Yeah, sorry, but can we try to make this one with a difference by sticking to the topic? Avoiding subjects such as Israel’s right to exist :rolleyes:, Sharon’s tactics, Arafat’s collusion/incompetence, suicide bombers, etc.?
I believe there are many sides and viewpoints WRT all the above issues, but for the life of me I cannot see how Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas can be justified. The only way I can see them is a not-so-subtle impediment to peace, and an underhand attempt at a land-grab. Can anyone help me?
What possible purpose can they serve, other than to make the creation of a Palestinian state impractical? What kind of people would put themselves and their families into that much danger? Is there any justification for their existence? Are they the greatest hurdle to a political resolution (terrorism notwithstanding)? Could they ever be dismantled?
How are they justified? Well, as is so often the case with religious extremism, they are fully justified in the minds of those who are promoting them, and not so much in the more, shall we say, rational minds of the world.
In this case, they are going from the basis that those lands belong to them. They don’t care about a negotiated peace. They want the land and they believe that God has granted them this right. Since God has granted them the right, the Israeli government does not have the right to tell 'em they can’t.
I think the Israeli settlements serve the purpose of keeping the Palestinian areas small and seperated. Each one is like a buffer that makes transportation and movement from one Palestinian area to another almost impossible without crossing through an Israeli settlement.
Probably. But they are politically utilized by all sides. The Palestinians use them politically to help rally against the Israelis. The right-wing Israelis use them politically to help rally against the Palestinians and the more moderate Israelis.
I do not beleive that this policy, outside Israel, has the majoroty inside Israel, among Jews.
But when the situation begins to be a hen and egg-situation, where the Israelian army uses collective punishment and gets terrorism as an answer, the situation is like it is.
You can not justify Israeli settlements, they are thiefs, robbers and killers, as much as the terrorists on the other side.
(If You want sites, just open an OP, where we can openly discuss the policy of Sharon and his gang and the terrorists. Jjimm asked us not to do it here).
Gee, I wonder if the OP would have an easier time ‘justifying’ Palestinian massacres of Jews. (When you are done justifying the present terrorism, start justifying the 1929 Hebron Massacre and the various other pogroms from before the state of Israel…Sorry Chollie, Us Jews been around too long to accept each new lame excuses for massacring us…)
I’m no expert, but I’d like to be convinced as to why the moral objection to Israeli settlement in the West Bank is any different than to the objection against blacks moving into a white neighbourhood.
Come, now! This thread is not a dozen posts gone, and we have already started calling each other names.
To reply to grienspace:
I think that a common view among "pro-Palestinian"s is that there is a big difference. To them, it would be like blacks moving into a white neighborhood, and bringing in their army to protect them, establishing a curfew, and doing a land-grab of “white” ancestral homelands. I’m not saying I agree with this proposition, I’m just elucidating a position.
And, if I recall, Ben-Eliezer (sp?) remains very opposed to unabashed settlement of the territories. So, you see, the Israeli leadership is not always on the side of continuous settlement.
Some of the settlers justify themselves on religious/historical grounds.
Some are there because it is an affordable place to buy a home.
Some justify it along the lines that they have a right to live anywhere.
The mainstream originally bought the argument that settlements would help provide a buffer between the then hostile Jordan and Israel proper.
As Jordan became less of an immediate threat, they became justified as a political bargaining piece in any future negotiated settlement. This was the whole reason the area wasn’t annexed after Israel won it from Jordan.* Moreover, they were a needed concession to the religious right whose support was desired by any coalition government … an example of a small minority view exerting inordinate power because they held the balance of power within their few votes.
The greatest hurdle? (IMHO) Nah. A political liabilty and a complicating factor. A mistake and an unavoidable consequence of internal Israeli political realities. But the biggest hurdle to peace is that there is/has been no interest in a real give and take negotiated solution from Palestinian/Arab leadership. Not from before there were no settlements nor to the present day. Too many internal Palestinian/Arab political realities that would make any compromise, any negotiated settlement, anathema.
*Please note that if Israel had annexed the area it would have been according to generally accepted principles and subsequent settlements would have been entirely legal. But Israel chose to leave it as an occupied territory, and that is an entirely different matter. And also please remember that Jordan didn’t build an independent Palestine there when they controlled it; they had annexed it from the land that was meant to be an independent Palestine.
The settlements were originally solely religious. I think it was Yitzhak Rabin (Labor) who was PM when they really begin in earnest, and he sent out soldiers to tear down the shacks the settlers had built and drag them back to Israel proper. Pictures appeared in the papers of soldiers ripping down peoples’ homes, and there was a public outcry. People just thought it was mean. So Rabin gave in. The next PM was Menachem Begin (Likud) who encouraged the settlements. Since then, public opinion has wavered on the topic.
I wasin Israel 1998-1999, but it could have been a hundred years ago for how much things have changed since then. I have heard many varied opinions on the settlements and other Israeli-occupied or -annexed lands. (While hiking in the Golan, our tour guide, an Israeli who had served in the army, told our group that he loved the area, but whenever he was there, he knew it was wrong, that it is not Israel, it is Syria.) A good friend of mine who was very religious and right-wing decorated her dorm room door with some popular bumper stickers, including one about Schem. When I asked her about it, she explained to me that Schem was a Jewish city, and now the Arabs live there and call it Nablus, and she believed it was wrong, because God gave the land to the Jews and they should be the ones living there.
