Resolved: Israel's settlements are not an important cause of Middle East tensions.

Great Debates
61

Henry – your quote from Moshe Dayan, claiming that every Jewish village was once an Arab village, give examples, but those examples aren’t “settlements” in what you’re calling the “occupied territory”.

You still haven’t given an example of a settlment in the West Bank or Gaza that was created by relocating a single Palestinian Arab. They were all built on empty land (except for Hebron, which I explained earlier in this thread).

Your claim that the land was divided up unfairly in 1947, based on percentages of land, is bogus. Besides the fact that you’ve retracted/modifed your own numbers under critisiscm, consider this:

The Jewish land included the entire Negev desert, a huge unpopulated uninhabitable stretch of brown sand.

You’re not including in the Arab division, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, which were also carved out of what was “Palestine” under Ottoman rule. Are the Arabs on the East and West sides of the Jordan river so culturally different that you’re not including Jordan as Arab land!

Even if the division was “unfair”, that’s the nature of loosing a war. The Jews sided with the British in WWI against the Ottomans. The Ottomans lost. The Arabs sided with the Nazis in WWII. The Nazis lost.

The very fact that the Arabs were killing Jews in the Middle East before the UN partition, which they rejected, before the 1967 “occupation”, and before the construction of the “settlements”, should make it obvious that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between any of those events and the Arab hatred of the Jews.

You argume that, like any feud, it doesn’t mater how the violence started, because it is now perpetuated by the settlements. This is contradicted by the terrorist groups themselves. Hamas, Hezballah, and Islamic Jihad, which carry out many of the Palestinian attrocities against the Israel civilian population, all insist on the complete destruction of Israel. None of them have agreed to stop their violence if the settlements are dismantled.

So – how can the settlements be the cause of the violence, when three major violent Palestinian groups readily admit that they will continue their violence as long as Israel exists!?

62

b] DMC **, none of those links contains any statements by Israeli statesmen indicating that the 1967 attack was not preemptive. I wonder how unbiased those sources are when they contain a statement such as this:

Mostly true (except that Israel did not occupy that area prior to June 1967), but the spin given is that Israel is to partly be blamed for the Palestinian Arabs not setting up their state;whereas, the Palestinian Arabs, together with five Arab nations, attacked Israel as soon as it was created. The Arabs, including those in the Palestinian area, had no intention to allow Israel to exist and did not bother creating a nation in their 43.7% of the land since they figured they’d get 100% in short order

63

MHand

The discussion is quite pointless, if You think that the settlements are no problem in the peace discussions.
Hamas, Hezballah, and Islamic Jihad are not and has not been in these discussions, and after there is peace, they are just criminals/terrorists.

Now, if there is a war going on, (I do not know how You see it), if they would only target the Israelian army, they would not be terrorists. They would be solidiers.
If they target civilians they are criminals/terrorists. Always!

I also think that the people do hate Israelian for other reasons than the settlements, but in the peace process that is the biggest question, or anyhow one of the biggest. Or what Do You think Yourself? How would You solve the questions of the settlements.
I am not spending my time looking for whatever sites for You, even sites about events that I never claimed and so on.

If You want I can list here all the questions that are in this thread still unaswered, claims that people gives, that are not verified with any kind of sites or other sourses that someone can read from?

Your

quote:
“Your claim that the land was divided up unfairly in 1947, based on percentages of land, is bogus.”

Well, I wait for Your site.
It seem that You do not have read the sites DMC most kindly gave us.

This is very typical. When we look at the situation from both sides, and the truth begins to come forward, mostly everyone that is pro-Israel is silent. And then they begin another thread where all the already proven facts has been “forgotten”.
Or puts the same claims, as the absolute truth, in another thread one week later, or so.

The truth is not black and white, but just to write everything “what someone believes” is not a debate leaning on facts.
It is plainly IMHO…

MHand, I thank You for Your answer, but I would like to have sites as well and from some other ones too.

Have to go now.

Write to You later.

