The hypothetical assumes that such is part of a negotiated settlement and that the PA assumes responsibility to protect its citizens including its new Jewish ones. Why is it not reasonable to think that such an agreement would be respected?
Well, look.
The Palestinians believe that the settlers have no right to the land. Palestinian courts are going to rule that the settlers have no valid title to the land, and the land really belongs to Palestinians.
What happens then? The Palestinian authority can agree to protect the settlers from mob violence. But if a Palestinian court orders a settler off the land, the settlers are going to refuse to leave. And then the cops show up to make them leave. And then the settlers pull out their guns. And then we have fighting, and either the settlers will fight off the cops, or the cops will kill or arrest the settlers.
A scenario where the settlers would be willing to leave the land they occupy and not use force to defend it is one where the settlers could live in Palestine under Palestinian authority. But that won’t happen, that’s why these guys are settlers in the first place. Any settler who wouldn’t be willing to fight would go back to Israel before the handoff, because they would know they’d be kicked off their land sooner or later.
Actually, the presence of armed protection would probably satisfy the “hostility” part of the requirements for adverse possession.
Again, the same argument could be made in any ethnic cleansing situation. I haven’t researched it, but I would guess that a lot of the ethnic cleansing practiced by the Serbs in the 1990s was against folks who were moved in after World War II.
So ethnic cleansing is preferable as a last resort? Or did I misunderstand you?
It seems to me that this is the pragmatic argument which has been made already. Essentially that ethnic cleansing is good if it serves a practical purpose.
You can call it whatever you want, but any way you slice it, many people believe that the West Bank would be better without Jewish people and support policies to achieve that end. Just as there are many places – call them Area X – where many people believe that Area X would be better off without people from Group Y and support policies to achieve that end.
No, a one-state solution is preferable, precisely because it allows the settlers to remain where they are, among other reasons. WRT a two-state solution, ethnic cleansing of Israeli WB settlers as a precondition is preferable to any conceivable alternative.
I’m asking about in general, in the world.
Words like “ethnic cleansing” just muddy the debate and make it an emotive issue rather than a rule of law.
And at what point do we stop using Jew and Israeli interchangeably? - This also doesn’t help.
IMO the settlers are Israelis that took the land illegally, their ethnicity has nothing to do with it. Their parentage could be from almost anywhere - maybe five generations of US stock, maybe they have three generations of African with some middle European thrown in.
If it really is a “rule of law,” then you should be able to specify principles which should be applied universally.
One principle which I seem to hear a lot is that it’s bad to push for the expulsion of ethnic, religioius, or racial minorities. In essence, the question asked by the OP is why this principle does not apply to the Jewish settlers in the West Bank?
What legal principle was violated and how?
Jew does not equal Settler, I shouldn’t wonder if there are jews living in Palestine that are not Settlers. The settlers are living in land forcefully annexed from the Palestinians, is it so hard to grasp that makes them a special case?
If group Y is an invading force of course the people in Area X have all the right to repell them, regardless of their ethnicity.
If the land doesn’t belong to (generic) you then you’re not allowed to take it by force maybe? IF you do take it be force then it is not “ethnic cleansing” if you are expected to give it back and move home ring a bell at all?
The main problem with your proposed principle is that “belong to” is too vague to be of much use. How do I know whether Land X belongs to People Y? I’m sure that the Serbs could make a decent argument that Kosovo “belongs to” them. And that the Mexicans could make a decent argument that California “belongs to” them. and so on.
Besides, there are plenty of Jewish settlers who have not taken any land by force. For example those who were born on the West Bank.
Except this is nota debate about the relative merits of either Serbian or Mexican owenrship.
It is pretty much universally established that the settlements are not (as the situation now stands) part of Israel. They may certainly become such when a peace is finally reached, but as it stands now they are not.
And it is also pretty much universally admitted that the settlements are “outposts” and extending the land area of Israel - to argue otehrwise is disingenuous.
I am not much of a debater and you will be able to show me up in that regard. I do however use words for a living, and it is important to me that they are used accurately. By substituting “Jew” for “Israeli” and “ethnic cleansing” for “asking people to leave land that they have annexed” has the effect of creating an emotive issue. A valid technique to swing people towards your argument? Sure. Does it change the facts? Not really - but then in the court of public opinion perception is reality.
