Will Israel dismantle unauthorized settlements?

[XT]

Malthus…FWIW, that was an excellent post.

-XT

[wevets]

@FinnAgain

Largely because the Arab states voted against it.

The policy of most Arab nations has been pretty much as bad for the Palestinians as Israeli policy, hasn’t it? It seems to be in the interest of many Arab nations to continue the conflict as long as it’s their treasure at risk, and nothing else. But the resolution did pass, 33 to 13, right? It’s just that the UN has no actual power to enforce it.

@FinnAgain

Yes and no. The West Bank was captured by Jordan, as I pointed out. Jordan (nee Transjordan) then specifically acted to deny self determination to the residents of said packet of land.

…
No. It conquered the West Bank in a defensive war and negotiated with Jordan as if Jordan was the legitimate sovereign of the area since Jordan had been in charge of its administration for roughly two decades.

Which makes me wonder - why “no?” Conquest in a defensive war is the same as conquest in an offensive war. Neither serves the people of the area being conquered. Government administering the people in Hebron from Jerusalem is just as much a moral failure as from Amman. The whole point behind many international actions, from Kosovo to decolonization of Africa to the liberation of East Timor is that self-determination is a better, more prosperous long-term choice than conquest.

@FinnAgain

Nor do the settlements themselves prevent Palestinian self determination.

I don’t get that - the Israeli settlers don’t have to pass Palestinian customs & immigration, they don’t have to apply to a Palestinian town council for a building permit, they don’t have to obey Palestinian zoning law or pay Palestinian sales tax in their stores (assuming Palestine has a sales tax.) In what way are the Israeli settlements anything other than extranational exclaves within foreign territory?

It seems like Israel is setting up a situation analogous to that in China in 1900 or so, where foreign military power forced cession of territory such as Tsingtao to be run administratively by Germany.

Yes, technically, you can still have a self-determined nation that includes foreign exclaves, however history seems to show that people resent the foreign military power used to impose such exclaves. Hong Kong would be an example of a successful exclave, but the price at which such examples come (the Boxer Rebellion) makes me wonder if it’s worthwhile. How much violence is worth setting up a Hong Kong in the West Bank?

@FinnAgain

It’s actually a nifty dodge (and the fallacy of begging the question) when people claim that settlements are an, the primary, or even worse the only “obstacle to peace”.

I haven’t seen anyone here claim the settlements are the primary obstacle to peace. Did that happen in this thread or some other?
For myself - I agree with you that the primary obstacle to peace is violence.

However, the Israeli government is deliberately setting up a situation in which violence can be expected (did they learn nothing from the Boxer Rebellion?)

It is the responsibility and guilt of individuals when they choose to commit violent acts.

It is the responsibility of governments to create situations in which choosing violent solutions is less advantageous than non-violent action.
For example, during the British rule of India London got to make the rules about what political activism and public speech was permissible. It’s hardly surprising to anyone that Indian nationalists often used violence (Gandhi being the glaring and shining example of noble humanity contrary to that violence.)

I do not argue that Britain was responsible for the violence. I do argue that Britain was responsible for stupid policies that increased the likelihood of violence.

Similarly, I do not argue that the Israeli government is responsible for the violence. I do argue that the Israeli government is responsible for stupid policies that increase the likelihood of violence.

There are some things that are actual obstacles to peace, such as, ya know, violence.

As you can see from the above, I agree with you.

By definition while rockets are being launched two groups cannot be said to be at peace.

I think this suffers from the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are not only two groups involved here. There are multiple groups on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, some of which advocate violence and others that do not. The effective government on the Israeli side mostly prevents non-state-sanctioned violence by civilian Israelis against civilian Palestinians. The lack of effective government on the Palestinian side encourages violence from groups such as Hamas against Israeli civilians and military. Israeli policy should obviously undermine Hamas, even wherever they are elected. What I’m saying it should not do, is undermine other forms of government which might be able to limit violence. Israeli responses to terrorist attacks have often included the bombing of Palestinian police stations. Whatever the Israeli response to terrorists who may be among the Palestinian police should be, it should probably consider the fact that a long-term solution will have to include future Palestinian police forces who are not terrorists as opposed to no Palestinian police forces at all.

But ownership of land is a barrier to some groups desired negotiated settlement, not an actual barrier to peace. Likewise, as most of the land in the West Bank was never privately owned in the first place, privileging Palestine claims to 100% of it, sans negotiation, is not a reasonable position.

