Arguments for Israeli Settlements

[Loren Pechtel]

But Prime Minister Netanyahu has remained steadfast, refusing to turn over more land to the Palestinians whom, he is convinced, will turn it into another Gaza-like terrorist launching pad.​

Read more at http://observer.com/2014/10/bibi-netanyahu-the-chicksht-who-wont-play-ball-with-obama/#ixzz3Hex6D8vT

What you mean is he will not return land that he has occupied by force in breach of his agreements, which in fact the reason for Gaza. Do you really think America is doing anything to stop the colonization and ethnic cleansing of the untermenschen? What about the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed including whole families?

What agreement are you talking about?

And colonization implies expansion--and the wall basically froze the dividing line. There is no expansion.

And there certainly isn't ethnic cleansing.

I do agree whole families have been wiped out--terrorist commanders staying with families. You can't fight a war if the targets you need to hit are off limits. Hamas deliberately sacrifices women and children (and sometimes kills them directly) to get your sympathy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I saw no reports on where they landed but rockets were coming from the West Bank in the latest round of fighting.

That being said, populations grow. It's been a long time since Israel has built on land that wasn't obviously going to be retained by Israel in any reasonable land swap deal.

The only land that is obviously going to be ceded to Israel is what's inside the 1967 borders, with the exception of East Jerusalem.

You've said in the past you think building the settlements was a mistake. Do you still feel that way?

Yes, they never should have been built. That doesn't change the fact that they were, though--and at this point I think the only reason Israel should give them up is a true peace. At this point I think that would require at a minimum a heavy nuclear strike on Doha--and that would kill *FAR* more than the status quo.

- - - Updated - - -

I saw no reports on where they landed but rockets were coming from the West Bank in the latest round of fighting.

That being said, populations grow. It's been a long time since Israel has built on land that wasn't obviously going to be retained by Israel in any reasonable land swap deal. <snip>

If you define a "reasonable" land swap as one that allows Israel to keep all current and future settlements, that's tautologically true. If you constrain "reasonable" such that Palestine becomes a viable entity, not so much. But that's even irelevant, because whatever land swap deals might be reached in the future, until it has been reached, Israel doesn't have the right to build there.

I define a reasonable land swap as one that keeps the heavily populated areas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I saw no reports on where they landed but rockets were coming from the West Bank in the latest round of fighting.

That being said, populations grow. It's been a long time since Israel has built on land that wasn't obviously going to be retained by Israel in any reasonable land swap deal. Furthermore, they get accused of building settlements when they approve housing in Arab areas also, not to mention even when it's land within the 67 borders--the accusations are far more about politics than the truth.

The main issue is the use of such construction as an excuse by the Palestinians not to talk.

The Zionists (not representative of all Jews) don't want talks other than just to talk while taking land.

Even if true it doesn't change the fact that the Palestinians basically keep putting preconditions on talks, they don't talk.

(Not that the talks mean anything. The Palestinians don't control their path, they aren't capable of making real peace. If they somehow decided to a new terrorist group would get the money and take up the battle. We've already seen this happen--Fatah pretty much quit fighting, they money went to Hamas.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I saw no reports on where they landed but rockets were coming from the West Bank in the latest round of fighting.

Source?

Finding anything but Palestinian propaganda is hard but how about them taking credit for shooting them:

(Warning, Arabic, the Google translation is readable.)
http://www.nedal.net/ar/index.php?Action=NewsDetails&ID=18422

Bullshit. The reason why Israel isn't building on land that is not "obviously" part of a "reasonable" land swap is that Israel does not consider any land swap reasonable where anything was built. So conveniently, as they expand and build more, the amount of "obviously reasonable" land that Israel insists on keeping is growing. Like the most recent acquisition, where Palestinian private land was appropriated as Israeli state land. Meanwhile Palestinians aren't getting squat, and the wasteland that Israel is prepared to land is staying the same, and actually serves a double purpose because it's mostly inhabited by Israeli Arabs that the Jewish supremacists would like to get rid of.

Most of the construction is either in what amounts to a small city or in the area between that city and Israel.

AS for being an excuse not to talk, Israel is doing the same thing. For example, they are using the Palestinian seeking recognition in UN as excuse not to talk. They are using Hamas's activities in Gaza as reason to to talk. They are using Palestinians not recognizing Israel as "Jewish" state as an excuse not to talk. The real reason of course is that if Israel were to talk, they would gain nothing, but if they don't talk they can continue to take more land, and Palestinians have shown that they don't have the stomach to oppose Israel.

Source for the first two?

