With all due respect, DSeid, I fail to see why you consider your hypothetical important. Do you think such a peace deal would be fair and / or something the palestinian side would be likely to accept? Why should they?
If the two state solution had been implemented 1948 and people now settling occupied land had applied for citizenship back then - would they have received it? A sovereign state chooses according to it’s own law who to grant citizenship. The state of Israel is at no obligation to grant me citizenship or right to own israeli property just because I’d like to. If the settlers wanted to buy the property they currently occupy, would there have been a willing seller?
We can’t know - since in fact there was never an application for citizenship, there was AFAIK in most - if any - cases no agreement of purchase, only a grab of property left behind by refugees of a war.
So what is the relevance of your hypothetical to the actual situation at hand?
The government of the region wasn’t overthrown. The region was occupied by Jordan. I believe that Israel would agree in five seconds to hand authority over the West Bank back to Jordan, the only problem is that Jordan doesn’t want it. Because–get this–they’re afraid of becoming a majority-Palestinian state. Egypt also refuses to take back Gaza because Gaza is impoverished and full of troublemakers and Egypt has more poverty and trouble than they can handle.
Indeed, why limit oneself? Personally, I haven’t made up my mind as to whether it’s necessarily or inherently bad to work towards the ethnic or religious purification of an area (or to keep the area pure).
I’m told that Saudi Arabia does not permit non-Muslims to immigrate or obtain citizenship. Is that such a terrible thing? I’m not sure. The UN has not condemned them for this policy, as far as I know.
I suppose you would argue that Ms. De La Cruz is staying in a dormitory rather than camping out. But fundamentally, how is that any different? Besides, from what I hear there are many Mexicans in the US who do in fact squat.
I don’t know.
There’s no war going on, but the United States is certainly occupying areas which used to be part of Mexico. I’m not sure if that’s relevant to your analogy, but anyway, let’s suppose that there are some Americans who would prefer that there be fewer ethnic Mexicans in the United States. And let’s suppose they make the necessary changes to the law so that all Mexicans who came here since 1967 can be deported, as well as their descendants. Is that ethnic cleansing?
Yet Israel has Arab citizens with Palestinian identification, and Arabs in Knesset, Lemur and no one expects all of those Arab Israelis to just up and move over to the new Palestine. And while there are issues of discrimination and unequal funding of school districts and exemption from obligatory military service, they do not live in fear of having their neighborhoods attacked. They are not being “cleansed”.
If it is possible for Arabs to live as full citizens of Israel why do you not believe it is possible for Jews to live as full citizens in Palestine?
Sherwood, without doubt there would have been and are willing sellers.
Why would anyone accept such a deal?
Israel will not force out settlers from the largest enclaves. Some will be annexed in any deal. Some however might not be important enough to annex but an Israeli administration would like to avoid the circumstance of forcibly removing people. From Israel’s POV those people can be offered that choice. Stay there but give up being Israeli, or take the money and run.
For the PA this is land that is and was often being otherwise unused. These were not generally homes taken over, but rather undeveloped fields. They get to call this land part of the new Palestine, have road and water rights over them, tax the citizens who live there. It allows them a solution that gives them closer to the artificially significant pre-1967 lines, proves there commitment to being a modern state that respects minority rights, and is worth a lot in trade in the negotiation process for things that matter (water rights, tax structure for workers who commute to Israel, deals for development, etc).
Any settlers that stayed would need to understand that if they do not respect the Palestinian state’s laws then Israel would not help them (any more than an Arab country is expected to help an Israeli Arab who breaks Israel’s laws). Few would likely stay under those conditions, most would take the money and run, but having the option open would be very worthwhile.
Certainly not, but there are milder forms of ethnic cleansing which many would object to. For example, the British National Party has proposed offering financial incentives for Muslims and/or non-whites to leave Britain.
Ok, then feel free to read my posts as if I had said “removal of the settlements” instead of “ethnic cleansing.” My points stand.
That’s nonsense. But any way, much of the world’s occupied land contains people which ended up there as a result of wars and violence. I’m looking for universal principles here.
Translation: applying your homemade re-definition of a term that ordinarily has an established and clear meaning leads to confusion, and inabillity to make useful arguments.
You are moving the goalposts here while hoping we won’t notice. Immigration laws as per your example, is not the same as “ethnic cleansing”. You are however free to make up a new word for immigration laws that require adherence to a certain religion, if you see a need.
Or have you retreated to “making funnies”?
If I may inquire: how come discussing with you becomes increasingly difficult and riddled with strange detours when you have locked yourself into a position that is hard to maintain (i.e. defining “ethnic cleansing” in such a way that it leads you to positions such as the one you took w/r to WWII nazis above)? Is it necessary to run off on a thousand and one small hijacks instead of just admitting that your definition was a poor one.