Far more important to peace would be the creation of a system by which land claims can be peaceably resloved. Unilaterally building on disputed land undermines the creation of such a system.

Actually, the events immediately preceeding and immediately following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire are essential to understanding much of the current situation, but the BD, in a vacuum, isn’t of prime importance, no.

You got me there - I’m not about to start studying up on Ottoman history.
Let me know if there’s something I need from it that would radically change my position, OK?

Yes, and no. Part of territory that were over the Green Line include Jerusalem and Jewish villages/enclaves which were ethnically cleansed circa 1948. While it may be fair to negotiate a position that calls for 100% of Israelis to either abandon their citizenship or land east of the Green Line, it’s a hard sell in the Knesset’s style of coalition politics.

An ideal solution, in my mind, would permit Israelis to live east of the Green line so long as they were subject to the rule of law of whatever state is established there. Obviously minority protections would have to be a major concern for such a state, but the fundamental problem is not that Israelis live there, it’s that they only need to demonstrate to Israeli courts that they have legal title to the land. I think it’s understandable that the Palestinians don’t trust the Israeli court system.

Perhaps a third, neutral party system is needed.

Likewise, after how Jerusalem was administrated under the Jordanians, it ever being given up, especially when folks like Hamas would be in control, is a practical impossibility. Remember what happened to the synagogues which were left behind in Gaza?

I don’t think any solution that doesn’t incorporate Jerusalem into Israel will not fly with Israel or the U.S. Are parts of Jerusalem considered “settlements”? If so, then I’m really only talking about non-Jerusalem settlements.

However, the idea that Israel could just pull out and have a sovereign Palestine in the West Bank (and Gaza) the next day is, right now, a pipe dream.

I completely agree - but at some point, Israeli forces will have to pull out. They need a strategy for leaving a stable state behind, not a failed state.

Problem is they already have forces that are capable of (and indeed, have very recently) attacked Israel.

They’re never going to get rid of AKs, explosives, and battlefield rockets. What Israel needs is a state with sufficient police powers to prevent their use. Israeli settlement policy does not support such a state.

They don’t, and I’ve advocated a settlement freeze on these boards. But that doesn’t mean that the waters should be muddied or the nature of the Israeli coalition system should be glossed over. Absent a credible peace plan, having the political clout to totally halt, let alone remove most of the West Bank settlements is a difficult thing to obtain.

And here I thought you were disagreeing with me - apparently not.

[wevets]

@xtisme

I’ve previously asked for cites demonstrating how Israel’s occupation is illegal, but thus far all I’ve seen is the claim.

OK, so UN resolution 181 doesn’t satisfy your needs and neither does the 4th Geneva Convention.

I guess I just don’t understand what you do need. Are you asking for cites that Israel does not have sovereignty over the West Bank or are you asking for cites that Israel cannot temporarily (where ‘temporary’ = >40 yrs ) occupy the West Bank while a permanent solution to the problem is devised?
Is it your position that the West Bank is and should be a permanent part of Israel? I’m guessing it isn’t, but I may be misunderstanding.

[XT]

@wevets

OK, so UN resolution 181 doesn’t satisfy your needs and neither does the 4th Geneva Convention.

Out of curiosity, why exactly do you think that UN Resolution 181 would demonstrate that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank?

As for the 4th Geneva Convention, if you want to make a case based on it, then you are free to do so. I’m no expert, but I’ve looked over the provisions in several past threads and it could go either way. Some of the provisions don’t seem applicable to the Israel/Palestine situation (for instance Article 2…the country who’s territory is being occupied is Jordan, and they have waved their claims to said territory). Possibly under Article 3 you could make a case…but it’s hard to define who is a non-combatant in this situation.

I found this article discussing the attempted us of the 4th Geneva Convention against Israel (the article claims that it has never been invoked except against Israel since it’s adoption in 1949…if true, that’s kind of telling, no?).

Why was Israel condemned in 2001 for violating the Fourth Geneva Convention?

The Fourth Geneva Convention on Rules of War was adopted in 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. The international treaty governs the treatment of civilians during wartime, including hostages, diplomats, spies, bystanders and civilians in territory under military occupation. The convention outlaws torture, collective punishment and the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control.

The Arab group of the United Nations started trying to invoke the Fourth Geneva Convention against Israel in 1997 and in February 1999 managed to get the General Assembly to adopt a resolution calling for a special UN session in Geneva to examine “persistent violations” by Israel. Although reduced in scope by the United States, a special UN meeting held in Geneva on July 15, 1999 unanimously passed a resolution stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the “occupied territories.” The closed-door meeting lasted a mere 45 minutes.

