Fiction.
The very existence of Israel is based upon the fact that the secular Zionist movement took up the cause of buying and cultivating land that Jews could move to.
Are they simply increasing the density of the built-up areas within the existing confines of the settlements or are they expanding the territorial footprint of the settlements and thus shrinking the land avalaible for the Palestinians?
I honestly don’t know, but I assume it’s a combination of both.
It’s not that important, though - we’re only talking about a few hundred yards either way. The distances that count are the ones between the settlements, not the size of the settlements themselves.
I should think that the only people who get to decide whether or not it’s “important” are the Palestinians. They’re the ones being asked to make sacrifices so Jews can live better.
What about Jerusalem?
First of all no one accepts Israeli claims of sovereignty over the occupied territories. The settlements are obviously meant for all Jews not just those who lost their homes 60 years ago. The latter are just a post hoc justification for the settlements and not a very good one since the fact that some Jews were expelled in 1948 doesn’t give a general right to Jews to settle in those places.
OK I am not going to play semantics here. The “vast majority” is generally used for much greater proportions than two thirds.
What does 242 have to say about settlements exactly? It was enacted long before the settlements were being built. Resolution 465 passed two decades later explicitly deals with the settlements and clear says that they are illegal. The International Court of Justice also said they were illegal. So did the European Union. So did the Carter adminstration. If there is a single international body or major government which accepts Israeli claims about the legality of settlements I have yet to hear about it.
They could have done that, and with less trouble, on some island in the Pacific. Palestine was chosen because Zionism was based on a sense of historical national entitlement to it. As you know.
Care to add a few more words to your question?
Nope, what I know is that you’re again playing fast and loose.
Unlike the example you were responding to, the first Aliyah did not move to the region and declare that the buildings there were their homes since their ancestors had lived there. They did not choose land that their grandparents had lived on, as tenants rather than property owners, and claim that those were their lands by right, in perpetuity, due to them being a Waqf.
I know you did your best to set up a fallacious analogy by claiming that the situations were “exactly similar”. (what a Jabberwockian phrase, in any case).
Unlike your bullshit claims here, I know that if the first Aliyah believed that they had an entitlement to the land, then they would not have gone through *the trouble of buying it. *
I know that they felt that there was an historical connection, but that you are deliberately and purposefully setting up a glaringly incorrect comparison in order to sling a tu quoque.
Ah well.
Of course there are arguments on both sides of the issue. To claim that “no one” believes other than you do is wrong. It’s also worth pointing out that the proper claim isn’t one of Israeli sovereignty, but occupation under the 4th Geneva Convention, incomplete land ownership under the laws of the region by the Palestinians, and no sovereign entity that could have taken possession of the territories in '67 or '88.
It’s pretty clear, actually, on the status of the claim that all of the territories are Palestinian and Israel must simply unilaterally turn them over and doesn’t have the right to any of them.
But of course, as pointed out, the opinions issues haven’t been binding. So…
Well obviously the Israeli government believes its own position and there a few individuals who agree with it but no government that I know of does. And while Chapter 6 UNSC resolutions are not enforceable, they are a part of international law as are rulings by the ICJ. Again I don’t know of a single international body which agrees with the Israeli position. So there is a pretty solid consensus that the settlements are in fact illegal under international law.
Coming back to the OP, this developing story is going to be extremely important for the Obama administration and the Middle East. His willingness to to go tough on settlements in public is promising and will definitely build his credibility in the Middle East and possibly pave the way for a serious push for a two-state solution. But it will all come to nothing if the settlements keep growing merrilly. There are already some signsthat the Israel lobby is mobilizing against Obama and if he backs down and gets rolled by Netanyahu his credibility will take a massive and likely permanent hit in the Muslim world with serious consequences for US foreign policy across a number of fronts. My guess is this won’t happen but it’s a huge story either way.
Does Israeli control over Jerusalem have anything to do with Jewish ancestral claims, seeing as how it’s been denied that such ancestral claims have anything to with the founding of the state of Israel (or, I might add, Jewish settlements in “Judea and Samaria”)?
Um…no. Israeli control of Jerusalem has to do with the fact that they won this war thingy in 1967. Before that, Jerusalem had been divided between the western half (controlled by the new state of Israel) and the eastern half, which was (IIRC) annexed by Jordan following the 1948 Arab/Israeli war.
