Israel proves it prefers Land to Peace

kalipa

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
10,207
israel doesn't need to abide by UN resolutions when it has the united states to hold its hand.

anyone who read that gideon levy interview i posted up on page 6 (which is an incredible read by the way) will have seen the bit where levy describes bibi natanyahu being caught on tape boasting about how he managed to capsize the oslo accords, by refusing to participate any further unless a clause was inserted saying that israel wouldn't have to retreat from certain specified "military locations".

as levy goes on to say, if netanyahu didn't want that peace process to succeed, why would he be arsed about this one?

and that lays it all bare. israel's leadership is not interested in peace or an equitable solution with the palestinians. instead, it wants extra land and water, in order to cater for all the twats arriving in their droves from brooklyn and russia.
imo the vetoes should be abolished and let each nation stand on it's own two feet. It's disgraceful what Israel has got away with due to US protection. It's also understandable when you consider that the US Senate is owned by Zionist dollars to the detriment of US foreign policy.

Levy is one of the few sane voices coming out of Israel these days and he's not afraid to tell it like it is. For his trouble he has death threats on a daily basis, is abused and called "a self- hating Jew" and a traitor.

It's obvious that Netanyahu doesn't want peace. Peace means a drop in funding for "security", no more land stolen and no more insidious ethnic cleansing. There is also the little matter of huge gas reserves in Gazan waters, hence the Israeli control of these waters, where Gazan fishermen are now not allowed to make a living and get shot if they go out in their little fishing boats.

It also means that those "supporters" of Israel who are developing parts of the Occupied Territories will lose any monies already invested in building projects and the local councils and politicians will be without their Thank you envelopes.

An interesting report about settlements and how they are sanctioned and finance by the Israeli government and supporters. and one of the main reasons that I'm not optimistc about any successful outcome to this round of talks. Too many people with too much to lose.

USATODAY.com - No one knows full cost of Israel's settlement ambitions
 


yanshuf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,194
Get this into your skull. Civil rights are not based on groups, they are based on individuals. Saying that they have enough land and therefore it doesn't damage civil rights is pointless. It damages the rights of those individuals, repeat not groups like your little medieval mind would prefer, who owned that land in the first place. They doesn't come into it. You're trying to distinguish between civilian and national rights yet your viewing civil rights as rights of a group, when they are rights of a person.

The state land are that confiscated land. The confiscations undermined the civil rights of those palestinians who owned them. Therefore, they undermine the terms of the LoN resolution.
This state or wasteland was not created till after 1967. I wonder why? Could it be because of the amount expelled from their holdings in the 1967? Could it be because Ariel Sharon and the district Attorney, went marching up hills counting goat************************ in the 1970s and 1980s? Could it be because an ancient Ottoman law on the establishment of State Land, which was outlawed under the British Mandate because it undermined the civil rights of the population of Palestine, was revived for that purpose?
Israel did not invent the wheel, it used the Jordanian existing law, and declared state land on waste land and other lands that were not in use.

The settlements built on these lands are legal, not only according to Israeli law, but according to the LoN and the Charter of the UN.

As for the question of privately owned land, even after declaring state lands, most of your pals still hold their lands. Thus their civil rights, that seems to sum up in owning a land, are mostly not hurt.

Those whose lands were confiscated should be compensated, but other than that, I think it should be part of a deal, when we reach one, if we do.

Why? because the ownership of land is not that simple issue, and it involves Jewish claims too.

Now, what you claim to be a seperate case - the so called "Palestinian" private land, they consider it a national issue, and see it as part of the war against Israel.

What is claimed as private is many times a state land leased to a farmer or a land worker, family, but it's not a private land.

And as for the Palestinian right to slaughter and stay a civilian - the UN itself, in a resolution the Arabs (again) refused to accept, stated that only those who wished to live in peace should go back (or be compensated), so civil unrest (or war) is not an acceptable right, and if you, as a nation, want civil rights you need to leave terrorism behind you.
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,817
Israel did not invent the wheel, it used the Jordanian existing law, and declared state land on waste land and other lands that were not in use.