64

As I replied to this topic at this thread…

The act of creating settlements on occupied land is illegal under international law and is a WAR CRIME. Article 49 of the Forth Geneva Convention states clearly:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court clearly defines this as a war crime:

The Israeli act of settlement inside the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and even the Golan Heights ) is very well documented act. A Washington Post article called Settlements Expanding Under Sharon had this to say:

The article goes on to state the fact that in the Gaza strip 1 million Palestinians are squeezed into about 60 percent of the land, while 3,000 Jewish ‘pioneers’ have settled on the other 40% in heavily guarded communities. The case made in ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: A Guide, cites some settler facts such as:

The opinions here defending Israeli settlements can only described as pure fucking ignorance. For all those people who still defend Israeli settlements, read some fucking reports/articles:
Land is the issue. Land is confiscated, stolen, kept (The Guardian),
Settlements are built on 1.7% of West Bank land and control 41.9% (B’Tselem),
Israel has seized 42% of West Bank, report says (The Guardian),
Middle East: The Sky’s the Limit (MSNBC),
As usual, policy is set by the settlers (haaretz),
They come here to live… and, if God wills it, to die (The Observer),
and Zionism or colonialism (haaretz daily).

65

Does the fact that Jordan has given up its claim on the West Bank change the status of the settlements under Geneva? At least, the way I read the treaty…Israel wins the '67 war and occupies the West Bank, which was part of Jordan. At that point, they’re the “occupying power” and Jordan is the “protected power”. Then, Jordan renounces its rights to the West Bank. So now what’s its status?

The problem with the Geneva Convention is that it didn’t really anticipate an event like the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It was designed with the idea,

“Country A and Country B go to war. Country A’s forces overrun one of Country B’s provinces. That province becomes occupied territory. Then there’s a peace treaty and the province is either annexed by Country A or goes back to Country B.”

This is a case of “Country A and Country B go to war. Country A’s forces overrun one of Country B’s provinces. That province becomes occupied territory. No peace treaty resolving the status of the province is ever made, and the occupants of the province are nationals of neither Country A or Country B, but stateless persons. Country A chooses not to annex the province, and Country B renounces its claim to the province.”

I think the settlements are a bad idea, but you’ve got to admit this is a weird situation under international law. The Golan is easier, and I’d say the annexation of the Golan is pretty clearly in violation of international law, unless there’s some peace treaty signed with Syria legitimizing it. However, it’s also the one situation least likely to be amended…Israel has fully annexed it, and is not going to give the Golan up under any circumstances.

66

Barbitu8 wrote:
“Mostly true (except that Israel did not occupy that area prior to June 1967)…”

So what is untrue?
This above or this underneath?

"The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State “slightly” larger than that which was proposed by the United Nations two years before."

Btw. When You begin to explain that some site is biased, show clearly what is true and what is not.
With sites if possible.

Remember, there is no site, magazine, news-paper, TV-channel etc. that does not make mistakes.
Or can You present me one? Please E-mail if You find one (it is not the question in the OP).

But what You present as a lie, seems to be true.
My question: Is it?

67

And?

I never said a word about the 1967 attack, nor was I implying anything relating to the 1967 attack. You claimed Henry B’s quotes were not correct, since, according to you, they showed obvious bias. I showed you non-arab cites (there was not really a shortage of cites for those quotes) with the exact same quotes, so I’d say the onus is now on you to come up with some evidence that they are false. I do find it interesting that they gave you pause. Is it possible that maybe both parties in the Middle East are in the wrong?

Once again, I simply provided cites to support Henry B, who’s veracity was called into question by you. I showed you the evidence, where you go from here is up to you.

68

**Henry B.'s ** veracity is quite questionable. He states unequivocally that Israel got 78% of the land in the partition, whereas it was only 56%. He acknowledged he was wrong only when I pointed it out, but tried to justify it by stating that Israel made up only 6% of the population, which is also not accurate. My point is that he has tried to convince us that Israel’s attack in 1967 was not preemptive when the overwhelming weight of evidence is to the contrary. He supports this opinion by purported statements by Israel statesmen. If those people actually made those statements, do you think they would have made them when they could be quoted by people hostile to Israel? Come on, now. Just because some quotes were made by American sources does not mean they are not biased.

69

barbitu8 wrote:
"Henry B.'s veracity is quite questionable. He states unequivocally that Israel got 78% of the land in the partition, whereas it was only 56%."

This is a lie.
It should be: “…stated…”
Question: Do You not accept my appologies? Appologies for being wrong? Remembering wrong?

barbitu8 wrote:
"He acknowledged he was wrong only when I pointed it out,"

You can take the word “only” away.
I already wrote that I made a mistake. I admit I sometimes make mistakes. How about You?

barbitu8 wrote:
"but tried to justify it by stating that Israel made up only 6% of the population, which is also not accurate."

