West Bank - whose is it?

[Rhea]

Seems like it should be a simple question, but I expect it isn't. The settlements in the West bank utterly baffle me. I don't understand how they are allowed, why they are not bombed. They are not in Israel, right? They are an occupied territory. They are in Palestine (of the West bank).

Or aren't they?

What's the story. Those who think Israel does no wrong - do you think these settlements are right? Despite being against the Geneva Convention?

What is up? Who thinks they are the owners of the West Bank and what are their claims to title?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Historically, land belongs to those who can take and secure it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Historically, land belongs to those who can take and secure it.

Agreed. The land belongs to Israel until the Palestinians are able to do something about it and then the ownership could change hands. Nobody has anymore "right" to a bit of land than anyone else and the only claim that anyone has to it is based on their ability - or the ability of the government or whatever other group which represents them - to enforce that claim.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is Palestine, as it was divided by the UN in 1947. It is an impossible set up and no way for either side to govern effectively.

There was an immediate war and the Israeli forces captured this much territory, including entry into Jerusalem. The part remaining in Palestinian control was labeled, "the West Bank."

In 1967, there was the Six Day War. Israeli forces captured this much territory, including the West Bank, the Gaza strip, and part of Syria, known as the Golon Heights.


The real question is not, "Whose is it?" but, "What's it worth to you?" It would seem by now, some shrewd Palestinian would realize that fighting the Israeli Army is a losing proposition and work toward a political solution. Unfortunately, neither side has found the political will to do anything but fight.

As for who is the rightful owners, I say we bring back the Phoenicians and the Canaanites and let them fight over it.

 

[Togo]

You're confusing two different questions.

Which country does it belong to, is a matter of politics and who claims what country. Most countries put the Israeli border at the so-called green line, which is based on the 1967 border.

What isn't deniable, is that Palestinians who live in the area are cleared away to make way for Israelis transferred by the Israeli government as part of a state-run settlement program. That's the war crime, the violation of the Geneva convention, and the problem.

Israel is trying to have it both ways, clearing the land for use by its citizens, but not claiming the land so that the Palestinians aren't part of their country. Either Israel is the country portrayed in the second picture (1967), and it is illegally Occupying its neighbour, stealing land and resources. Or it is the country in the third picture, in which case it isn't a democracy at all, but rather an apartheid state bombing and brutally repressing it's own citizens for the crime of being the wrong religion/ethnicity. Since Israel has always claimed to be Occupying the West Bank, rather than adding it to it's territory, its not a brutal and repressive apartheid state, but rather a democratic state brutally repressing its neighbour.

There is no way it can legally claim the land without claiming all the people.

Which is why it's in a dilemma. It can't both be Israel and keep the settlements. Unless the Palestinians can be cowed into accepting resettlement, concentrating them into smaller areas (camps), or into leaving the area voluntarily. Hence the restrictions on imports and exports, and the restrictions on Palestinians moving freely.

 

[Rhea]

There is no way it can legally claim the land without claiming all the people.
.

Yes, that is exactly what puzzles me about people claiming Israel is doing "nothing but defending itself" and that "if Palestine laid down it's arms there would be two states." The brutal question of why the settlements can exist while the palestinians are not Israeli citizens. One or the other, not both.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The real question is not, "Whose is it?" but, "What's it worth to you?" It would seem by now, some shrewd Palestinian would realize that fighting the Israeli Army is a losing proposition and work toward a political solution. Unfortunately, neither side has found the political will to do anything but fight.

As for who is the rightful owners, I say we bring back the Phoenicians and the Canaanites and let them fight over it.

The shrewd Palestinians pretty much got out long ago.

And it's not the Palestinians in control, anyway. The war is perpetuated by the Islamists, the Palestinians are puppets. They shouldn't really be considered a side, any more than you would consider Patton's army a side in WWII. (Which is also why peace talks never work--Israel can no more negotiate peace with the Palestinians than Hitler could negotiate peace with Patton.)

 

[Bronzeage]

The real question is not, "Whose is it?" but, "What's it worth to you?" It would seem by now, some shrewd Palestinian would realize that fighting the Israeli Army is a losing proposition and work toward a political solution. Unfortunately, neither side has found the political will to do anything but fight.

