Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
International law says Israel may remain in the territory until a peace agreement comes about. International law says Israel does not have to fully withdraw. Do you have evidence that Hamas will cease its terrorist attacks if Israel withdraws?
1) If Israel were to withdraw all the selected settlements deemed 'troubled', what evidence do you have that the Palestinian Authority would not demand Israel to withdraw to the 1948 borders?
I always find it interesting when on the one hand the U.N. is dismissed when it comes to this subject in general, but then referred to when it suits, or from just where are these international laws coming from referred to here. Providing the evidence of these laws might help me learn something about this and help establish the credibility of these claims.
More specifically with regard to Q1) I have no such evidence.
Furthermore, I don't believe any such evidence should be needed to broker a peace in which whatever boundaries are established and/or agreed upon. You nor I, nobody has the evidence that Israel would not feel still more land is necessary for her security either. As I commented before -- making this the second time I answer this question in the same way -- a peace should be agreed upon FREE of such conditions or assurances. Agree to the borders, a peace, and then let the world watch what happens. Surely this would not make the circumstances as they exist today any worse!
2) Why did a Palestinian State fail to emerge during the Egyptian and Jordanian occupation of the Palestinians.
Explain to me how this question is relevant to current-day Israeli policies toward the Palestinians and/or how it matters with regard to the peace I am insisting Israel should broker with the Palestinians, and I will perhaps consider this question worth addressing in that light. Otherwise, I don't have the time or inclination to stray from the immediate issue regarding Israeli's actions here.
Surely we can agree, we've got enough to contend with along those immediate lines, or at least I do...
You were explained at least three times that there has been "no" new settlements in the West Bank. The "settlements" in question are pre-existant Jewish communities which the Palestinian Leadership will not accept in its new state. If you paid attention to your history books, the rejection of Israel occurred prior to the dispute in the West Bank.
I have never been specific regarding dates of the illegal Israeli settlements or those actions as reflected by the U.N. resolutions condemning them, because I probably don't place as much importance on those particulars or dates. I just know what I have been reading about the settlements for far too long now, more recently the following, for example, written by someone still better versed on this subject than me, perhaps even you!
Gershon Gorenberg is an American-born Israeli historian, journalist and blogger, specializing in Middle Eastern politics and the interaction of religion and politics. He is currently a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, a monthly American political magazine. Gorenberg self-identifies as "a left-wing, skeptical Orthodox Zionist Jew."
Excerpts, March 17, 2015
Gorenberg is involved in Israel's cacophonous public debate. He writes books. One is called "The Accidental Empire." It traces Israeli settlements in territory captured in the 1967 war. Another is called "The Unmaking Of Israel." It argues settlements undermine the Jewish state. The history of Israeli settlement reaches decades before 1967. From the late-19th century onward, people who dreamed of a Jewish homeland moved to the Middle East to found cities and communal farms.
GORENBERG: Settlement served a series of purposes which fit in with the state-building project. Part of it was that the ideal was not just that Jews would return to their historical homeland, but they would literally return to the soil. It was part of a romance of labor in the soil that was very common in the politics of the era.
Gorenberg agrees with historians on the right. Israelis were completely surprised to conquer so much territory in 1967. Successive governments never quite agreed on what to do with the land. Yet those governments did support Israeli settlements within it.
So when the first settlements were established in occupied territory, they were not part of an agreed policy with an endpoint.
INSKEEP: The settlements have spread for decades now. The United Nations Security Council and much of the world have said they are not legal. They have complicated negotiations over a final peace settlement with Palestinians. They've solidified Israeli rule over territories where millions of Palestinians cannot vote in Israeli elections. Gorenberg contends settlements endanger both the rule of law and Israeli democracy. But surveys show Israelis uncertain about what to do now.
GORENBERG: Somewhere between 65 and 70 percent in most of the times I've looked at the results will say it's important or very important to return to negotiations. And somewhere between 25 and 30 percent will say that those negotiations have a chance of success, which is to say that there is an ongoing plurality of 40 percent of Israelis who think it's very important to return to negotiations of whose success they despair.
I think that the existence of Israel as a democracy and as a Jewish state is very much in danger from the continuation of the settlement effort and by the failure to reach a two-state agreement. And in saying that, I would stress that this is not a radical position in Israeli politics.