When the al-Aqsa intifada started in September 2000, the Arab group renewed its demand for a full reconvening of the High Contracting Parties. In response, Switzerland (the Depository for the Fourth Geneva Convention with the responsibility to convene meetings), in consultation with other countries, drafted a declaration that was critical of Israel, but was far more moderate than the draft document submitted by the Organization of Islamic Conference.

Switzerland convened the meeting of the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention on December 5, 2001 to discuss the alleged Israeli violations of the Convention in its treatment of the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza Strip. The United States, Israel and Australia boycotted the meeting seeing that it was another attempt by anti-Israel forces to inappropriately leverage, for political advantage, international agreements that have no applicability to the Palestinian situation.

At the very short meeting, less than an hour, the assembled High Contracting Parties did adopt a resolution censuring Israel. This was done in spite of the fact that there was no presentation of evidence or debate, just a politically motivated censure of Israel. With the al-Aqsa intifada more than a year old, there was no discussion of Palestinian terrorism, only complaints against Israel. In the 50+ years since its adoption, the Fourth Geneva Convention was convened only to discuss Israel, and never met to deal with world atrocities including those in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, Congo, Tibet, and other troubled nations.

Unfortunately, this use of The Fourth Geneva Convention served to validate the Palestinian tactic of using the international community, and the United Nations in particular, as a forum for airing grievances against Israel, rather than resolving such matters through bilateral negotiations and the Oslo peace process.

This was Israel’s response:

Israel responded to the resolution with an official release that included this paragraph:

* The statement adopted at the meeting is clearly one-sided and contains sections with unsubstantiated allegations against Israel. The declaration ignores entirely the continuous and vicious incitement against Israel in the Palestinian media and in school textbooks, which together with actions by organs of the Palestinian Authority contribute to creating a cult of suicide bombers who have wreaked havoc in Israeli towns and villages, killing and maiming innocent civilians in discotheques, restaurants and markets.

I guess I just don’t understand what you do need.

Some kind of substantiated proof that Israel’s occupation is illegal. Seems simple enough to me. In retrospect, however, I can see that it’s impossible to prove…which is why the assertion that the occupation is illegal is continually brought up…and probably explains why Finn gets so angry when the context is ignored.

Are you asking for cites that Israel does not have sovereignty over the West Bank or are you asking for cites that Israel cannot temporarily (where ‘temporary’ = >40 yrs ) occupy the West Bank while a permanent solution to the problem is devised?

I asked for cites on how their occupation was illegal, based on supposed international law. Since Israel has occupied the territory in question for decades now, I would suppose that said international court or other authoritative body would have had some kind of ruling on this issue by now, which could then be cited…or, that having failed to do so, it would render the entire question moot.

Is it your position that the West Bank is and should be a permanent part of Israel? I’m guessing it isn’t, but I may be misunderstanding.

Well, that’s an interesting question…and probably moot at this point. I think Israel SHOULD have annexed the West Bank when Jordan gave up it’s claim to it, yes. Having failed to do so, however, I’d have to say that the territory in question is in a gray area at this point, and that Israel will probably end up using parts of it as a bargaining chip in future negotiations…assuming the Palestinian’s can ever negotiate in a truly good faith manner on this issue. That said, as the occupying power, I would say that Israel is the current sovereign power in the OT, and has at least the limited right to govern that territory as it sees fit, within such guidelines as the GC and other relevant documents. In the end I expect that Israel probably will retain a good percentage of the OT’s though, yes. Simply put, they have controlled that territory for decades and there is no end in sight as far as I can tell.

If the Palestinian’s really wanted that territory and a viable self governed state of their own, they probably should have taken the original deal…or, they should have negotiated a settlement (in good faith) in the 60’s or 70’s (or even the 80’s…heck, in the 90’s). At this point they will never even get half a loaf…to me, that ship has sailed and ever year they continue this struggle will continue to wear away at what they can expect to receive in the end.

-XT

[wevets]

Let me see if I understand this:

[ul]The 4th Geneva Convention prohibits transfer of civilians into the occupied area: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” (cite)[/ul]
[ul]Israel ratified the 4th Geneva Convention in 1951 (cite)[/ul]
[ul]Israel ratified the 4th Geneva Convention in 1951 (cite)[/ul]
[ul]The Swiss convened a meeting of the Contracting Parties which censured Israel for violating the terms of the treaty. (cite - your post above)[/ul]
I could understand if you were arguing that the Contracting Parties rigged the game against the Israelis, but to say that the Israeli actions are legal under international law?
On further reflection, I see that you’re saying the “how their occupation was illegal.”