The latter makes sense--there's no point in talking to someone that's not willing to accept your existence.

 

[Axulus]

But Prime Minister Netanyahu has remained steadfast, refusing to turn over more land to the Palestinians whom, he is convinced, will turn it into another Gaza-like terrorist launching pad.​

Read more at http://observer.com/2014/10/bibi-netanyahu-the-chicksht-who-wont-play-ball-with-obama/#ixzz3Hex6D8vT

What you mean is he will not return land that he has occupied by force in breach of his agreements, which in fact the reason for Gaza. Do you really think America is doing anything to stop the colonization and ethnic cleansing of the untermenschen? What about the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed including whole families?

Ethnic cleansing is the wrong terminology. Ethnic Palestinian citizens in Israel aren't being maltreated or forcibly removed from Israel. There is no restrictions on them having children and creating more Palestinian Israelis. It is based on nationality and citizenship.

 

[Arctish]

What you mean is he will not return land that he has occupied by force in breach of his agreements, which in fact the reason for Gaza. Do you really think America is doing anything to stop the colonization and ethnic cleansing of the untermenschen? What about the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed including whole families?

Ethnic cleansing is the wrong terminology. Ethnic Palestinian citizens in Israel aren't being maltreated or forcibly removed from Israel. There is no restrictions on them having children and creating more Palestinian Israelis. It is based on nationality and citizenship.

Last week Loren told us of an Israeli government plan to "give" communities of non-Jewish Israelis to the West Bank as part of a land deal. The plan was quashed but suppose Israel was still going forward with it. If those Israelis refused to surrender their citizenship, what then? Force them out at gunpoint? Build a wall to keep them on the West Bank side?

 

[Ford]

There is no expansion.

This sums up the whole pro settlement position right here.


There is no expansion. There is no settlement activity. There is no confiscation of land.


Anything which the state of Israel declares is part of Israel, is part of Israel.



End of discussion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Israelis have peaceful methods they could use to stop Palestinian resistance.

End the reason for the resistance by giving the Palestinians their sovereignty.

So if Israel gave the Palestinians sovereignty, that would mitigate the problem? Don't the Palestinians want Israel wiped off the map?

The Palestinians already have sovereignty but its territory is constantly being eroded by armed settlers backed at times by troops. It seems more likely that the Zionists want Palestine wiped off the map. Israel needs to pull back to the agreed borders.

Israel was given to the Zionists by Lord Balfour in 1917 without the consent of local Jewish and Palestinian communities at the time. Actually Jewish, Christian and Arab communities had lived side by side for hundreds of years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ain-must-atone-for-its-sins-in-Palestine.html

Balfour, on behalf of Britain, promised Palestine – over which Britain had no legal right – to a people who did not even live there (of the very small community of Palestinian Jews in Palestine in 1917, very few were Zionists). And he did so with the worst of intentions: to discourage Jewish immigration to Britain. No wonder Lord Montagu, the only Jewish member of the Cabinet, opposed the declaration.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Ethnic cleansing is the wrong terminology. Ethnic Palestinian citizens in Israel aren't being maltreated or forcibly removed from Israel. There is no restrictions on them having children and creating more Palestinian Israelis. It is based on nationality and citizenship.

Last week Loren told us of an Israeli government plan to "give" communities of non-Jewish Israelis to the West Bank as part of a land deal. The plan was quashed but suppose Israel was still going forward with it. If those Israelis refused to surrender their citizenship, what then? Force them out at gunpoint? Build a wall to keep them on the West Bank side?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ethnic-cleansing
The Oxford Dictionary states it is: The mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another.


http://smpalestine.com/2014/03/11/s...lestinian-home-and-decide-it-belongs-to-them/
See: Israeli settlers walk into a Palestinian home and decide it belongs to them
The article also states
According to the video’s description, a previous court order administered by an Israeli judge transferred ownership rights over part of the house to a family of Jewish settlers. It is unclear if any appeals were made on behalf of the Al-Kurd family, but considering Israel’s longstanding history of ignoring land ownership deeds held by Palestinians, it is unlikely that the situation would have changed. UNQUOTE

However, Palestinians ownership deeds even if hundreds of years old are generally ignored by the Israeli courts.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no expansion.

This sums up the whole pro settlement position right here.


There is no expansion. There is no settlement activity. There is no confiscation of land.


Anything which the state of Israel declares is part of Israel, is part of Israel.



End of discussion.

Not only that, but God is the estate agent who gave the land to the Zionists. Actually it was Lord Balfour who stood in for that part.