In what way does the example of an individual hiding from, or in any other way escaping, enforcement of the established immigration laws of the united states of america disprove the right of the people of the united states of america to make and enforce laws regulating who is allowed citizenships and who can acquire property? Fail.
Well you live, you ponder, you learn (hopefully).
Yes, if people of mexican descent that held american citizenships lawfully given by the sovereign united states of america were expelled from the undisputed peacetime territory of the united states of america, and if their citizenship was revoked because of their ethnicity that would be state sanctioned ethnic cleansing.
W/r to the formerly mexican territories that are now parts of the united states: delving into the history of the world we all know we will find endless examples of land won by conquest and populations relocated or wiped out. That happened under a world order where “ethnic cleansing” was the norm and where might made right. If you yearn for those days once more and won’t recognize the established rules of the current international framework then you need not pretend to worry over what constitutes “ethnic cleansing”, and when it’s acceptable.
Actually, the settlers have not been removed from the West Bank at this time (by Israel or anyone else). What I am talking about is advocacy of policies which will result in the removal of Jews from the West Bank. Which a lot of non-Israelis are pushing for, as far as I know.
That’s correct, but the values behind the issues are the same, i.e. one can ask whether it’s legitimate to place value on ethnic or religious homogeneity in an area. I raised the issue only because you were making certain assumptions about the norms I am advocating.
I’m not sure what your point is, but it looks to me like you are making an argument disguised as a question. Please just spell out whatever you are trying to say. Thank you.
Again, I am not sure what your point is. Here’s what you claimed:
This claim is clearly false. Please just admit it rather than pretend you were arguing a different point.
Indeed.
What I yearn for is that whatever moral principle makes it preferable to remove Jewish settlers from the West Bank be disclosed for possible universal application.
Without doubt there would have been sellers of what?
There’s a huge difference between the general statement that there would have been a palestinian somewhere in the west bank willing to sell some property to an Israeli (we’d be in agreement but I think you’ll agree that’s trivial and not useful here), and just assuming that the people that held the actual property rights to the land where the settlers currently are all would happily have sold and left their homes.
It’s only the latter statement that should have any impact on what goes into a peace agreement. And the fact is that it is unknowable, since the land was not lawfully acquired in an undisputed peacetime territory.
Let them apply for citizenship in the palestinian state and buy the property after it has been established and let Israel compensate the settlers if Israel sees the need.
My observation in this thread, and previously is that when it get’s to hard for you maintaining a principled argument for you proposition (i.e. “removing Israeli settlers from occupied territories constitutes “ethnic cleansing” according to brazil’s definition of “ethnic cleansing” and that definition is sound”), you have a MO to start hijacks in a million directions and to exercise some annoying habits. F.e. argumenting semantics and chopping up other posters posts with the quote function, quoting half sentences. The post i’m replying to is an example of the latter.
Many posters made the same observation in a previous thread on global warming in which i participated some time ago, and finally you got a mod notice, if memory serves me right.
That is as far as i am willing to go outside the Pit, lest i’d be found guilty of junior modding, and i’d rather stay out of the pit.
I’ll grant you that the word “lawfully” was implied in my claim and that i commited the oversight of expecting you to fill in the blank. You are free to respond to what i wrote with that addition, if it so pleases you.
That you cannot claim a right to property which was not acquired under the rule of law by agreement with the previous owner in undisputed peacetime territory?
What are your modern examples where you feel that that principle was violated?
The statement you so elegantly disproved is at the heart of the matter. That’s where everything stems from and it is a key point for any type of meaningful discussion on the subject you brought up.
Seems to me that most of the logic in the discussion seems fine. The problem is not even the conclusion. The issue - seems to me - is the fundamental difference in assumptions that we take as true or false and do not need any proof. But that’s really not a surprise as most of the issues with systems are related to assumptions and not to the flow of the logical thinking. For many people there are some assumptions that they just wont change their stand (i.e. TRUE or FALSE) no matter what and when a question is poised that brings to question veracity of an assumption held, their reaction is short and sweet - as the one cited above.
That’s not a debate but rather an invitation to watch you play in the house you built. Nothing wrong with your play but the house is kinda shaky.
I’d like an answer to this as well. Preferrably without the ridiculous insinuation that all Arabs are out to kill the Jews. Which is clearly not the case.
