Israel announces largest seizure of Palestinian land in the past 30 years

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think this is the problem to begin with. The idea that all of the land is owned by the Palestinians to begin with is simply false and devoid of all history. If you want to ignore the history of the region and start the clock at 1967, then yes you are going to a see the Israelis just taking someone's land.

Edit: This is also particularly true of the land around East Jerusalem, which this is. The history of Jewish massacres in Jerusalem is consistent and goes back hundreds of years before ultimately culminating in Arab forces totally destroying the Jewish communities in and around East Jerusalem in 1949.

Second point related to this:

When there are land disputes, then the dispute needs to be settled in some legal or mutually agreed upon manner. One country does not have the right to unilaterally make the decision.

[Bleeding Red]

A few things to consider:

Remember, the Green Line (or '67 line) is not a boarder. It's a cease fire line.

UN Resolution 242 calls the WB "disputed territory". I read that as meaning negotiable, others might not.

(The quotes below are from the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs - ARTICLE LINK. Yes, call it pro-Israel, but the BBC is not exactly an unbiased friend to Israel either.)

The Oslo accords split the WB into 3 "Areas" - Area A, B, & C.
"Area A, where the Palestinians had full control, Area B where there was mixed Israeli and Palestinian security control but full Palestinian civil control, and Area C, where Israel had full military and civilian control. Israeli responsibilities in Area C included the power of zoning and planning. The territory which Israel declared as state land is within Area C.:

Land has 3 legal categories - Private, State (Public/Crown), or to be determined. Interestingly, having made the announcement now " Those who oppose the recent declaration have 45 days to appeal the Israeli decision. When Palestinians have brought proof of ownership of contested territory to Israeli courts, including Israel’s Supreme Court, the courts have at times issued decisions calling on the Israeli government to restore the property in question to its Palestinian claimant, even if that requires dismantling the private homes of Israeli citizens."

No doubt, the myriad of NGOs will beat themselves silly to represent any Palestinian claims to the courts.

Again, no one seems to mention that the Israeli Government tears down settlements too - they did it in 1979 (remember, Begin was no dove), and again in 2005, along with a number of "outposts" set up by extremists in the WB in the '90s & 2000's.

HERE IS THE CITATION for Blankall -
"the territory in question, at present, is part of a settlement bloc, south of Jerusalem, known as Gush Etzion, which was settled by Jews prior to 1948, but lost by Israel when it came under attack by Arab forces."

Also, a full Israeli withdrawal from the WB was never in the cards, not with UN resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, or in subsequent letters from presidents Bush & Obama. All agreements noted territorial compromise and land swaps.

"The determination that Israel will retain the settlement blocs is reflected in U.S. diplomatic communications like the 2004 letter by President Bush to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the statements made by President Obama in 2011 about demographic changes on the ground and changes in the 1967 lines. The least controversial of these settlement blocs in past negotiations is, in fact, Gush Etzion."

Clearly this is something that could have been put off, side-tabled, or even dismissed at this moment in time. The PR is awful , the timing is bad, & message is wrong.

You would think there would be someone in that government who would pipe up and say "this may be a bad idea".
(Then again, you would think that Redford would have had someone in her government tell her not to fly around with her daughter on the taxpayer dime, or that someone in Rob Ford's office would have said "you know, Rob, now might be a good time to stop smoking crack.")

The only point I can see to this is that Bibi is getting it hard from the right for "not winning" in Gaza. And of course, we all know how the extreme right would define winning in Gaza. (The same as Hamas defines winning in Israel.)

This is one the Israeli Government should walk away from.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Second point related to this:

When there are land disputes, then the dispute needs to be settled in some legal or mutually agreed upon manner. One country does not have the right to unilaterally make the decision.

A deal with Hamas is not worth the paper its written on. A mutually agreed upon deal would require a partner that is going to respect the basic notions that such a deal would be based on.

Anyways, arguing about who is right and wrong is a waste of time. It's inevitable that Israel is going to do something like this. In the context of what is going on in that region and what Hamas was planning, any politician who wants to stay in power has to have the last work. If Hamas is going to publicly declare that the murder of 3 Israeli children was justified, this is the natural consequence.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

You're simply making a might makes right argument, with flimsy rationalizations.