The settlements built on these lands are legal, not only according to Israeli law, but according to the LoN and the Charter of the UN.
Nope nope and nope. They used old-fashioned ottoman laws which were declaired void by the British Mandate. They used spurious excuses such as security needs to hand over 10,000 thousands of acres of land to Jewish settlers. These were confiscated to the absolute detriment of the civil rights of the Palestinian landholders. The settlements were therefore built in contravention to the LoN mandate you keep harping on about.





As for the question of privately owned land, even after declaring state lands, most of your pals still hold their lands. Thus their civil rights, that seems to sum up in owning a land, are mostly not hurt.
This is their land, it has been confiscated by the state. At least 40% of the land in the West Bank is now either under the control of the state, or has been sold by the state to Jewish settlers. Their civil rights in relation to plots of lands have already been transgressed, the fact they have not been returned or compensated is a continuing transgression of the rights of those owners and their heirs. How are you so stupid as not to be able to see that?







Those whose lands were confiscated should be compensated, but other than that, I think it should be part of a deal, when we reach one, if we do.
With American money no doubt. You will need something the size of Nama for that purpose. Why not evacuate the settlers and give them to the Palestinians who formerly owned the lands on which they were constructed. Sounds like a fair solution? At least now you seem to be recognising that those confiscations were an injustice, and that the settlements do indeed constitute a trangression on the rights of the original owners.










Why? because the ownership of land is not that simple issue, and it involves Jewish claims too.

Now, what you claim to be a seperate case - the so called "Palestinian" private land, they consider it a national issue, and see it as part of the war against Israel.
This doesn't make it any less a breached civil right.
What is claimed as private is many times a state land leased to a farmer or a land worker, family, but it's not a private land.

Not at all Yanshuf. 10,000s of acres were confiscated after 1967. This was never state land, it was only state land when Israel arrived, and with its 'security/public interest' issues. You need to read your own history.

If you want to justify the claims of those 10,000 jews who were expelled from the West Bank by the Jordanians, then I suggest you also consider the claims of those 800,000 arabs expelled from israel in 1948, and the claims of those Israeli Arabs who were not expelled, but had internally displaced, and still had their land confiscated.

I don't think you will though, will you?




And as for the Palestinian right to slaughter and stay a civilian - the UN itself, in a resolution the Arabs (again) refused to accept, stated that only those who wished to live in peace should go back (or be compensated), so civil unrest (or war) is not an acceptable right, and if you, as a nation, want civil rights you need to leave terrorism behind you.
Once again, you fail to tell the difference between individual responsibility and group responsibility. You want every Palestinian to suffer for the crimes of a few. Is that how Israeli justice works? I wonder is this a national phenomenon? It would seem to explain those revenge attacks Israel seems to engage in.
 

kalipa

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
10,207

Border-Rat

Active member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
263
Man, I'll tell you something - these Hasbara work hard. Constant, relentless trolling. I'll tell you something further - the Hasbara also go to work on sites for the younger crowd.
 

kalipa

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
10,207
Man, I'll tell you something - these Hasbara work hard. Constant, relentless trolling. I'll tell you something further - the Hasbara also go to work on sites for the younger crowd.
Some of them get paid and I can tell you if they worked for me I'd sack 'em .

They are still working on the premise that they can tell us anything and we'll believe it as used to be the case. However they have failed to realise that with improved communications, the internet, instant news etc the world now knows what's happening in the Occupied territories and they make themselves look feeble by spewing the same tired old rhetoric and revised history.
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,272
Some of them get paid and I can tell you if they worked for me I'd sack 'em .