That’s not what I’m saying (perhaps others are saying that, but I’m not them.)

What I’m saying is that settlement of Israelis into the West Bank (beyond those returning to the West Bank - I’m only talking about new settlers) is illegal.
The occupation is something that will have to eventually end, but Israel is the occupying power of the West Bank, not the sovereign government of the people of the West Bank.

Don’t you think the relevance of UN 181 is obvious? Legally, it endorses the idea of a separate Palestinian state. Practically, it has no value because the UN is not like a toothless tiger, it’s more like a toothless banana slug.

What’s the advantage of having Palestine annexed to Israel? It would just condemn much of Israel to a state of civil war and demographically, the Israelis don’t want to be outnumbered in their own state by Palestinians in the future.

[XT]

@wevets

On further reflection, I see that you’re saying the “how their occupation was illegal.”

Yes…that is the question I asked.

What I’m saying is that settlement of Israelis into the West Bank (beyond those returning to the West Bank - I’m only talking about new settlers) is illegal.

And I said that this is a reasonable (academic) debate point. It’s academic though because ‘illegal’ loses any sort of meaning or context if the ‘law’ is not enforced. What ‘legal’ proceedings have been brought against Israel about this? What is their punishment? What does ‘illegal’ actually mean, in the context of international law? What does it mean considering the fact that there isn’t any enforcement…or even any real censure? Hell…afaik, no one has even seriously embargoed Israel over this seemingly horrific ‘illegal’ act. No?

The occupation is something that will have to eventually end, but Israel is the occupying power of the West Bank, not the sovereign government of the people of the West Bank.

They are the occupying power, yes. They choose (and I use that word specifically) not to annex the region and be the true sovereign government over the region, true enough. Yes…at some point the occupation will have to end and the issue finally resolved. I agree.

Don’t you think the relevance of UN 181 is obvious? Legally, it endorses the idea of a separate Palestinian state. Practically, it has no value because the UN is not like a toothless tiger, it’s more like a toothless banana slug.

Even if the UN was not that toothless tiger, etc etc, UN 181 wouldn’t really be relevant to the question of the West Bank and the occupation. But I realize you are just joking around with this so…

What’s the advantage of having Palestine annexed to Israel?

The West Bank does not equal Palestine. The advantage WOULD have been (this ship has also sailed) that the question would have been resolved. Arab peoples living in the area could have chosen to remain (and become Israeli citizens), or chosen to leave to somewhere else. There would have been a resolution. This was, IMHO, one of Israels big mistakes.

It would just condemn much of Israel to a state of civil war and demographically, the Israelis don’t want to be outnumbered in their own state by Palestinians in the future.

I disagree, but we’ll never know now. As I said, that ship sailed long ago.

-XT

[wevets]

@xtisme

It’s academic though because ‘illegal’ loses any sort of meaning or context if the ‘law’ is not enforced. What ‘legal’ proceedings have been brought against Israel about this? What is their punishment? What does ‘illegal’ actually mean, in the context of international law?

So is it fair to summarize your position as saying that international law mostly doesn’t exist? Or just isn’t enforced?

I think there’s a difference between those two positions, and it seems that you don’t. We may just have to agree to disagree.

Even if the UN was not that toothless tiger, etc etc, UN 181 wouldn’t really be relevant to the question of the West Bank and the occupation. But I realize you are just joking around with this so…

Well, no. The UN would then have ordered the 101st UN Division (‘The Fighting Pumpernickels!’ ) to move into the West Bank and enforce the retreat of Israeli forces into Israel and Jordanian forces into Jordan. And since this UN IS a toothed-tiger world is fictional, they also would have given me a pony.

Arab peoples living in the area could have chosen to remain (and become Israeli citizens), or chosen to leave to somewhere else. There would have been a resolution.

The Arab states haven’t been keen on allowing Palestinians in over the last 40 years, why would they have in 1967? Do you have a reason to believe this or is it just a WAG?

[wevets]

@xtisme

Yes…that is the question I asked.

Perhaps elsewhere, but the question Kimstu was originally responding to is this:

@xtisme

What (exact) international laws are being broken by the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories?

In post #38 in this thread.