Your site?

barbitu8 wrote:
"My point is that he has tried to convince us that Israel’s attack in 1967 was not preemptive when the overwhelming weight of evidence is to the contrary."

That is a lie, depending naturally on what we mean by “preemptive”.
I wrote:
“You admit Yourself, in Your last answer, that Israel was attacking 1967.
I frankly also believe that sooner or later some Arabic states would have seriously threatened Israel. But this is no excuse of the occupation that begun 1967.
And this is no excuse of the current situation!”

barbitu8 wrote:
"He supports this opinion by purported statements by Israel statesmen. If those people actually made those statements, do you think they would have made them when they could be quoted by people hostile to Israel?"
barbitu8 wrote:
Come on, now. Just because some quotes were made by American sources does not mean they are not biased.

Your site?
Surely someone has pointed out that there is a concpiracy…, when You can find these quotes, the same quotes, in American, Israelian, etc. sources.
Is the Israelian sources also biased?
Tell me frankly what sourses are not biased (against Israel)?
Little Green Football?)

Can You answer the questions I made in my last post, adressed to You?:

From my last post:
quote
"Barbitu8 wrote:
"Mostly true (except that Israel did not occupy that area prior to June 1967)…"

So what is untrue?
This above or this underneath?
"The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State “slightly” larger than that which was proposed by the United Nations two years before."

Btw. When You begin to explain that some site is biased, show clearly what is true and what is not.
With sites if possible."
(end of quotation)
If You only can write that something is untrue etc., but not give any facts…, not answer questions that are directly addressed to You, well, then I actually do not see why I am waisting my time…

Until then, my statements are not proven wrong. There is only a lot of IMO…
And please, Barbitu8 do not twist my answers anymore.

I also wrote to MHand:
(quote)
"Your

quote:
"Your claim that the land was divided up unfairly in 1947, based on percentages of land, is bogus."

Well, I wait for Your site.
It seem that You do not have read the sites DMC most kindly gave us.

This is very typical. When we look at the situation from both sides, and the truth begins to come forward, mostly everyone that is pro-Israel is silent. And then they begin another thread where all the already proven facts has been “forgotten”.
Or puts the same claims, as the absolute truth, in another thread one week later, or so.

The truth is not black and white, but just to write everything “what someone believes” is not a debate leaning on facts.
It is plainly IMHO…
(end of quote)
No answer, no facts.
And, please, answer with something else than just beliefs.

Thank You all for reading.
Have a nice day.:slight_smile:

70

barbitu8 wrote:
"Henry B.'s veracity is quite questionable. He states unequivocally that Israel got 78% of the land in the partition, whereas it was only 56%."

This is a lie.
It should be: “…stated…”
Question: Do You not accept my appologies? Appologies for being wrong? Remembering wrong?

barbitu8 wrote:
"He acknowledged he was wrong only when I pointed it out,"

You can take the word “only” away.
I already wrote that I made a mistake. I admit I sometimes make mistakes. How about You?

barbitu8 wrote:
"but tried to justify it by stating that Israel made up only 6% of the population, which is also not accurate."

Your site?

barbitu8 wrote:
"My point is that he has tried to convince us that Israel’s attack in 1967 was not preemptive when the overwhelming weight of evidence is to the contrary."

That is a lie, depending naturally on what we mean by “preemptive”.
I wrote:
“You admit Yourself, in Your last answer, that Israel was attacking 1967.
I frankly also believe that sooner or later some Arabic states would have seriously threatened Israel. But this is no excuse of the occupation that begun 1967.
And this is no excuse of the current situation!”

barbitu8 wrote:
"He supports this opinion by purported statements by Israel statesmen. If those people actually made those statements, do you think they would have made them when they could be quoted by people hostile to Israel?"
barbitu8 wrote:
Come on, now. Just because some quotes were made by American sources does not mean they are not biased.

Your site?
Surely someone has pointed out that there is a concpiracy…, when You can find these quotes, the same quotes, in American, Israelian, etc. sources.
Is the Israelian sources also biased?
Tell me frankly what sourses are not biased (against Israel)?
Little Green Football?)

Can You answer the questions I made in my last post, adressed to You?:

From my last post:
quote
"Barbitu8 wrote:
"Mostly true (except that Israel did not occupy that area prior to June 1967)…"

So what is untrue?
This above or this underneath?
"The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State “slightly” larger than that which was proposed by the United Nations two years before."