INSKEEP: Israel's problem is simple math. Israel could give Palestinians the vote, but Jews would lose their overwhelming majority. Israel could keep ruling Palestinians but would cease to be a democracy. Or Israel could let go of the Palestinian territories.
The writer Gershom Gorenberg contends Israel will be forced to choose no matter how long it puts off that decision. After we said goodbye, Palestinians abruptly did become an issue in today's Israeli election. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, fighting for his job, declared he would block a Palestinian state now. His main opposition leader favors negotiations toward creating a Palestinian state but says it may not be immediately possible.
I have been reading about this for so long, I really don't know where to begin when it comes to the suggestion that somehow Israeli settlements have not been a serious point of contention through much of Israel's recent history and an affront to the peace-brokering efforts that Israel simply refuses to allow in any viable manner, but one really doesn't need to dig too deep to get a basic understanding about this, here for example, what anyone might first read in Wikipedia.
Israeli settlements are Jewish Israeli civilian communities built on lands occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights. Settlements previously existed in the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip until Israel evacuated the Sinai settlements following the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement and from the Gaza Strip in 2005 under Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West Bank in 2005, but continues to both expand its settlements and settle new areas in the West Bank, despite pressure to desist from the international community. According to the Israeli investigative reporter Uri Blau, settlements are massively funded by private tax-exempt U.S. NGOs, to the tune of $220 million for 2009-2013 alone, suggesting that the U.S. is indirectly subsidizing their creation.
The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal, and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, the latter of which has been annexed by Israel, are also considered settlements by the international community, which does not recognise Israel's annexations of these territories. The International Court of Justice also says these settlements are illegal in a 2004 advisory opinion. In April 2012, UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon, in response to moves by Israel to legalise Israeli outposts, reiterated that all settlement activity is illegal, and "runs contrary to Israel's obligations under the Road Map and repeated Quartet calls for the parties to refrain from provocations." Similar criticism was advanced by the EU and the US. Israel disputes the position of the international community and the legal arguments that were used to declare the settlements illegal.
The presence and ongoing expansion of existing settlements by Israel and the construction of settlement outposts is frequently criticized as an obstacle to the peace process by the Palestinians, and third parties such as the OIC, the United Nations, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, the European Union, and the United States have echoed those criticisms.
As I have had to conclude with more than a few others of similar bent before, if you want to dismiss or otherwise misrepresent these facts in an effort to somehow suggest the international objection to Israeli policy toward Palestine is not warranted, please have mercy and/or take it up with the United Nations!
You might as well be arguing there was no Holocaust in the face of similar overwhelming evidence to the contrary, regardless your bias in these regards. I don't have that problem...
You might want to take your own advice in the bolded.
You make this statement as I attempt to offer a counter opinion to that expressed by the title of this thread. If you have a response to any of the comments you underlined as "one-sided" or slanted, do please help me to learn how any of these points are other than well documented facts, truth, worthy of consideration regardless what side of this issue you may lean.
I'm serious, because I feel strongly any good argument, any solid position, need not be made by using other than the truth, the facts, and I certainly have no interest in misrepresenting the facts of this matter.
As ALL the facts are considered, as presented by you or me or documented history, whether they seem to better justify one side of a position or another, well that's obviously the idea, or why bother, right?
Not that there is any good reason. You can see my "Cement Theory" thread about that while meanwhile I've pretty well bothered here enough for one morning without any good reason...
I always find it interesting when on the one hand the U.N. is dismissed when it comes to this subject in general, but then referred to when it suits, or from just where are these international laws coming from referred to here. Providing the evidence of these laws might help me learn something about this and help establish the credibility of these claims.
More specifically with regard to Q1) I have no such evidence.
It has nothing to with "suiting interests". United Nations General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. The recipient of the Resolution is not under force to uphold the advisory opinions given. If not, One state actor with a quarrel with another could create a make-shift alliance to undermine another. On the contrary, UNSC 242 is the binding platform for peace treaties with Israel. This resolution that Israel has adopted as its official policy of negotiations had been used with Jordan and Egypt. And mind you, it has worked out quit well.
Quote:
Furthermore, I don't believe any such evidence should be needed to broker a peace in which whatever boundaries are established and/or agreed upon. You nor I, nobody has the evidence that Israel would not feel still more land is necessary for her security either. As I commented before -- making this the second time I answer this question in the same way -- a peace should be agreed upon FREE of such conditions or assurances. Agree to the borders, a peace, and then let the world watch what happens. Surely this would not make the circumstances as they exist today any worse!