 

[Togo]

What you mean is he will not return land that he has occupied by force in breach of his agreements, which in fact the reason for Gaza. Do you really think America is doing anything to stop the colonization and ethnic cleansing of the untermenschen? What about the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed including whole families?

Ethnic cleansing is the wrong terminology. Ethnic Palestinian citizens in Israel aren't being maltreated or forcibly removed from Israel.

No, they're being forcibly expelled or removed from Palestine by Israeli settlers backed up by the IDF. In what way is this not ethnic cleansing?

 

[Axulus]

Ethnic cleansing is the wrong terminology. Ethnic Palestinian citizens in Israel aren't being maltreated or forcibly removed from Israel.

No, they're being forcibly expelled or removed from Palestine by Israeli settlers backed up by the IDF. In what way is this not ethnic cleansing?

The Israeli Palestinian citizens and residents are? If not, then I'm saying it's not based on ethnicity or religion but rather their status as non-citizens or non-residents of Israel, so the term doesn't seem correct to me. 20% of the population of Israel are Arabs, most of them Palestinians and Muslim. For the terminology to be correct Israel would need to deport them, drive them out, sterilize them, or kill them, no?

 

[Togo]

No, they're being forcibly expelled or removed from Palestine by Israeli settlers backed up by the IDF. In what way is this not ethnic cleansing?

The Israeli Palestinian citizens and residents are? If not, then I'm saying it's not based on ethnicity or religion but rather their status as non-citizens or non-residents of Israel, so the term doesn't seem correct to me. 20% of the population of Israel are Arabs, most of them Palestinians and Muslim. For the terminology to be correct Israel would need to deport them, drive them out, sterilize them, or kill them, no?

No. The aim of ethnic cleansing is not genocide, but to reduce the target population to a state where it is easier to control and subject to the new majority population. The presence of an assimilated minority population within the group carrying out the cleansing is not an issue, because they're not a threat to the aim, which is to extend majority control.

For example, in African examples of ethnic cleansing, woman are often raped to ensure that they won't be marriageable. They aren't just killed. The idea is to reduce the population to something manageable, and to gain power over those who remain. They not just trying to kill them all.

 

[laughing dog]

The argument for the settlements is that it expands and cements the territorial claims of Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ethnic cleansing is the wrong terminology. Ethnic Palestinian citizens in Israel aren't being maltreated or forcibly removed from Israel.

No, they're being forcibly expelled or removed from Palestine by Israeli settlers backed up by the IDF. In what way is this not ethnic cleansing?

[Citation needed]

Where are these displacements happening? And don't cite Palestinian propaganda.

 

[laughing dog]

From 1948, there is clear documentation of Arabs being forcibly removed or prevented from living in their homes. The official term is  Present_absentee. The expansion of annexed "disputed" territory eventually means eviction or displacement of current Arab residents. It is sophistry to ignore those realities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Israeli Palestinian citizens and residents are? If not, then I'm saying it's not based on ethnicity or religion but rather their status as non-citizens or non-residents of Israel, so the term doesn't seem correct to me. 20% of the population of Israel are Arabs, most of them Palestinians and Muslim. For the terminology to be correct Israel would need to deport them, drive them out, sterilize them, or kill them, no?

No. The aim of ethnic cleansing is not genocide, but to reduce the target population to a state where it is easier to control and subject to the new majority population. The presence of an assimilated minority population within the group carrying out the cleansing is not an issue, because they're not a threat to the aim, which is to extend majority control.

For example, in African examples of ethnic cleansing, woman are often raped to ensure that they won't be marriageable. They aren't just killed. The idea is to reduce the population to something manageable, and to gain power over those who remain. They not just trying to kill them all.

The Palestinian population is rapidly increasing.

 

[laughing dog]

No. The aim of ethnic cleansing is not genocide, but to reduce the target population to a state where it is easier to control and subject to the new majority population. The presence of an assimilated minority population within the group carrying out the cleansing is not an issue, because they're not a threat to the aim, which is to extend majority control.

For example, in African examples of ethnic cleansing, woman are often raped to ensure that they won't be marriageable. They aren't just killed. The idea is to reduce the population to something manageable, and to gain power over those who remain. They not just trying to kill them all.

The Palestinian population is rapidly increasing.

Not in the areas from which they have been displaced (i.e. the relevant areas).

 

[Jokodo]

No. The aim of ethnic cleansing is not genocide, but to reduce the target population to a state where it is easier to control and subject to the new majority population. The presence of an assimilated minority population within the group carrying out the cleansing is not an issue, because they're not a threat to the aim, which is to extend majority control.