Btw. When You begin to explain that some site is biased, show clearly what is true and what is not.
With sites if possible."
(end of quotation)
If You only can write that something is untrue etc., but not give any facts…, not answer questions that are directly addressed to You, well, then I actually do not see why I am waisting my time…

Until then, my statements are not proven wrong. There is only a lot of IMO…
And please, Barbitu8 do not twist my answers anymore.

I also wrote to MHand:
(quote)
"Your

quote:
"Your claim that the land was divided up unfairly in 1947, based on percentages of land, is bogus."

Well, I wait for Your site.
It seem that You do not have read the sites DMC most kindly gave us.

This is very typical. When we look at the situation from both sides, and the truth begins to come forward, mostly everyone that is pro-Israel is silent. And then they begin another thread where all the already proven facts has been “forgotten”.
Or puts the same claims, as the absolute truth, in another thread one week later, or so.

The truth is not black and white, but just to write everything “what someone believes” is not a debate leaning on facts.
It is plainly IMHO…
(end of quote)
No answer, no facts.
And, please, answer with something else than just beliefs.

Thank You all for reading.
Have a nice day.:slight_smile:

71

In November 1947, when the UN approved the partition, there were 650,000 Jews and 900,000 Arabs in the land. (Source: *The Untold History of Israel * by Derogy and Carmel, 1979. I’m sorry but not everything I’ve read is on the Web.

When I said the statement was mostly true, I was of course referring to the fact that Israel did not occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip until after June 1967. That was an important fact.

I’ve been posting in this thread since this is the one I was reading, and a post here referred me to the other thread, which I haven’t look at since then. I did not start posting here a week after, as you claimed.

Henry, you admitted the error on the % partition, only when I pointed it out. You may delete “only” if you like. It doesn’t change the sense. Now, I’ve pointed out another error.

At first, I did pause when I read your purported quotes. But I later realized that the objective facts support that Israel’s attack in 1967 was preemptive. By carelessness, one or two Israeli statesmen can make statements which they don’t wish to be published. But all of these??? I am also aware that there are many satirical journals around, such as *the Onion * and The Whitehouse who “quote” famous people in parody. I can give you hundreds of “quotes” from The Whitehouse purportedly made by Bush, but were, of course, not actually made. The website is a parody.
I am not going to waste my time posting to this site again. I know in my mind what the facts are and your spin and lies are not going to change it.

72

barbitu8
I fully understand.

Henry

73

december: *Kimstu’s inaccurate guess about how checkpoints operate is understandable, given the overblown rhetoric one reads about settlements. *

“How checkpoints operate”? I said nothing at all about “how checkpoints operate”; you may be mixing me up with some other poster (I haven’t read every post in this thread carefully so I don’t know who it might be). The one brief allusion to checkpoints that I made was this:

That’s no guess, nor is it inaccurate; that’s a simple fact of life in the occupied territories.

74

Kimstu, I am not questioning the nature of the checkpoints; I am saying that the settlements aren’t the cause.

You quoted yourself incompletely in the prior post. Adding the missing words in bold-faced, you had earlier posted:

<< 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. >>

Regardless of the settlements, Palestinians and Israelis do not control well-separated, disjoint areas. The checkpoints are considered necessary because of Palestinian violence. They are a result of the violence, not a result of the settlements.

BTW why did you put quotes around the word “settlements”?

75

I’m still waiting on (any) evidence that says they aren’t actual quotes. As there is no shortage of cites for the quotes, there should be at least a few rebuttals out there, if they were indeed false.

Yes, those two websites are parodies. Of course, neither one of those sites were sources for the quotes given, so I’m not sure what that matters.

76

That’s fine for you if you know in your mind what the truth is, but you aren’t going to convince anybody.

Just stating that sometimes people lie or write parodies doesn’t cut it. I read plenty of similar quotes from former Israeli statemen. It seems that at least in the past, these people weren’t too worried about Public Relations and wouldn’t hesitate to say overtly things which are now concealed under the rug…especially when their speeches were primarily intended for internal consumption.
So, unless you give some evidences that the quotes are false, I will assume they’re true, regardless of your subjective feeling that it can’t be so. Sure, it’s possible that american and Israeli newspapers have both been fooled by false quotes attributed to Israeli statesmen, but as it has already been pointed out, someone, somewhere probably should have noticed and you should be able to find some evidence that they’re contested. If you can’t, you should probably consider the possibility that your perception is at stakes with reality.