Your lack of understanding of this situation is irksome.
Your perpetual claim that Israel is "consuming" land... "taking" land.. "need" more land is far off the reservation. I have said to you many times that Israel has not acquired any new land. You think if Israel wanted the entire West Bank that they would of formed a better policy than taking land inch by inch? Or just a total annex?
Israel has proven that it will adopt UNSC 242 to the Palestinians if they become a faithful negotiator. If you understood Israeli policy, you would know already that Israel does not want to acquire new land because they do not want an influx of Muslims who would become citizens, thus jeopardizing the Jewish majority. But at the end of the day, Israel was the victor of several Arab aggressed wars and Israel dictates the terms for peace. Egypt and Jordan are prime examples on how Israel wants to solve the conflict with Palestine.
Quote:
Explain to me how this question is relevant to current-day Israeli policies toward the Palestinians and/or how it matters with regard to the peace I am insisting Israel should broker with the Palestinians, and I will perhaps consider this question worth addressing in that light. Otherwise, I don't have the time or inclination to stray from the immediate issue regarding Israeli's actions here.
Surely we can agree, we've got enough to contend with along those immediate lines, or at least I do...
This is why its dangerous for people to support policy that would jeopardize the security of Israel. One cannot judge and make opinions without understanding the historical roots of the conflict.
I raised this question because it puts forward an historical event where the Arab nations had an opportunity to create a Palestinian nation on the very land that is under-dispute. This conflict could of been prevented if the Jordanians created a Palestinian state in the WB. But instead, they occupied it for their own interests. No one has an interest in building a PA state but Israel.
I have been reading about this for so long, I really don't know where to begin when it comes to the suggestion that somehow Israeli settlements have not been a serious point of contention through much of Israel's recent history and an affront to the peace-brokering efforts that Israel simply refuses to allow in any viable manner, but one really doesn't need to dig too deep to get a basic understanding about this, here for example, what anyone might first read in Wikipedia.
Israeli settlements are Jewish Israeli civilian communities built on lands occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights. Settlements previously existed in the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip until Israel evacuated the Sinai settlements following the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement and from the Gaza Strip in 2005 under Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West Bank in 2005, but continues to both expand its settlements and settle new areas in the West Bank, despite pressure to desist from the international community. According to the Israeli investigative reporter Uri Blau, settlements are massively funded by private tax-exempt U.S. NGOs, to the tune of $220 million for 2009-2013 alone, suggesting that the U.S. is indirectly subsidizing their creation.
The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal, and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, the latter of which has been annexed by Israel, are also considered settlements by the international community, which does not recognise Israel's annexations of these territories. The International Court of Justice also says these settlements are illegal in a 2004 advisory opinion. In April 2012, UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon, in response to moves by Israel to legalise Israeli outposts, reiterated that all settlement activity is illegal, and "runs contrary to Israel's obligations under the Road Map and repeated Quartet calls for the parties to refrain from provocations." Similar criticism was advanced by the EU and the US. Israel disputes the position of the international community and the legal arguments that were used to declare the settlements illegal.
The presence and ongoing expansion of existing settlements by Israel and the construction of settlement outposts is frequently criticized as an obstacle to the peace process by the Palestinians, and third parties such as the OIC, the United Nations, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, the European Union, and the United States have echoed those criticisms.
As I have had to conclude with more than a few others of similar bent before, if you want to dismiss or otherwise misrepresent these facts in an effort to somehow suggest the international objection to Israeli policy toward Palestine is not warranted, please have mercy and/or take it up with the United Nations!
You might as well be arguing there was no Holocaust in the face of similar overwhelming evidence to the contrary, regardless your bias in these regards. I don't have that problem...
Who was the higher contracting power in the West Bank before 1967?
Who was the higher contracting power in the West Bank before 1967?
To whom does the answer to this question matter and why?
I have devoted more effort than usual to address your variety of questions straight on, with hopes of at least clarifying my "bones of contention" that are also shared by millions of others who feel the same way for the same reasons.
What is "irksome" is your inability to view the bigger picture free of bias as clearly evidenced by the questions you want accepted as germane when judging Israel's actions from the beginning, actions not only at the expense of the Palestinian people, but all the rest of us who want the violence to stop whether we live there or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pass...