So it comes down to a conflict between religious faith and political realities. And for many of the very religious, politics are unimportant. Who cares what words people say, when it’s already clear that God has made up his mind?
On a common sense level, land in the settlements is, I think, much cheaper than in Israel proper. I visited a settlement once, to see a friend who was staying with family there, and wow! Big houses with nice yards. It was really shocking. Everyone in Jerusalem lives in apartments.
I know that we have at least one Doper who lives in a settlement. Perhaps he will have something helpful to add.
If Israeli people want to live in Palestine and the Palestinians are willing to sell them land, then fine. I am all for multiculturalism. But they need to understand that if they live in Palestine they will be under Palestinian law, and should not be allowed to bring in Israeli military protection.
If I wanted to buy a house in France for some personal or religious reason: firstly, I would find someone WILLING to sell. Then I would PAY for it in a legal fashion. Then I would be of the mindset “when in Rome.” If I didn’t like being under French rule, or like French people or customs, I would move home. I would recognise that while my ancestors might have owned half of France several centuries ago, they didn’t any more.
I would not move in a UK army, pillage surrounding French villages, force them to stay in their homes at night, arrest them and repress them en masse, cry out to Uncle Sam if they attempted to resist me, and expect backing from other world nations for my actions.
Otherwise, given the “out of Africa” theory, I may as well go and plant a flag in the middle of Kenya somewhere and claim that back for my displaced ancestors of x million years ago.
I remember an interesting report about settlers. A mom (who was living here for religious reason…that’s our god-given land, blah blah…), when asked why she didn’t put her children out of harm way (it was during the intifada, and there was gunfire, etc…), she answered that they were all sort of Israeli soldiers in their own way, and doing their duty by staying there, adults and children alike.
According to the map linked to in the OP, virtually all of the settlements have been created outside of the Palestinian autonomous areas. Areas that are not within the jurisdiction of Palestinian law or security forces.
Won’t they be when Palestine becomes a free country?
I wouldn’t buy a house there, even if it cost a dollar. It is just asking for trouble. Granted, violence is bad, but these people should realize that they are major targerts, and there should be no kids there. This is part of the reason there is so much stupidity going on in that region.
—Gee, I wonder if the OP would have an easier time ‘justifying’ Palestinian massacres of Jews.—
Gee, slander really helps make your case. Not once in the OP did the OP suggest that the settlements justified murder or terrorism. The worst he did was compare them to terrorism not in moral terms, but as political impediments to peace.
Evil done to one party, especially by people who aren’t even involved in the current situation, hardly serves to blanket justify everything that party pleases to do.
We can’t know now what the borders of such a Palestine would be nor even if such a free state will ever come into existence. If a free Palestinian state comes into existence and the settlements are within its borders, then they will have to follow Palestinian rules. That’s not the case now, though, so I don’t see what relevence that has.
These people have to know that it is likely there will be a free Palenstine while they are still occupying the houses, and should be factoring that into their choice of living location.
In reply to the OP, we might just as well ask Americans to justify living on land stolen from the original inhabitants. Of course, there is no justification, at least no sane justification.
But, then, here we get to a point where religion becomes very useful. If you want to justify the indefensible, simply claim a divine mandate. Then you can do whatever you want. The same tactic was used by the fanatics who came to America from Europe to kill Indians and steal their land. You see, they were “called of God,” and harkened back to passages in the Old Testament, like 1 Sam 15, where God himself orders the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, suckling and oxen of the Amelekites, and then steal their land.
No sane person could justify such barbarity using reason and logic. But with God’s Word you can justify anything. Israeli Zionists (not every jew, or even Israeli jew is a Zionist, in fact opposition to the Israeli occupation is probably just as strong in Israel itself as it is in the U.S.) justify their supreme injustice by appeal to a holy book written a few thousand years ago by a bunch of priests.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses (everyone except TQMshirt. Sir/madam, please do not presume to tell me - incorrectly - what I think). I am genuinely attempting to see things from the POV of the settlers and those in government who condone/promote them. Thanks particularly DSeid.
In a make-believe lala land where there is a post-Likud anti-settlement party in government, and a Palestinian leadership that is willing to negotiate, can anyone see an equitable resolution to their existence? How would this resolution come about? Would there be mass evictions, or panicked flight from thus creating a new refugee crisis? Would they be able to compensate settlers who were required to move? From Kyla’s experience, and what I’ve seen on TV, a lot of the settlements are very opulent - a great deal of time and money have been invested in these properties, and it is unlikely that they would be able to enjoy the same standard of living within Israel proper.
Looking at the map, while the settlements are outside PA controlled areas, I am presuming that any potential Palestinian state would be contiguous land within the de facto borders of the OTs. Is this a correct presumption, or would “Palestine” be negotiated down to just the areas that are currently under Palestinian control (wasn’t this the case at Oslo?), thus avoiding problems with the settlers? It’s a convoluted topography, and would surely be extremely difficult to administer by either party, especially two authorities with lots of antipathy between them.