There’s a difference between saying what laws are broken by the settlements and what laws are broken by the occupation itself. I think the 4th Geneva Convention speaks to the settlements.

[XT]

@wevets

So is it fair to summarize your position as saying that international law mostly doesn’t exist? Or just isn’t enforced?

That ‘illegal’ is purely academic wrt international law and relations. Especially if there is no associated censure (embargoes and such). In this particular case it’s even less meaningful, since as far as I can tell the only even attempt at censure was some convoluted back door attempt to simply say the Israeli’s are really, REALLY bad guys.

I think there’s a difference between those two positions, and it seems that you don’t. We may just have to agree to disagree.

There is a difference between the two…and between what is in fact my own. As for agreeing to disagree, I can live with that.

Well, no. The UN would then have ordered the 101st UN Division (‘The Fighting Pumpernickels!’ ) to move into the West Bank and enforce the retreat of Israeli forces into Israel and Jordanian forces into Jordan. And since this UN IS a toothed-tiger world is fictional, they also would have given me a pony.

The resolution is meaningless wrt the West Bank because it was rejected by the Arab states and the Palestinian’s, and then history happened. Jordan annexed the West Bank and then lost the territory during the '67 war with Israel. It has nothing really to do with the fact that the UN doesn’t have the teeth to enforce that particular resolution or not.

The Arab states haven’t been keen on allowing Palestinians in over the last 40 years, why would they have in 1967? Do you have a reason to believe this or is it just a WAG?

They haven’t been keen on allowing in the Palestinian’s as refugees. Had Israel annexed the West Bank then the Palestinian’s living there would have either had to submit and become Israeli citizens or they would have had to figure out something else. My guess is that some percentage of them would have chosen to stay, but that’s just a WAG. As I said, we’ll never know…Israel did not choose to go this route after all, instead continuing their quasi-ownership and occupation. They have several good (in their minds) reasons for this, but I think they should have bitten the bullet and simply done so…it would have resolved at least this issue decades ago. C’est la vie.

-XT

[ralph124c]

1. Who provides the financing to build these settlements? Presumably a bank makes mortgage loans on these properties…who are they?
   2)Land titles: before you can build a house (in the USA), you have to have ownership of the lot-who owns this land?
2. who do these settlers pays real estate taxes to? Are these settlements legally constituted towns?

[wevets]

@ralph124c

1. Who provides the financing to build these settlements? Presumably a bank makes mortgage loans on these properties…who are they?
   2)Land titles: before you can build a house (in the USA), you have to have ownership of the lot-who owns this land?
2. who do these settlers pays real estate taxes to? Are these settlements legally constituted towns?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, but does anyone?

[XT]

The answer to who owns the land is…it depends on which land, and it depends on how you look at land ownership. If you think of land ownership from the perspective of having lived on the land (or near it) for generations, then in a lot of cases the Arabs (or Jews depending on where you are looking) ‘owns’ the land. However, if you look at land ownership from the perspective of official title (i.e. having title or deeds of ownership), or from the perspective of land use, then in a lot of cases no one ‘owns’ the land…and so it defaults to the government (this is how land ownership is viewed in the US btw…it’s also how the Jordanian’s and the Ottoman’s viewed it as well).

So…depending on where you stand on this issue will determine whether you think the Palestinian’s own the land or if it defaults to the occupying government (you can guess where most Palestinian’s or Israeli’s come down on this issue, though in the case of Israel it also depends on which party you are in. For example, IIRC, the Israeli Labor Party supports the Palestinian view…or I suppose a better interpretation of their position is they do not support more settlement and support the position of trading land for peace).

So…

1. Who provides the financing to build these settlements? Presumably a bank makes mortgage loans on these properties…who are they?

I don’t know who finances every settlement…I’d say that they get their financing from different sources and that each settlement is fairly unique in how they are financed and by whom. At a guess, a lot of settlers get private financing, augmented by government grants and loans (in some cases). Israel does have banks and such, so I’m unsure what you are getting at here to be honest.

2)Land titles: before you can build a house (in the USA), you have to have ownership of the lot-who owns this land?

Think of (some) of the Occupied Territories lands as BLM lands owned by the Federal government. And think in terms of how things were when the West was being settled, where the government would grant you lands if you settled and worked the land. It’s similar to that…at least, that’s my understanding.

3. who do these settlers pays real estate taxes to? Are these settlements legally constituted towns?

If we are talking about Israeli settlers and settlements then the answer is Israel, natch. Who else would they pay taxes too?? If we are talking about Arab/Palestinan’s living there then the answer is…I really don’t know. Finn probably does, maybe he’ll wander back in.