They are still working on the premise that they can tell us anything and we'll believe it as used to be the case. However they have failed to realise that with improved communications, the internet, instant news etc the world now knows what's happening in the Occupied territories and they make themselves look feeble by spewing the same tired old rhetoric and revised history.
Indeed. Some of the comments from the likes of Yanshuf and L'Chaim are so infantile I've often wondered if they're posting on behalf of the Palestinians. They reinforce every jaundiced view of the mini-state I've ever had. I used to believe, in my naivety, that senior Israeli politicians were just paranoid about security and genuinely wanted peace.

Silly me. In recent years the truth has been rammed home with every block laid upon block in the annexed territories by the Gestapo from the Jewish diaspora. Settlers will always be welcomed because, like the rules of the Catholic Church, Israeli laws and prejudices are all about keeping up the numbers. The rights of minorities – or majorities for that matter – become an irrelevancy in the grand scheme to create a 'Greater Israel.'

However, the more they behave in this way, the greater the assuredness that their eventual demise is only a matter of time. The pity is that the voices of sanity will suffer the same fate as their more irrational and hate-filled compatriots.
 

yanshuf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,194
Nope nope and nope. They used old-fashioned ottoman laws which were declaired void by the British Mandate. They used spurious excuses such as security needs to hand over 10,000 thousands of acres of land to Jewish settlers. These were confiscated to the absolute detriment of the civil rights of the Palestinian landholders. The settlements were therefore built in contravention to the LoN mandate you keep harping on about.
The Ottoman land code is the law that existed on the eve of the 1967 war. Israel did not invent this law. This law existed during the mandate, during the Jordainian and inside Israel all that time So when you say it was declaired void by the Brits, I really don't know on what you base your claim.

10,000 acres of what kind of land? If it's a land that was taken from private owners, you know my opinion (but I wouldn't rely on that assumption, so I'll say it anyway): the owner should be compensated, or given a spare land.

These were confiscated to the absolute detriment of the civil rights of the Palestinian landholders.
In confiscated you mean private lands.Private according to what? The allocation of privately owned lands in Judea and Samaria, is not that simple. It includes registration or Kushan owners. And sometimes double ownerships.

This is their land, it has been confiscated by the state. At least 40% of the land in the West Bank is now either under the control of the state, or has been sold by the state to Jewish settlers.
When you say it's their land who do you mean? Because private lands can be compensated for, if there's justification, but if you mean they as a nation, then I don't see why they should have privilages on the expense of Jewish settlemenst.

Jewish settlements are mostly built on land either that was or later declaired state land. Either way, that land was never privately owned, because privately owned ones were registered (and those settlements that are on what used to be a private land should be compensated for).

And still there's another way - if they, as a nation, want parts of it (as it was done in 2005 expulsion of the Jewish settlers of the settlements near Jenin) then they can reach a deal.

How are you so stupid as not to be able to see that?
You mixed the ownership of privately owned lands with the question of who has the right to the land.

The privately owned lands are not in any way to prejudice the riht of Jews to settle there.

Not all of the territory is privately owned, in fact only a small portion of it is.

Thus the land declaired as state land is mostly a state lad according to the law that was in place on the eve of the 1967 war. Thus it's legal status is not different from those state lands claimed under Israeli law.

Thus the settlements are legal, and for those that are not (as I don't want to generalise - of course no one is perfect), there are a few ways to deal with them.

With American money no doubt. You will need something the size of Nama for that purpose. Why not evacuate the settlers and give them to the Palestinians who formerly owned the lands on which they were constructed. Sounds like a fair solution? At least now you seem to be recognising that those confiscations were an injustice, and that the settlements do indeed constitute a trangression on the rights of the original owners.
1. Only, if any, a few settlements will be under this category of formerly privately owned lands. So it won't be enough for evacuating all settlers.

2. I don't believe that it will bring peace, as those settlements never existed before 1967, and the only raison d'etre for the PLO back then was to destroy the state of Israel, not this or that settlement.