It is to the Israeli advantage to move the discussion from how do we integrate the Israeli settlements in a viable Palestinian state?" to “how do we stop those crazy, Jew hating Palestinians from waging genocide against the oppressed and persecuted Jews”.
By letting phrases like “ethnic cleansing” slide when it is nothing of the sort* you get further from a solution, not closer. Emotion entrenches views, and is not amenable to solutions
- If you have strong and credible evidence that Palestinian Jews (i.e NOT citizens of Israel) are being pushed out of the West Bank because they are Jews then I will give you your ethnic cleansing.
:shrug: You claimed, in essence, that your position is based on a universal principle. That’s what “rule of law” means. Principles which apply to everyone. Under scrutiny, it seems that you are using no principle at all – just your ad hoc assessment of the situation.
Let’s assume that’s true. So what?
Again, let’s assume that’s true. So what?
It’s important to me too.
I said “Jewish settlers,” and I meant exactly that. Many of the Jewish settlers do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli government and (presumably) would sooner renounce their Israeli citizenship, such as it is, than leave their settlements.
I’m not sure what your point is here, but a few posts back I restated the question of the OP without using the phrase “ethnic cleansing.” The question stands.
As far as I know, no Jews are being pushed out of anywhere at the moment. But as I said before, I don’t think it’s simply a matter of citizenship.
As noted above, the problem is that all ethnic cleansers can make this argument.
brazil84, you’re not going to get anywhere until you stop trying to win the argument with semantics (no one wants to say, “yes, I’m in favor of ethnic cleansing in the middle east.”) The phrase “ethnic cleansing” carries with it a host of negative (sometimes monstrous) connotations which simply do not apply in this case. There are other terms you could use which are more accurate, specific, and descriptive, and which have the added benefit of not being emotionally charged to the point of short-circuiting reasoned discussion.
Anything can be good if, in practice, the positives outweigh the negatives. The question to ask is not whether the forced relocation of the settlers violates a moral principle, since any course of action (or inaction) will violate some moral principles and honor others. The questions to ask are: What are the apparent costs, in human terms, of Israel’s forcibly relocating the settlers? How many are harmed, and to what degree? What are the apparent benefits of same? How many are benefited, and to what degree? What are the alternative courses of action? What are the likely harms and benefits of inaction (i.e. maintaining the status quo)? What do we think are the probabilities of all these harms and benefits coming to fruition?
Et cetera. Whether or not the proposed action fits a certain definition (“ethnic cleansing”) is not relevant.
If you assume those things are true then all parties agree that the settlers are squatters and not the legal owners of the land. Or are you saying the the laws should not apply to ethnic minorities? This is not something happened back in the mists of antiquity. This is something that happened recently, involving people still alive. One country occupied territory by force and then allowed settlers to move in.
They disagree with the political body identified as the state of Israel, but they have no interests in being part of Palestine. The consider the whole region Israel.
So your argument is now that as long as you can occupy territory by force for X number of years (where X is something less than 40) you get to keep it? That if a group of Mexican drug runners took over property in New Mexico and somehow managed to keep the U.S. authorities at bay for 30 years, expelling them would be racist or just plain wrong?
It isn’t just a matter of citizenship. It is a matter of property. They took property illegally and they don’t want to give it back. They have no desire to change citizenship and buy homes or land legally and live under the Palestinian Authority. They want to keep what they have taken and live under their own laws.
The difference is that this isn’t some ancient quarrel that occurred between states that no longer exist. These are well documented events that involve people that are currently alive. There are both practical and moral reasons for taking the land back. Morally I would have no problem with them staying if an agreement could be made to recompense the original owners of the land and the settlers agreed to become Palestinian citizens. Of course, that is extremely unlikely to happen due to all the practical considerations.
Jonathan
Your very next post:
No, you’re not muddying the waters at all with loaded language. The settlers arrived after the land was taken by military force in 1967, they are not simply immigrants or people who had lived there for generations. It’s unfortunate that Israel allowed the settlements to occur, as all they seem to do is add another wrench in any peace attempt. Sadly, I really don’t see much hope of peace in any foreseeable future.
Settlers are no different to any other looters. They tail on the march of an army. In this case it is land they loot. Sadly the IDF views Israeli settlers as less than human, lacking innate moral sense and responsibility. But for that racist dispensation, they’d be summarily executed in keeping with military discipline.
Does anything you post have any basis in reality? I’d say cite for the IDF viewing settlers as subhuman, but what would be the point.