-XT

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

The historical tragedy if you like is that by and large the early Zionists felt the first form of entitlement; the Arabs, by and large, have always felt the second;

I was under the impression it was more along the lines of the Arabs felt the second type and the Zionists felt a milder version of the second type. If there was some way to tell the difference between peace loving Palestinians and the not so peace loving type, I am not at all sure that Israel would open their borders to the peace loving types.

I’m not condoning terrorism (I can’t believe that any criticism of Israel’s position has to start with that caveat) but to some extent, you can understand some of the extremism in the area if you go there as a non-arab, non-jew, non christian, non-muslim, indifferent third party.

Israelis cannot help but notice that world sympathy, brief and fleeting though it proved, was only aroused by an almost successful attempt to exterminate them (and even then, many cheered rather than mourned).

You make it sound like their choice is to do what they are doing now or to die. I believe that they can also recognize the Palestinian right of return. This would turn Israel into a majority Arab Muslim state but there is reason to believe that Arab extremists would stop with the suicide bombing if the Palestinians got the right of return. Aren’t we really just protecting Israel’s Jewishness?

Do you really not understand the Palestinian perspective at all? I’m not saying that we should replace millions of Palestinian refugees with millions of Israeli refugees but how do you defend denying the right of return when the concept is part of everything from the Balfour declaration to UN positions (remember the UN was the entity that basically created Israel).

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@xtisme

That ‘illegal’ is purely academic wrt international law and relations. Especially if there is no associated censure (embargoes and such).

Are you saying that the rules would make more sense if someone came along and beat the crap out of Israel for breaking them?

The resolution is meaningless wrt the West Bank because it was rejected by the Arab states and the Palestinian’s, and then history happened.

Are you saying that the Arab states have to live with UN action when the UN created the state of Israel but Israel doesn’t have to live with UN rules because they were invaded?

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I was under the impression it was more along the lines of the Arabs felt the second type and the Zionists felt a milder version of the second type. If there was some way to tell the difference between peace loving Palestinians and the not so peace loving type, I am not at all sure that Israel would open their borders to the peace loving types.

I’m not condoning terrorism (I can’t believe that any criticism of Israel’s position has to start with that caveat) but to some extent, you can understand some of the extremism in the area if you go there as a non-arab, non-jew, non christian, non-muslim, indifferent third party.

I can perfectly well understand why Arab ‘extremism’ exists. It is the fact of its existence which makes Israelis reluctant to embrace any plan which would provide for people who fundamentally object to their presence into their country. Can anyone seriously blame them? If I was them I’d not want any Palestinians to immigrate into the country, either.

While it is true that in the present some Israelis feel exclusionary towards Palestinians, this was not the case in the early days of Zionism; it is a development of years of living under threat. That is how ethnic tensions feed on themselves.

You make it sound like their choice is to do what they are doing now or to die.

To a large extent, this is exactly how it appeared to them. Europe had in matter of fact attempted, reasonably successfully, to exterminate them. After WW2 the killings tended to continue in places such as Poland. The obvious lession was - to live in someone elses’ country is to be at risk of extermination. Nor did the experience of the Shephardic Jews in the ME after WW2 contradict this notion.

It is true that Jews found a safe haven in North America, but they were famously prevented from immigrating there prior to WW2, and there was no great eagerness to take on millions of displaced eastern european Jews after WW2. The Allied plan, in point of fact, was to keep them in DP camps. Many Jews were somewhat understandably reluctant to be confined in “camps”, at the mercy of the good intentions of the Allies. The fate of the Palestinians are an awful warning of what can happen to those confined in such places while the world figures out what to do with them.

I believe that they can also recognize the Palestinian right of return. This would turn Israel into a majority Arab Muslim state but there is reason to believe that Arab extremists would stop with the suicide bombing if the Palestinians got the right of return. Aren’t we really just protecting Israel’s Jewishness?

No-one in their right mind would voluntarily subscribe to this plan for themselves. It would require a quite remarkable degree of trust in the good intentions of a group who, frankly, have no particular reason to have good intentions, and have not demonstrated in Lebanon or elsewhere in the region any particular talents at successfully and without violence running a multi-religious and ethnic state.

Do you really not understand the Palestinian perspective at all? I’m not saying that we should replace millions of Palestinian refugees with millions of Israeli refugees but how do you defend denying the right of return when the concept is part of everything from the Balfour declaration to UN positions (remember the UN was the entity that basically created Israel).