3. It's is in response to this too:

If you want to justify the claims of those 10,000 jews who were expelled from the West Bank by the Jordanians, then I suggest you also consider the claims of those 800,000 arabs expelled from israel in 1948, and the claims of those Israeli Arabs who were not expelled, but had internally displaced, and still had their land confiscated.

I don't think you will though, will you?
The question of compesation is not in one level with Jewish settlements but with Jewish immigration to Israel, as 800,000 Jews entered Israel fleeing their Arab and Muslim countries.

4. I never said there was a total justice or injustice. I recognise the injustices of Arabs inside Israel too, but it's not a question of legality - as you combine it altogether, and if in injustices you're interested, then you should recognise the right of Jews to live in all parts of the Land of Israel, and that there shouldn't be parts declaired as Judenrein.
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,817
The Ottoman land code is the law that existed on the eve of the 1967 war. Israel did not invent this law. This law existed during the mandate, during the Jordainian and inside Israel all that time So when you say it was declaired void by the Brits, I really don't know on what you base your claim.
It's not part of Israeli law, and never was until Israel invaded the West Bank. It was not part of Mandatory Law:

The interpretation that the State Attorney's Office gave to the concept “state land” in the Ottoman Land Law contradicted explicit statutory provisions and judgments of the Mandatory Supreme Court. Without this distorted interpretation, Israel would not have been able to allocate such extensive areas of land for the settlements.
So if the Mandatory Supreme Court said such interpretations were void, where does that leave the claim that Palestinian Civil rights were not violated?




10,000 acres of what kind of land? If it's a land that was taken from private owners, you know my opinion (but I wouldn't rely on that assumption, so I'll say it anyway): the owner should be compensated, or given a spare land.
Give them their land back. It was indeed private owners. The land was owned by indivduals living in the West Bank who were driven off during the invasion. It was also land that Ariel Sharon and his Attorney General declared to be not in use, despite the fact it did indeed have owners. 900,000 dunams (16% of the West Bank) were acquired and declared state land. Settelements also seized control of private Palestinian land to the amount of 21% of the West Bank. This was theft pure and simple.





[quote[

In confiscated you mean private lands.Private according to what? The allocation of privately owned lands in Judea and Samaria, is not that simple. It includes registration or Kushan owners. And sometimes double ownerships.
[/quote]

The declaration of land that was never State land to be State land. Simple enough.






When you say it's their land who do you mean? Because private lands can be compensated for, if there's justification, but if you mean they as a nation, then I don't see why they should have privilages on the expense of Jewish settlemenst.
Every last one of those individuals should be compensated, not merely with the equivalent value of land, but with the equivalent value of wealth lost since that land was taken from them. I think it would be handier, and possibly cheaper, just to hand the 50 billion dollars worth of settlements back to them.

Jewish settlements are mostly built on land either that was or later declaired state land. Either way, that land was never privately owned, because privately owned ones were registered (and those settlements that are on what used to be a private land should be compensated for).
You are waffling again. The land was declared state land was indeed registered. But interpretations of old ottoman laws were used in order to seize that land from their current owners, interpretations declared illegal under the Mandatory Supreme Court's provisions, by saying land unoccupied for three years could be seized. Hence Ariel's goat ************************ counting trips to the mountains. The settlements at this very moment are illegal, under any definition, but particularly under the Mandatory Provisions, which you use as justification for them in the first place.




And still there's another way - if they, as a nation, want parts of it (as it was done in 2005 expulsion of the Jewish settlers of the settlements near Jenin) then they can reach a deal.
You're getting away from the point. The Settlements are illegal under international law and under Mandatory Law. They as a nation shouldn't have to make a deal. What needs to happen is that the wrong should be righted. Criminal behaviour should not be rewarded with benefits or bargains with the Criminal.


You mixed the ownership of privately owned lands with the question of who has the right to the land.

The privately owned lands are not in any way to prejudice the riht of Jews to settle there.

Not all of the territory is privately owned, in fact only a small portion of it is.

