My impression is that some of the peace proposals involving Israel entail removing some or all of the Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Isn’t this ethnic cleansing? And haven’t we been told that ethnic cleansing is bad?
If there are Jewish settlers who wish to stay in the area regardless of which government is in control, shouldn’t their wishes be respected? And shouldn’t they be allowed to take part in said government?
The reason this is an issue is that these settlements where made under armed guard and against the will of the people who lived there. These aren’t Israelis moving into existing towns. These are settlements that were intended, and were treated as extensions of Israel. Imagine if the U.S. had established settlements or U.S. citizens living under U.S. law in Iraq. That is basically what happened here. The settlers involved were seeking to extend Israel, they don’t want to live under any Palestinian government.
Not really - the objections of the Palestinians is not that they are Jewish, but that they are Israeli. Citizens of a different country, IOW, more or less.
I suppose the settlers could petition to join a new country of Palestine and participate in that government, once it is set up, but I doubt the settlers would want that. I suspect that, if Hamas or the equivalent was running the government of the new country, they would kill the Jews in the settlements and dole out the land to non-Jewish Palestinians even if the Jews were citizens. That would be ethnic cleansing. It would also be in keeping with the Hamas charter.
Its Fatah who are the Palestinians running the West Bank,Hamas run Gaza and Hezzboulah supposedly fighting for the Palestinian cause in Lebanon(As long as it achieves Iranian objectives)
Fatah are enthusiastically purging anyone even suspected of having sympathy with Hamas,and Hamas have already done this to Fatah in Gaza.
IME on the W Bank not a single Palestinian expressed any remorse or any condemnation of terrorist attacks on Jewish civilians ANY WHERE IN THE WORLD at any time, now or in the past.
So I wouldn’t give two pence for the chances of any Jew surviving more then five minutes under Palestinian rule.
Not only that but they seemed to have an inbuilt hatred of the West and Western culture.
That is not to say that there aren’t Palestinians who are angered and outraged by Palestinian terrorist atrocities just that I never encountered any .
to Abbas who for his part has withstood some heat for condemning terrorism against Israel for a few years now (yes, we know he had done his share too before, but he has seen that another path is more likely to give better results). And various man in the street interviews in various outlets (always making sure no one else is listening).
I dunno, the Jews are so heavily armed and the various Palestinian governments so inefficient and corrupt that the Jews might hang on for quite some time.
Personally, I think the more intrusive settlements should be dismantled (or officially abandoned by Israel if the residents resist) and whole thing should be annexed by Jordan.
I disagree . . . if the IDF pulled out of the West Bank and there was an all out war between the Jewish settlers and the Palestinians, I think there’s a pretty good chance the Palestinians would be in serious trouble.
But that’s neither here nor there. The question is why anyone thinks it’s better that the area have fewer Jews. And by extension, does that reason apply to other areas of the world which have ethnic and/or religious minorities living in them?
Well, there’s undeniable and virulent Jew-hating infecting the Palestinian resistance, but even so, that’s like if you come to my house with a gun, order my family out and start moving yours in, then when I complain you ask why I think it’s better the house have fewer message board posters in it to imply that my real problem is bias. I think the question is how come you’re in my house. Now, the answer to that, some say, is that it’s actually your house in the first place, but it’s still a different question.
I suppose, but in this case, it’s literally true. “Settlers” aren’t just moving into unoccupied land. Some are actually taking people’s homes under force. It’s not a matter of oh, generally people don’t like these newcomers with guns. It’s a matter of hey, I live here, my children live here, all our stuff is here, and armed thugs are now kicking us out. This is not a metaphor.
That argument might have weight if the settlements were more than 50 years old, or in some case more than 5. By your argument, if the Swiss were to invade Liberia this year and set up Swiss colonies in some of the best farmland, it would be ethnic cleaning to try and move them out next year.
It is hard to parse these things when you worry about whose ancestors stole what, but it should be pretty simple when the majority of the actors are still alive. It may be wrong for me to take your house for something your great grandparents did, but not so much if you are the one who did it.
Do you have a cite that a significant percentage of Jewish settlers have taken peoples’ literal homes by force? And even if it’s true, isn’t the natural solution to simply evict the specific settlers who took somebody’s house, rather than argue for a mass cleansing?
Of course, soon after the story changed, and this bluntness was replaced by more diplomatic language. But most everybody understands there are some settlers acting way out of line and creating problems for Israel as well as the Palestinians. As for whether this makes a full expulsion justified, I don’t know. I think that’s symptomatic of the toxic Jew-hating I acknowledged previously, but I also think the question is clearly more complicated than ‘we don’t want Jews for neighbors’.
Does it matter if they move into homes vacated due to war, or just build their homes on empty land that used to belong to others. The thing is, they don’t want to move to the West Bank and become citizens of Palestine. Their goal is to extend Isreal. If I, and a few thousand of my friends, went down to Mexico and just built a town on the best empty land I could find and declared that the town is now part of the U.S., how would the Mexican authorities react? We are not talking about people who moved to a new country, their stated goal is to extend their old country.
I don’t see where in your cite it says that Jewish settlers have taken peoples’ literal homes by force.
Could you quote the relevant portion to me?
You say that any percentage is significant, but I would disagree. For example, suppose that there is some ethnic minority of 300,000 X’s people living in Country Y, and it can be documented that one occasion, 3 radical X’s took the literal home by force of a non-X. Does it follow that it’s preferable to ethnically cleanse Country Y of X’s? I don’t think so.