The UN did not create Israel. Israel was created by the Jewish army. The UN merely gave that creation a veneer of legitimacy; the UN declaration was the signal for immediate war against it on the part of all of its neighbours. It was the outcome of that war that created Israel, and had the Israelis lost it, we would not be discussing this matter now in spite of the UN.

The “right of return” is pie in the sky stuff. The Israelis will never agree to it. I would not agree to it if I was Israeli. The lion lying down with the lamb makes a nice Biblical image, but in reality it just means a snack for the lion.

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Are you saying that the rules would make more sense if someone came along and beat the crap out of Israel for breaking them?

Are you saying that the Arab states have to live with UN action when the UN created the state of Israel but Israel doesn’t have to live with UN rules because they were invaded?

More to the point, no-one obeys “UN rules” except and to the extent it is convenient for them.

Many appear to labour under the misapprehension that “international law” has some sort of real, tangible existence for states, in the same way that “national law” has for individuals living within a state. This is sadly not the case. There is certainly someting we call “international law”, but our world system is in reality one of anarchic sovereign states; “international law” is better though of as a bunch of agreements between 'em to avoid an unnecesary degree of violence.

There is a simple axiom of law to remember: there can be no “law” without a sovereign of some sort to enforce it. The UN is not such a sovereign, as it requires for its enforcement powers the voluntary agreement of certain key states.

This in large part explains the role of the UN and the Israel situation. Throughout its history, the UN has attempted to look like a sovereign and to undertake sovereign-like duties, but without the actual power to carry out any such role. This does not fool the Arabs or Israelis, but for some unaccountable reason (I presume idealism or wishful thinking) tends to fool many here in the West.

Perhaps the pivotal moment which demonstrated the hollowness of the UN for all to see was at the outbreak of the '67 war. The Un had a “peacekeeping force” as a buffer between the Israelis and Egyptians in the Sinai. Nasser wished to put more pressure on Israel. He ordered the UN forces to leave. They did.

They thereby demostrated conclusively to both Arabs and Israelis that the UN really did not count when it comes to matters of peace and war. It is an organization useful as a sounding-board for states, but not as a world peacekeeper. That being the case, states have no choice but to rely on themselves.

[XT]

@Damuri Ajashi

Are you saying that the rules would make more sense if someone came along and beat the crap out of Israel for breaking them?

Malthus answered this far better than I could. The crux is that a law or body of laws is meaningless if there is no enforcement of those laws…and no real body to enforce them. People thing of The Law as this rigid, cast in concrete entity. Lawyers and judges thing of the law as a continuing process, where laws are tested in court, judgments are made, laws refined and precedence set, guilt or innocence determined, and punishments set or innocence determined. That’s how the law works. That’s NOT how International Law works, however…and in the absence of that, it’s really just a meaningless, academic discussion.

Are you saying that the Arab states have to live with UN action when the UN created the state of Israel but Israel doesn’t have to live with UN rules because they were invaded?

You seriously need to study at least the basics of the history behind all of this. The UN didn’t create Israel. The UN ATTEMPTED to create an Arab (Palestine) and Jewish (Israel) states in the old British Occupied Mandate post WWII. The Arab states (including the Palestinian’s) rejected this, however, and instead chose to ignore the UN resolutions applicable and determine who was going to own that land through force of arms. They went to war…and eventually lost (rinse and repeat several times throughout the next 3 decades).

So…the Palestinian’s and their Arab neighbors ignored the UN (several times), and Israel has ignored the UN (several times). Both sides also follow the various convoluted UN mandates…when it suits them. Considering the history of the UN in the region this is militantly unsurprising.

-XT

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

While it is true that in the present some Israelis feel exclusionary towards Palestinians, this was not the case in the early days of Zionism; it is a development of years of living under threat. That is how ethnic tensions feed on themselves.

It is also true that before the zionist movement, there weren’t very many suicide bombers in the middle east either. It just seems odd to the casual observer that Jews would get persecuted and exterminated in Europe by Christians and the solution seem to be to take land from the Muslims in the Middle East.

To a large extent, this is exactly how it appeared to them.

And why did it make sense to settle in Palestine?

The fate of the Palestinians are an awful warning of what can happen to those confined in such places while the world figures out what to do with them

That almost sounds like you’re saying the Israelis don’t want to end up being treated tyhe way they treat the Palestinians.