Thus the land declaired as state land is mostly a state lad according to the law that was in place on the eve of the 1967 war. Thus it's legal status is not different from those state lands claimed under Israeli law.
They were not state lands before the army arrived, they were privately held land. They were subsequently confiscated for security purposes, then handed over to Jewish settlers.

Those lands claimed state land in Israel would have also contradicted Mandatory Provisions. They certainly were detrimental to the civil rights of the Israeli arabs who once lived there. You don't seem to be listening to anything I'm saying. You just have it in your head that Israel is always right, and when the facts are shown to you in plain view you're still incapable of recognising that, rather obfuscate with nuggets of information that you have yet to prove.




Thus the settlements are legal, and for those that are not (as I don't want to generalise - of course no one is perfect), there are a few ways to deal with them.
They are not, they undermine the civil rights of palestinians, some the LoN specifically provided for in its mandate. Since that is the only justifcation you have for your settlements, and it has been violated, the settlements (or at least the vast majority of them), are illegal.

1. Only, if any, a few settlements will be under this category of formerly privately owned lands. So it won't be enough for evacuating all settlers.
You're full of crap. 40% of the West Bank was acquired through illegal processes. That's 40% of the entire West Bank. Are you saying to me only a few of these settlements are on State lands?

2. I don't believe that it will bring peace, as those settlements never existed before 1967, and the only raison d'etre for the PLO back then was to destroy the state of Israel, not this or that settlement.
They shouldn't have to they should be removed because they break the law. You are familiar with that principle right? Or does punishment for breaking the law only apply to arabs?





3. It's is in response to this too:


The question of compesation is not in one level with Jewish settlements but with Jewish immigration to Israel, as 800,000 Jews entered Israel fleeing their Arab and Muslim countries.
Were Palestinians in charge of the 800,000 Jews expelled from other Muslim countries? Has your collective responsibility extended to the entire Muslim world? Why should a palestinian suffer because an Arab dictator sought to use his plight to increase his popularity on the street.

But if this is the way you play it, then 10,000 Jews from the West Bank is an easy counterargument to 800,000 arabs from Israel proper.

4. I never said there was a total justice or injustice. I recognise the injustices of Arabs inside Israel too, but it's not a question of legality - as you combine it altogether, and if in injustices you're interested, then you should recognise the right of Jews to live in all parts of the Land of Israel, and that there shouldn't be parts declaired as Judenrein.
You clearly don't. You are clearly blinded, a mere shill. You don't seem to have a clue where the Arab injustices even begin. You prefer to see Palestinian anger as a genetic defect, rather than near-righteous indignation. Their country, the one they inhabited for 1,500 years (perhaps longer if you count the fact many are converted jews and christians), was declared to be a Jewish State, their lands were taken from them, they were killed in their hundreds and in their thousands, they were forced to live in refugee camps, or as second class citizens in their own country, or worse still in camps under military rule which meant they couldn't return home (until their homes were taken from them). And why? Because Western Europeans treated Jews like dirt for centuries. Somehow, all the responsibility all the blame that the Goy carries has to be carried them, and everytime one of them rebels, or resorts to horrid murder, all of them pay the price. The Palestinians have become the regional scapegoats, quite similar to how Jews were treated in europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,817
Here's more detail.

The Israeli government controls 2.39 million dunams of land (52% of total land area) in the West Bank.

It has acquired this by numerous ways.

Firstly, it acquired 600,000 dunams of state land that was designated state land under the Ottomans and the British mandate.

It then acquired 913,000 dunams (20% of West Bank's total land area) by implementing the 1858 Ottoman Land Law, through interpretations declared invalid under the Mandatory Supreme Court between 1979 and 1992, (a further 5,000 dunams has been declared state land since). It intends to declare a further 138,000 dunams (3% of the total area of the West Bank).

Furthermore, it requisitioned 31,000 dunams on the basis of security needs. It must return this after occupation, however, it has been given to Israeli settlers instead, a violation of international law.

