in January 2001. As I understand Arafat would have taken this offer and what was agreed earlier in Oslo, as a ground-offer for peace.
If You do not believe that a map exists, You can find on page 2, what Fox-news, (a describing name for this particular news agency, btw.), is telling about the map. The last post of this thread was in Great Debates: 07-04-2002 09:22 AM, by Squish
So, as I said, I can answer You in these threads, so that we do not have to repeat everything here.
This is Hery B’s link again. Note, it’s a presentation in Flash so you need to have downloaded the Flash thing from Macromadia (most regular Internet users will already have this, although it can be problematic for some at the workplace) :