Might makes right is a morally vacuous way to go about life. Of all countries and societies, Israel should be aghast at any type of might makes right rationalization.

This type of hypocrisy is simply rooted in tribalism, and an inability to value all innocent human lives equally.

Ahhh the old argument that unless I base morality on the death totals I must be racist. When Hamas starts building bomb shelters instead of tunnels into Israeli civilian areas, that argument will hold weight.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

A deal with Hamas is not worth the paper its written on. A mutually agreed upon deal would require a partner that is going to respect the basic notions that such a deal would be based on.

Anyways, arguing about who is right and wrong is a waste of time. It's inevitable that Israel is going to do something like this. In the context of what is going on in that region and what Hamas was planning, any politician who wants to stay in power has to have the last work. If Hamas is going to publicly declare that the murder of 3 Israeli children was justified, this is the natural consequence.

Sounds like that action gave Israel carte blanche to do whatever it wants. Is there anything else that Israel is allowed to prospectively claim in retaliation? When does the statute of limitations end? Does this also rationalize a means for Hamas to do what it wants, given that Israelis killed a Palestinian by burning him alive?

Again, might makes right is not moral high ground. Rather, it's just how people rationalize what they want, when they want it, by explicitly valuing some lives more than others.


Edit: Also, the lack of a partner does not allow the other side to move ahead with impunity. I'm not sure how you think that one through; it only makes sense if an equitable situation is not the overarching principle.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Ahhh the old argument that unless I base morality on the death totals I must be racist. When Hamas starts building bomb shelters instead of tunnels into Israeli civilian areas, that argument will hold weight.

Straw man. I didn't call you a racist, and would appreciate you acknowledging it and not putting such inflammatory words into my mouth / writing.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by blankall

A deal with Israel is not worth the paper its written on. A mutually agreed upon deal would require a partner that is going to respect the basic notions that such a deal would be based on.

Based on the actions of Israel in the OP, I suggest you amend your post as such.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by blankall

A deal with Hamas is not worth the paper its written on. A mutually agreed upon deal would require a partner that is going to respect the basic notions that such a deal would be based on.

Agreed. But Hamas still agrees to those ceasefires.

I mean, I'm sure a person such as you who has a really strong opinion on the topic is talking about Israel there? After all, they are the party that pretty much always breaks the ceasefires.

This is not anecdotal, but a pattern that's easy to find with even a simple study, which has been repeated several times. The results are always the same, Israel has no respect for ceasefires.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-..._b_155611.html

Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.

First, Hamas can indeed control the rockets, when it is in their interest. The data shows that ceasefires can work, reducing the violence to nearly zero for months at a time.

Second, if Israel wants to reduce rocket fire from Gaza, it should cherish and preserve the peace when it starts to break out, not be the first to kill.

So basically, if Israel was seriously interested in stopping the rockets, they could do it at any time. They have a method, it's been tested many times and it works. Have a ceasefire, and don't break it.

[Zulu29]

I'm admittedly ignorant on the fine details of this subject. I was under the impression that there was no independent state of Palestine and that the creation of such is a goal of current negotiations. So how did Israel seize the land from Palestine if it doesn't currently exist as a nation? Regardless, I think it's a very incendiary move on Israel's part given the very recent war/dispute/call it what you will. Kicking a hornets nest comes to mind.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Itse

Agreed. But Hamas still agrees to those ceasefires.

I mean, I'm sure a person such as you who has a really strong opinion on the topic is talking about Israel there? After all, they are the party that pretty much always breaks the ceasefires.

This is not anecdotal, but a pattern that's easy to find with even a simple study, which has been repeated several times. The results are always the same, Israel has no respect for ceasefires.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-..._b_155611.html






So basically, if Israel was seriously interested in stopping the rockets, they could do it at any time. They have a method, it's been tested many times and it works. Have a ceasefire, and don't break it.

During the last "ceasefire" Hamas took the opportunity to build a complex network of tunnels into Israel, which they were going to use for a major attack. A supposedly financially and construction material strapped Hamas, didn't build schools or houses or bomb shelters, they spent millions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of tons of concrete building tunnels into Israel.