It has also annexed private land by expanding the jurisdiction of 92 settlements. It also owns land, not officially annexed, but now in State Control because their Palestinian owners were no longer allowed access it through military controls.

Jewish settlements are in control of 42% of all the land of the West Bank.
 

yanshuf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,194
It's not part of Israeli law, and never was until Israel invaded the West Bank. It was not part of Mandatory Law:
It was part of the JORDANIAN LAW that existed until the eve of the 1967 war.


So if the Mandatory Supreme Court said such interpretations were void, where does that leave the claim that Palestinian Civil rights were not violated?
A good question, but since it was a Jordanian law, then I don't think the Mandatory Supreme Court is relevant here.

You clearly don't. You are clearly blinded, a mere shill. You don't seem to have a clue where the Arab injustices even begin. You prefer to see Palestinian anger as a genetic defect, rather than near-righteous indignation. Their country, the one they inhabited for 1,500 years (perhaps longer if you count the fact many are converted jews and christians), was declared to be a Jewish State, their lands were taken from them, they were killed in their hundreds and in their thousands, they were forced to live in refugee camps, or as second class citizens in their own country, or worse still in camps under military rule which meant they couldn't return home (until their homes were taken from them). And why? Because Western Europeans treated Jews like dirt for centuries. Somehow, all the responsibility all the blame that the Goy carries has to be carried them, and everytime one of them rebels, or resorts to horrid murder, all of them pay the price. The Palestinians have become the regional scapegoats, quite similar to how Jews were treated in europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries
Oh but I do. First of all, I do see it as a war between nations, but I recognise there are human beings there too (as if I have to say so).

Secondly, most of my perceptions are defensive, and I don't really trust their words.

Third, I know exactly where the injustices of the Arabs begin, better than you do, but unlike you I tend to think about our own injustices, that you seem to ignore.

Their country, the one they inhabited for 1,500 years (perhaps longer if you count the fact many are converted jews and christians),
We already discussed this in former threads, and I disagree with you, totally. There are many Arab tribes like the Zoabi, who came here 300 years ago from Irbid in Jordan, for example.

Many peoples originally from Arab countries came here after the Jews already were here in the turn of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th.

they were killed in their hundreds and in their thousands
When was that? During which pogroms exactly were they killed in their hundreds or thousands? The 1920? 1929? Ah, during the big Arab rebellion of 1936-1939 when most Arabs killed were the consequence of other Arabs killing them?

they were forced to live in refugee camps, or as second class citizens in their own country, or worse still in camps under military rule which meant they couldn't return home
That brings me back to you question:

Were Palestinians in charge of the 800,000 Jews expelled from other Muslim countries? Has your collective responsibility extended to the entire Muslim world? Why should a palestinian suffer because an Arab dictator sought to use his plight to increase his popularity on the street.
The pogroms - Farhood and others - in Arab states were the consequences of the animosity towards the zionists in the land of Israel. The Arab states intervened in the Partition Plan, they intervened militarily afterwards, and they created the 800,000 refugees in the war they waged against the Jews in what would become Israel.

They were responsible, both in closing their eyes, and in encouragement, to the killings and slaughters against the Jews in the Arab states, so they (the Arab leadership, to which Hajj Amin El-Husseini is part of) are responsible both to the 800,000 Arab refugees and Jewish refugees.

As for Hajj Amin El-Husseini (who is part of the 1,500 year old persecuted people of Palestine) he's another story for another thead.

Somehow, all the responsibility all the blame that the Goy carries has to be carried them, and everytime one of them rebels, or resorts to horrid murder, all of them pay the price. The Palestinians have become the regional scapegoats, quite similar to how Jews were treated in europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries
Now, you want to tell me that 21 Arab states are not enough, Jordan is not enough and even two more states (Gaza and the PA) are not enough?