Yet there are Jews living as citizens with some degree of rights even in theocratic Iran. (They were well integrated into the society before the 1979 revolution.) And, despite Hamas’s religious bent, most of the Palestinian population is secular. Very likely a Palestinian state would not be theocratic. There is no reason that a Palestinian state couldn’t do better by its Jewish minority than Iran does.
Oh really? Then please show me where I “refuse[d] to even acknowledge that the settlements and the ‘immigrants’ were only placed there as a result of a war and through violence in the first place.”
I disagree with you. I think the problem is more that you are frustrated that I caught you in an incorrect statement and you are trying to distract yourself from that fact. But anyway, if you think my debating style is inappropriate, just don’t engage with me. I don’t debate with anyone who won’t follow my rules.
I think you are probably weaseling, but let me ask you this: whose laws are we talking about here? The law of the state which is in control of the area in question? Or some other law?
Hmmm, I need to think about that one a bit. But let me ask you this: Disputed by whom? If I dispute all claims to property everywhere in the world, does that mean that anyone who claims a right to property is violating your principle?
The fact is that since 1967 Jews have been expelled from countries all over the Middle East. It’s nice that Jews can still live as second class citizens in Iran.
And yes, the Palestinians are more secular than many other Arabs, and there is a large Christian Palestinian minority. The PLO was a secular organization and Fatah today is not dominated by theocrats like Hamas.
So how did the secular PLO treat Jews? They weren’t motivated to fight Jews because of differences in religious belief, but they still fought Jews. Look, here in America we have the idea that there are clear differences between nationality, ethnicity, language, and religion. There are Americans of all ethnicities and languages and religions, and we’re all Americans. But that isn’t the case in many countries. Ethnicity and language and religion go together. The only difference between Serbs and Croats is that Serbs are Orthodox and Croats are Catholic. Most countries in the world are states where one ethnicity dominates, and religious belief follows ethnic identification.
You’re somehow assuming that once there is a peace settlement people will just settle down and forget. That won’t happen for at least a generation. At least.
And as for the contention that I’m somehow “insinuating” that all Arabs are out the kill the Jews, well, where exactly did I say that? I’m just saying that since 1967 Jews aren’t welcome to live in Arab countries and that most of them have been forced to leave. Now, these Jews weren’t Israeli citizens, so why should the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cause the expulsions? Because the differences between nationality, ethnicity and relgion are not distinct in that part of the world.
I’ll “engage” with whomever I please, thanks, even people not agreeing “to follow my rules”. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t feel particularly ashamed about that.
Re: caught with an incorrect statement: case in point of arguing semantics, and nitpicking.
My point was that in functional states in peacetime, you don’t magically acquire citizenship, you are granted citizenship. You may also apply for and be granted the right to own property, in accordance with the established laws of that state. You may also make an agreement with the owner of some property to buy it. Your nitpicking that I was somehow making an incorrect statement because i did not dwell on the fact that someone might illegally sneak into a country (or steal property for that matter) is completely disingeneous and irelevant, because you would in fact not have acquired a legal citizenship (nor would you acquire a legal right to property just because you stole it).
The peacetime laws of the state entity which the territory belongs to, recognized by the international community in accordance with the established international framework. If the land in question is not part of a recognized state entity, or as in this case - occupied, then property rights and citizenship as established by the last recognized state entity.
Specifically where do you think I was weaseling? QUOTE me! Thanks.
On an intergovernmental level, I guess for practicality (and humbly recognizing that IAN a scholar of international law) I would designate a territory not in dispute if it is recognized by the UN and a plurality of nations as an established part of some particular nation entity.
I would assume that you brazil are not a nation-state entity so i’m not sure if you can formally recognize a nation or the territorial claims of a nation. Therefore I am doubtful if what you dispute or not about all the territory in the world is of any consequence w/r international law.
Phrases that better describe this specific situation include: forced relocation (already mentioned), forced migration, population transfer, and expulsion. I think “forced relocation” and “forced migration” are your best bets.
Theoretically, yes. In practice, that will probably never be the case.
Do more good than harm. Make the world a better place going forward.
If you want something a little less general, than: be leery of the appropriation of land by squatting.
Lemur, no I am not imagining that everyone will disolve into group hugs. But I am imagining that a Jewish neighborhood could be tolerated if it was clearly made so as part of a deal and they played by the rules too. My imagining includes that the settlers are offered either money to move and get resettled or the money is given to the PA to distribute as it sees fit as purchase for the property if they want to stay. I also do not think many setttlers would stay but that having the option would help make the deal happen more easily.
Yes, I imagine that the Jewish neighborhood would not get great services and that they would be a somewhat discriminated class. But I do not think that the concept of them living as a minority group with rights in Palestine as citizens of Palestine is inconceivable.