For example, in African examples of ethnic cleansing, woman are often raped to ensure that they won't be marriageable. They aren't just killed. The idea is to reduce the population to something manageable, and to gain power over those who remain. They not just trying to kill them all.

The Palestinian population is rapidly increasing.

There's good evidence that those figures are inflated for political reasons by the PLO to boost their morale (and collect more money from UNRWA), and picked up all to happily by the Israeli Right to whip up fears of a "Demographic Time Bomb".

Meanwhile, in reality:

The difference between the likely actual Palestinian population and the results of the two Palestinian censuses (1997 and 2007) is probably around one million people, <snip>

From DellaPergola's statement, it seems that the gap of one million persons could be closed in ten years, making necessary an additional annual yearly increase of 100,000 Arabs, more than double the current numbers. But, far from doubling, Arab fertility and natural increase are decreasing following the demographic transition rules.
<snip>
Careful demographic analysis, however, should lead to a conclusion in stark contrast to the demographic time bomb thesis. The natural increase of the Jewish population in Israel—that is, its yearly birth rate less its yearly death rate—stabilized thirty years ago and, since 2002, has even begun to grow. The natural increase of the total Arab population, comprising both Israeli Arabs and the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, continues to descend toward convergence with the Jewish population, probably in the latter half of this century.

source: http://www.meforum.org/2124/the-politics-of-palestinian-demography

 

[whichphilosophy]

No, they're being forcibly expelled or removed from Palestine by Israeli settlers backed up by the IDF. In what way is this not ethnic cleansing?

[Citation needed]

Where are these displacements happening? And don't cite Palestinian propaganda.

The West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and at one time Gaza.
The Financial Times states
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49ca6056-60fd-11e4-b935-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3HkyDcH85

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49ca6056-60fd-11e4-b935-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3Hkyj2k8g

Recent weeks have seen an acceleration of Jewish settlers under armed guard moving into Silwan, an Arab neighbourhood on the southern slopes of the old city below al-Aqsa, where local residents have responded with angry protests. All this is incendiary.

and
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49ca6056-60fd-11e4-b935-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3HkyrIoli

The US has exercised its Security Council veto 42 times to protect Israel from condemnation for its actions, mostly in the occupied Palestinian territories. On the last occasion, in 2011, it vetoed a resolution calling the settlements illegal, not long after President Obama had said they were illegitimate. If there was any tactical merit in that semantic sophistry, it has long since evaporated in the drastic increase in Israel’s land-grabbing ever since. It is high time Mr Obama shows he means what he says – not just in America’s national interest but in the interest of future generations of Israelis.

The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/EU-Peace-Now-condemn-Catan-settlement-construction
In addition, according to Oppenheimer, the settlement’s existence makes it impossible for the Kfar Magic residents to get sufficient resources.

“The settlers of Catan are trying to gain a monopoly on sheep,” Oppenheimer said at a press conference Friday. “Not only have they gathered ore and wheat to turn their illegal settlement into a city, we have found that they have enough wood, bricks and sheep to build an outpost on more grazing lands. This is Palestinian land, and they have a right to sheep!” Oppenheimer unveiled a “point system” at the press conference, which he said measures “illegal settlement activity.”

“The settlers of Catan have already reached nine points,” he explained. “That means the game is almost over.”



Happy Purim from The Jerusalem Post!

 

[Axulus]

The Israeli Palestinian citizens and residents are? If not, then I'm saying it's not based on ethnicity or religion but rather their status as non-citizens or non-residents of Israel, so the term doesn't seem correct to me. 20% of the population of Israel are Arabs, most of them Palestinians and Muslim. For the terminology to be correct Israel would need to deport them, drive them out, sterilize them, or kill them, no?

No. The aim of ethnic cleansing is not genocide, but to reduce the target population to a state where it is easier to control and subject to the new majority population. The presence of an assimilated minority population within the group carrying out the cleansing is not an issue, because they're not a threat to the aim, which is to extend majority control.

For example, in African examples of ethnic cleansing, woman are often raped to ensure that they won't be marriageable. They aren't just killed. The idea is to reduce the population to something manageable, and to gain power over those who remain. They not just trying to kill them all.

But it is _not_ based on ethnicity of religion, but rather status as non-citizen and non-resident. Your definition has no relationship to the commonly understood definition of removal of a population from a territory based on religion or ethnicity by any means (I never said it had to be genocide, just that it was one of the many options).

What Israel is engaging in is land expansion and expulsion of non-citizens.

Your definition is so loose that we'd have to conclude that Russia is currently engaging in ethnic cleansing of the Ukrainians (though their expansionist policies).