You are waffling again. The land was declared state land was indeed registered. But interpretations of old ottoman laws were used in order to seize that land from their current owners, interpretations declared illegal under the Mandatory Supreme Court's provisions, by saying land unoccupied for three years could be seized. Hence Ariel's goat ************************ counting trips to the mountains. The settlements at this very moment are illegal, under any definition, but particularly under the Mandatory Provisions, which you use as justification for them in the first place.
Most of the land was not registered, and thus it's open to discussion whether it should stay a state land or become a Jewish settlements.

Anyway, there are Jewish settlements built on private Jewish lands that were bought from an Arab, and given to the state so the seller won't be hurt.

Should I ask you wheather those are legal or not?

All in all, what comes out from your philosophising of the simple facts, is that you don't really think Jews have rights to live - not only in Judea and Samaria - but in Israel proper!!!

And that's a very important conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,817
It was part of the JORDANIAN LAW that existed until the eve of the 1967 war.

A good question, but since it was a Jordanian law, then I don't think the Mandatory Supreme Court is relevant here.
It is if we wish to determine what the Mandate thought violated the civil rights of its palestinian citizens. It is quite relevant if you are using the LoN mandate to determine that the settlements are legal. And if it was Jordanian law, how come only 600,000 dunams were state land before 1967, increasing massively afterwards? Israel's interpretation of that law was clearly different from the Jordanian one.


The rest is just you on a pointless rant, trying to distract from the main issue here, the legality of the settlements.
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,817
Most of the land was not registered, and thus it's open to discussion whether it should stay a state land or become a Jewish settlements.
Back up that theory. Give us the proof that it wasn't registered.

Anyway, there are Jewish settlements built on private Jewish lands that were bought from an Arab, and given to the state so the seller won't be hurt.
I'm sure those tiny number of legal settlements can stay, the rest are illegal though.


All in all, what comes out from your philosophising of the simple facts, is that you don't really think Jews have rights to live - not only in Judea and Samaria - but in Israel proper!!!

And that's a very important conclusion.
I don't think anyone has a necessary right to live anywhere. International immigration controls are based on that very principle.
 

TheTinker

Active member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
184
How can settling be resolved when on one hand it appears that Netanyahu
employed the IDF to enforce the building moratorium, at least in this(link) area,
and on the other the IDF is used to enforce "settlers' rights"?

I think a change in dialogue is needed when referring to Israel. The right wing
conservative establishment and hard liners within are promoting the whole
expansionist agenda with no regard to the other 20% of their population.
We have to begin to address the Israel-Palestinian problem as one using a
right wing capitalist model of self-involved gratification and one that proceeds
in it's own self interest regardless of the effect on others. This can be
construed as a fascist/capitalist idea and we should only refer to right wing
Israeli government elements when framing any references.

Israeli 'Irene' passenger: The IDF were violent on board
The link I meant to try to point to is on that page but on right regarding celebrating the
countdown to end of moratorium.
It leaves me somewhat speechless.
 
Last edited:

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
Mr.Tehran throws stones at Mr.Isreals house night and day. Mr.Israel leaves a smelly diseased turd in Mr.Tehran's kitchen. As long as Mr.Tehran beats up on his family and Mr.Isreal occupies a neighbours house, let them have at each other.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,459
We have to begin to address the Israel-Palestinian problem as one using a
right wing capitalist model of self-involved gratification and one that proceeds
in it's own self interest regardless of the effect on others. This can be
construed as a fascist/capitalist idea and we should only refer to right wing
Israeli government elements when framing any references.
Except that pseudo Marxist waffle is rendered even more silly and meaningless by the fact that Labour are in the government also. Left wing governments are as hawkish as right wing ones in Israel because they have had to be.
 

yanshuf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,194
It is if we wish to determine what the Mandate thought violated the civil rights of its palestinian citizens. It is quite relevant if you are using the LoN mandate to determine that the settlements are legal. And if it was Jordanian law, how come only 600,000 dunams were state land before 1967, increasing massively afterwards? Israel's interpretation of that law was clearly different from the Jordanian one.
The PA is in control of their lives, in most of the areas. Thus they are the responsible side. This civil rights issue has only one aspect re. the Jewish settlements - the ownership of the land (if I disregard the terror threats).