So…‘ancestral claims’ really didn’t enter into it. It was the whole ‘force of arms’ thingy instead…
-XT
Well, that’s kind of the point. What the Palestinians and pretty much everyone else in the world except Israel and the US are claiming is that Israel is not legitimately entitled to treat settlements in the occupied territories the same way it treats any “other Israeli” town. Which is apparently what prompted the question in the OP.
Leaving aside your ridiculously broad brush (EVERYONE else in the world?? :dubious:), my question is…why? You can answer from your own perspective if you like…why is Israel not entitled to treat it’s settlements in the occupied territories like other Israeli cities?
-XT
Correction. Like I mentioned the Carter administration stated that the settlements violated international law. While subsequent administrations haven’t repeated such statements they haven’t rejected them either. And even the Bush administration has never said the settlements were OK. It has criticized them in muted fashion as being unhelpful to the peace process and so on. So Israel is practically alone in its position; though admittedly I haven’t checked the all-important Micronesian stance on the issue.
The world is entitled to its opinion.
This is ours: whether or not the settlements should have been founded in the first place - and they shouldn’t - they’re here now, and they’re populated by Israeli citizens. The Israeli government has obligations toward its citizens that supersede any obligations it has toward anyone else; if it removes any settlements, it’ll be to because it believes that doing so will help more citizens than it will hurt. Not for any nebulous “international law”, and certainly not because someone tells us to.
Frankly, I don’t want my government to abandon the settlers; it sets a bad precedent. If it abandons them, who’s to say they won’t abandon me next?
Okay, but ISTM that in that case Israel has no right to complain about anybody else violating “nebulous international law” in pursuit of what they deem their own best interests.
I agree that Israel should certainly not “abandon” its citizens, but I don’t see how repatriating them within Israel proper and compensating them for the loss of their property in the occupied territories, which I definitely think Israel would owe to them if it removed the settlements, would count as abandoning them.
What (exact) international laws are being broken by the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories? This is a serious question…I know of none, personally, but if you do know of some I’d be interested in seeing them.
If you lived along the Texas border (or in Southern California) a few decades after the US, um, acquired those territories, how would you feel if the government told you to abandon your house and community and move to some other state? Would you feel the government abandoned you…or would you be totally cool with that and simply shrug, pick up your family and move somewhere else?
-XT
IANAIL, but the answer that I’ve most frequently seen is that they violate the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibition of an occupying power’s transferring its own civilians into occupied territory.
Note, however, that Alessan was the one who brought up “nebulous international law”, whatever that is, explicitly. All that I said was that pretty much everyone in the world except Israel and the US thinks that Israel doesn’t have a legitimate right to establish or expand settlements in the occupied territories, which is true. I know that many Israeli hawks and their supporters claim that there is not an incontrovertible basis in international law for that opinion, but not being an IL, I can’t definitively evaluate that claim.
Well, if my government repatriated me in territory that it had undisputed sovereignty over and compensated me for my losses, I definitely wouldn’t feel that the government had abandoned me. Depending on my own take on the rights and wrongs of the situation, I might be totally cool with that, or I might feel the government had screwed me over somewhat, or I might be totally outraged. But it was the use of the word “abandon” specifically that seemed somewhat odd to me in this context, which is why I questioned it.
If Israel ended its occupation of the West Bank, recognizing Palestinian sovereignty over it, and told its settlers “You’re living on Palestinian land now, and it’s up to you to cope with that however you can, because we have no responsibility to you in your current location”, then I would definitely consider that to be abandoning them. But you can be disappointed, or screwed over, or unjustly treated, without being abandoned.
I ain’t him, but if the government came out and said that it was going to formalize the border to what it’s kinda sort of already been for a long time, and that I was going to end up living in another country as a result, I’d be totally cool with that as an administrative action. Clearly the country has a right to formalize its borders and I would have to be kind of dim to be unaware that I was living in territory of contested ownership. Of course, if I knew that the neighborhood was going to imminently be overrun with people who would likely try to ethnically cleanse me at the drop of a hat, I’d immidiately start taking steps to move back into the country. Being not suicidal and all.
And I notice you omitted the bit about being compensated for my property and loss - if that happened I certainly wouldn’t feel abandoned. Who would?