And yes your article is 100% anecdotal. They are claiming that Israel starts each round of violence based on the number of rockets fired. Yes the rockets escalate after Israel kills militants, but Israel doesn't kill militants until an attempted attack occurs.

All those stats you've produced prove is that Hamas is bad at killing Israelis and they usually get caught doing it before they are successful. History has also proven the exact opposite of your point. Whenever Israel makes a concession, Hamas uses it as an opportunity to attack Israel further. The biggest was the withdrawal from Gaza. Israel moves out of their buffer zone, and Hamas move in and fires rockets from there.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I'm admittedly ignorant on the fine details of this subject. I was under the impression that there was no independent state of Palestine and that the creation of such is a goal of current negotiations. So how did Israel seize the land from Palestine if it doesn't currently exist as a nation? Regardless, I think it's a very incendiary move on Israel's part given the very recent war/dispute/call it what you will. Kicking a hornets nest comes to mind.

Israel cannot build on land that is privately owned. When land is considered to be publicly owned, it legally has no owner, as the state that owned it (the Ottoman Empire) no longer exists.

The first step towards Israel building on disputed land is to have the land declared public land, which is what happened here.

In this particular case, you are dealing with land that is between Jewish settlements, just outside of Jerusalem, and the site of a Jewish town that was destroyed in 1949. The odds of Israel ever giving this land back in any kind of negotiation were slim to none.

This move is symbolic in many ways, and yes it is meant to challenge Hamas. It also, however, provides a sense of security to the Israeli populace, who has ISIS on their borders and just witnessed their government uncover a series of tunnels built in to their nation.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Israel cannot build on land that is privately owned. When land is considered to be publicly owned, it legally has no owner, as the state that owned it (the Ottoman Empire) no longer exists.

The first step towards Israel building on disputed land is to have the land declared public land, which is what happened here.

In this particular case, you are dealing with land that is between Jewish settlements, just outside of Jerusalem, and the site of a Jewish town that was destroyed in 1949. The odds of Israel ever giving this land back in any kind of negotiation were slim to none.

This move is symbolic in many ways, and yes it is meant to challenge Hamas. It also, however, provides a sense of security to the Israeli populace, who has ISIS on their borders and just witnessed their government uncover a series of tunnels built in to their nation.

Out of curiosity, who is in charge of declaring a disputed land area public? Love the use of the word "declare" as it gives the punchline away.

In an equitable system, both parties in dispute would come together to negotiate. Otherwise, it's a morally bankrupt process.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Out of curiosity, who is in charge of declaring a disputed land area public? Love the use of the word "declare" as it gives the punchline away.

In an equitable system, both parties in dispute would come together to negotiate. Otherwise, it's a morally bankrupt process.

It's a court proceeding, and all sides have the opportunity to provide evidence.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's a court proceeding, and all sides have the opportunity to provide evidence.

And the International Court of Justice has declared Israeli settlement activity illegal.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's a court proceeding, and all sides have the opportunity to provide evidence.

Since you concede this was disputed territory, then obviously for an equitable settlement the court would have to be neutral since neither Palestinian or Israeli courts would be neutral, nor would they have jurisdiction over land that is disputed and not theirs.

So which court oversaw these proceedings?

Yeah.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by blankall

And yes your article is 100% anecdotal.

You seem to not know what the word anecdotal means.

This is also not some unique perspective. Pretty much every reporter and statistician looking into the situation has noted the same thing. These are really easy to find, and that one for example is simply based on IDF:s own statistics.

The data published on the Israeli Government and ITIC websites show time and again that attacks on Hamas members in the West Bank and Gaza produce an increase in rocket fire. Each time a wave of rocket fire followed fatal attacks inflicted on Hamas by Israeli government forces. And each time that rocket fire persisted until a new cease fire was in place.

Originally Posted by blankall

History has also proven the exact opposite of your point.

Citation needed. See, the problem is that anybody can make up any crap they want. The facts just don't align the way you say they do, no matter how much you say they do.

Also, this is now. History was then.

Whenever Israel makes a concession, Hamas uses it as an opportunity to attack Israel further. The biggest was the withdrawal from Gaza. Israel moves out of their buffer zone, and Hamas move in and fires rockets from there.