As we know from the Mandate text, the British Mandate should have encouraged Jews to settle all over the Mandatory territory. It didn't and the Israeli government should do it instead.

The territories regarded as state lands are those that were state lands under the Turkish, British and Jordanian regimes. Those are mostly the desert land and the Jordan valley and some other arid parts of Judea and Samaria.

The Israeli regime expanded the lands by using the Ottoman laws, and gave the Arab residents the right to appeal.

On the eve of the Israeli control, two thirds of the territory of Judea and Samaria was not registered.

Now I can give you the proof for the numbers, it's even one of the sources you like, but you won't be able to read it:

דו"ח בצלם - ההת×******חלות בשטחים כהפרת זכויות אדם : היבטים משפטיים ועקרו×******יים

יש לציין כי לפי כללי המשפט הבינלאומי, כאשר מתעוררת השאלה אם קרקע היא פרטית או ציבורית, היא תחשב כציבורית עד אשר יוכרע אחרת.67 הבעלות על כשני שליש מהאדמות בגדה אינה רשומה באופן מסודר, ונובעת מכח החזקה רבת שנים.
The question arises if this comprises a violation of their civil rights.

Well it doesn't, and it does complete the language of the Mandate - settlements on state lands, while giving an equal opportunities to proof ownership.

I'm sure those tiny number of legal settlements can stay, the rest are illegal though.
I'll be running to the settlers' leadership to tell them that. Do you read what you post?

Legal settlements? What's wrong with you?

I don't think anyone has a necessary right to live anywhere. International immigration controls are based on that very principle.
But in your opinion, Jewish settlements (from 1880's on) were wrong! The Arabs had the right to slaughter Jews because Jews settled here, after all, Arabs and rules don't co-exist.
 

Border-Rat

Active member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
263
It is if we wish to determine what the Mandate thought violated the civil rights of its palestinian citizens. It is quite relevant if you are using the LoN mandate to determine that the settlements are legal. And if it was Jordanian law, how come only 600,000 dunams were state land before 1967, increasing massively afterwards? Israel's interpretation of that law was clearly different from the Jordanian one.


The rest is just you on a pointless rant, trying to distract from the main issue here, the legality of the settlements.
Well, that is the job of Hasbara.
 

TheTinker

Active member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
184
Except that pseudo Marxist waffle is rendered even more silly and meaningless by the fact that Labour are in the government also. Left wing governments are as hawkish as right wing ones in Israel because they have had to be.
Yes, I agree, it is a bit waffly, all methods of description have been so overused
as to become mere phrases and often just diplobabble. I should not have
stumbled in that hole.
If we frame the behaviour of antagonists on the basis of greed and self-interest,
which there is no doubt about, one can see that objecting to this behaviour can
best be done by affecting other methods of capital and material accrual.
In other words, on a case by case basis, you talk the same language as the
antagonists and stick to it.
 

TheTinker

Active member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
184
If we continue to throw feathers at hard liners with inconsequential insults we
are going nowhere. To identify them as with another mainstream class-oriented
ideology will help to support those in government who wish for some kind of
change. I believe that the contentiousness of the problems do not leave much
for any humanitarian liberals to latch onto. This, coupled with the lack of
education about the 20-30% of fellow citizens, indeed, quite the opposite in
that they are denigrated, segregated and living under apartheid, this promotes
the world view of nation-Israel promoting apartheid. With this kind of perception
the people in Israel will be made more nationalistic and drawn together in
common cause and gravitate towards those ideas and elements which offer a
perceived real and physical protection.
Identify the antagonists as right wing militaristic capitalists to subtly lend
support to ones who are not so inclined. God knows, the right wing militaristic
capitilists are doing it to great effect.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top