No-one in their right mind would voluntarily subscribe to this plan for themselves. It would require a quite remarkable degree of trust in the good intentions of a group who, frankly, have no particular reason to have good intentions, and have not demonstrated in Lebanon or elsewhere in the region any particular talents at successfully and without violence running a multi-religious and ethnic state.

Riiiight, because the Zionists have never resorted to terrorism. If Zionists can be rehabilitated from terrorists to military oppressors, if Irish nationalists can be rehabilitated from terrorists to members of parliament, then why can’t Palestinian terrorists be rehabilitated as well?

The UN did not create Israel. Israel was created by the Jewish army…It was the outcome of that war that created Israel, and had the Israelis lost it, we would not be discussing this matter now in spite of the UN.

And if someone provides weapons to the Palestinians and they overrun Israel in a second war, do they get to create a population of Israeli refugees for the next 60 years?

The “right of return” is pie in the sky stuff. The Israelis will never agree to it.

And, what happens if and when some nuclear arab nation decides to just blow Israel up (or more likely give the Palestinians a nuclear weapon). A lot of people think that nuclear proliferation is inevitable and Israel has stirred up emotions that would lead otherwise some men to detonate a nuclear weapon.

If they’re not going to agree to right of return then they better sign on to a two state solution sooner rather than later because they may not have that choice if the relative power shifts.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

More to the point, no-one obeys “UN rules” except and to the extent it is convenient for them.

I am pretty familiar with the concept of international law and I generally agree that the UN is merely a forum for real powers to discuss things. My point is that it seems odd that some zionists rely so heavily on the imprimatur of UN recognition and then feel free to ignore its resolutions.

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

It is also true that before the zionist movement, there weren’t very many suicide bombers in the middle east either. It just seems odd to the casual observer that Jews would get persecuted and exterminated in Europe by Christians and the solution seem to be to take land from the Muslims in the Middle East.

I may quibble with the “take land from Muslims” bit (there are a couple of things wrong with that statement - for one not all Palestinains are Muslim), but why does it seem odd that a group who was persecuted in one place would attempt to leave for another?

And why did it make sense to settle in Palestine?

Several reasons.

1. It was already partly settled by pre-existing Zionists, who had organization, a nacient army, etc.

2. You could get to Palestine from Europe. Much more difficult to (say) smuggle yourself to Australia.

3. The situation in Palestine was unsettled, organized as it was under a failing British mandate.

That almost sounds like you’re saying the Israelis don’t want to end up being treated tyhe way they treat the Palestinians.

They certainly don’t want to end up in the same situation as the Palestinians. Again, I’d not use the loaded “way they treat” language.

Riiiight, because the Zionists have never resorted to terrorism. If Zionists can be rehabilitated from terrorists to military oppressors, if Irish nationalists can be rehabilitated from terrorists to members of parliament, then why can’t Palestinian terrorists be rehabilitated as well?

There have certainly been Zionist terrorists - the Irgun and Stern Gangs. Historically, they never succeeded in taking over direction of policy; in the run-up to the formation of the state, there was actually an armed confrontation with the ‘legitimate’ underground army (the Haganah) who disapproved of terrorism as a tactic. They lost.

The contrast between this situation and that of the PLO vs. Hamas & co. could not be more harsh, and goes a fair way to explain the plight the Palestinians are in today. The PLO early on embraced terrorism. Later, when it sought to embrace more legitimate forms of stuggle, it was confronted with splinter groups and with Hamas - groups both more violent and more religiously exclusive (please note as stated above that not ALL Palestinians are Muslim!). Hamas is particular is rejectionist in the extreme and apt to interpret all concessions as weakness rather than good faith openings for negotiation. This does not inspire great confidence that the Palestinians, as a group, are ready at this time for their more militant elements to be “rehabilitated”.

And if someone provides weapons to the Palestinians and they overrun Israel in a second war, do they get to create a population of Israeli refugees for the next 60 years?

Seems a rather tangental response to the issue of whether or not the UN “created” Israel.

And, what happens if and when some nuclear arab nation decides to just blow Israel up (or more likely give the Palestinians a nuclear weapon). A lot of people think that nuclear proliferation is inevitable and Israel has stirred up emotions that would lead otherwise some men to detonate a nuclear weapon.

The treat of nuclear extermination if one does not agree to demograhic extermination seems rather hollow.

If they’re not going to agree to right of return then they better sign on to a two state solution sooner rather than later because they may not have that choice if the relative power shifts.

I believe a two state solution is best, yes.