Citation needed.

Also, who says that Hamas built tunnels specifically for the purpose of launching a major attack?

Most of the world community agrees that they were for smuggling goods. Yes, that includes weapons, but considering that Israel is claiming it's not controlling Palestine and that they can declare war on Palestine as if it was an independent nation, that pretty much says that Palestines have a right to arm themselves. You can't start attacking them on a thought crime.

After all, it's pretty obvious that the Hamas has very legitimate reasons to fear that Israel will attack them, and they have a right to defend themselves.

Assuming that Israel seriously does not consider Palestinians to be Israelis.

If Israel does consider Palestinians to be Israelis, then they have effectively been bombing their own civilian population, which is a war crime by any stretch of the imagination and their leaders should be summarily brought to justice.

You just can't have it both ways.

And ultimately, it's not even about who shot first. I think this summarizes the reality quite well:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...israelis-fear/

“Israelis will be rounded up and put into camps!”

Palestinians are already in camps, open-air prison camps like Gaza, tiny, beleaguered cantons that lack access to drinkable water or transportation infrastructure, blockaded from receiving food and essential supplies, prevented from fishing their own waters, their movements harshly restricted, forced to go through humiliating and threatening checkpoints to get to work. They travel in segregated buses. They are frequently denied access to Eastern Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life. They endure constant calls for “Greater Israel,” the call for ethnic cleansing to establish a unitary ethno-nationalist state. They live in unrecognized villages in the Negev and the North which the Israel state provides no services for. They, unlike Israeli Jews, have no “right to return.” They endured the Nakba.

“Israelis will be killed by terrorist violence!”

Palestinians are killed by terrorist violence. They are subject to spasms of outrageous violence, as the IDF kills them by the hundreds with bombs, tanks, and guns. The vast majority are civilians, many children. Their homes are destroyed, their neighborhoods demolished, their entire villages wiped out. Their hospitals and schools and universities and places of worship are bombed by Israel. Palestinians are subject to routine violence and degradation from IDF troops, who make light of this fact on social media. They are at risk from right-wing Israeli mobs who attack them at their protests and deny them their rights to protest. Their nonviolent protesters are thrown into prison. Their homes are bulldozed out of revenge.

Do I need to go on?

Everything that defenders of Israel insist will happen if Palestinians gain power, Palestinians are now enduring, or worse. Every humanitarian disaster that you imagine will occur with the creation of a Palestinian state is happening now. It’s just happening to the people of Palestine. And so this is the question for my many, many critical emailers: why do you shed more tears for what you imagine might happen to Israel than for what is happening to Palestinians?

[Coys1882]

I thought they locked this thread a couple of weeks ago.....

[Swarez]

So why do people keep bringing up Hamas? The Palestinian Authority controls the West Bank where this land is. Hamas has nothing to do with this since they control Gaza which again is not the West Bank.

For a thread full of experts you would think someone would bring that up, instead of me who really knows nothing on the matter.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

And the International Court of Justice has declared Israeli settlement activity illegal.

Yes because the UN has shown themselves to be such a fair and unbiased body in this conflict. Even now Hamas is storing rockets and running military bases out of UN hospitals and schools, which is in violation of just about every rule of war. And the UN is helping them do this and covering up their actions.

The UN creates a separate set of rules to define refugees that only applies to Palestinians (having been there 2 years or less or be a descendant). Then they turn the 1949 ceasefire line (after the Jews had all been expelled from the West Bank) into a permanent settlement line. Then they create a court to enforce that. You're talking about a "court" that has been entirely silent on just about every atrocity in the last 50 years, but finds the time to table multiple rulings against Israel every year.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no international law that makes it illegal for Jews to move back into a place that Jordan expelled them from in 1949 (that's East Jerusalem).

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Swarez

So why do people keep bringing up Hamas? The Palestinian Authority controls the West Bank where this land is. Hamas has nothing to do with this since they control Gaza which again is not the West Bank.

For a thread full of experts you would think someone would bring that up, instead of me who really knows nothing on the matter.

Some people will bring up Hamas no matter what, you get used to it and ignore it.