As for who is the rightful owners, I say we bring back the Phoenicians and the Canaanites and let them fight over it.

The shrewd Palestinians pretty much got out long ago.

And it's not the Palestinians in control, anyway. The war is perpetuated by the Islamists, the Palestinians are puppets. They shouldn't really be considered a side, any more than you would consider Patton's army a side in WWII. (Which is also why peace talks never work--Israel can no more negotiate peace with the Palestinians than Hitler could negotiate peace with Patton.)

Extremists always prosper in extreme situations. When Israel allowed settlers to homestead in the West Bank, the only foreseeable outcome was a permanent annexation of the West Bank. Any chance of a true Palestinian nation ever existed was erased at that moment. It's one of those "what were you thinking?" points in history. Israel's oldest demand is that the Arab world, including the Palestinians recognize their right to exist, yet at the same time act in a way which insures Palestine will never exist.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Who owns it? Well a lot of Somalis live there, but it is also home to a great drinking establishment!

Every one should visit at least 12 times in their lives.
http://www.thewestbank.org/

 

[Rhea]

Israel's oldest demand is that the Arab world, including the Palestinians recognize their right to exist, yet at the same time act in a way which insures Palestine will never exist.

And this point is always dodged. But it is huge and brutal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The shrewd Palestinians pretty much got out long ago.

And it's not the Palestinians in control, anyway. The war is perpetuated by the Islamists, the Palestinians are puppets. They shouldn't really be considered a side, any more than you would consider Patton's army a side in WWII. (Which is also why peace talks never work--Israel can no more negotiate peace with the Palestinians than Hitler could negotiate peace with Patton.)

Extremists always prosper in extreme situations. When Israel allowed settlers to homestead in the West Bank, the only foreseeable outcome was a permanent annexation of the West Bank. Any chance of a true Palestinian nation ever existed was erased at that moment. It's one of those "what were you thinking?" points in history. Israel's oldest demand is that the Arab world, including the Palestinians recognize their right to exist, yet at the same time act in a way which insures Palestine will never exist.

There was no chance of peace before that, either.

 

[Bronzeage]

Extremists always prosper in extreme situations. When Israel allowed settlers to homestead in the West Bank, the only foreseeable outcome was a permanent annexation of the West Bank. Any chance of a true Palestinian nation ever existed was erased at that moment. It's one of those "what were you thinking?" points in history. Israel's oldest demand is that the Arab world, including the Palestinians recognize their right to exist, yet at the same time act in a way which insures Palestine will never exist.

There was no chance of peace before that, either.

There certainly was, but who wants to admit a fuck up which can't be corrected, could have been avoided. Settlers in the West Bank guarantee no Israeli government will surrender military domination and sovereignty over the area, because it is not politically possible to do so and remain in power. The Palestinian leadership faces the same dilemma because if the settlers stay, they cannot remain in power. This hopeless stalemate gives rise to all the problems they face today. The Israelis have put themselves in a corner. In order to maintain control, they have no choice but to kill hundreds of Palestinians, which only keeps it going. It's like trying to put out a fire by feeding it little pieces of firewood.

 

[Axulus]

There is no way it can legally claim the land without claiming all the people.
.

Yes, that is exactly what puzzles me about people claiming Israel is doing "nothing but defending itself" and that "if Palestine laid down it's arms there would be two states." The brutal question of why the settlements can exist while the palestinians are not Israeli citizens. One or the other, not both.

Some of the actions undertaken by Israeli citizens violate Israeli law on paper. There are Israeli laws that forbid settlements in the West Bank. Whether the laws are enforced is another matter entirely. Israel has at times destroyed settlements and at other times done nothing to stop them.

Usually the claim about "nothing but defending itself" is in reference to actions undertaken in the Gaza strip, not the West Bank.

Those who claim that Israel, either via lack of enforcement of it's own laws or tacit approval of settlements in West Bank land is "nothing but defending itself" and not doing anything "wrong" clearly have some explaining to do.

 

[Axulus]

The real question is not, "Whose is it?" but, "What's it worth to you?" It would seem by now, some shrewd Palestinian would realize that fighting the Israeli Army is a losing proposition and work toward a political solution. Unfortunately, neither side has found the political will to do anything but fight.

As for who is the rightful owners, I say we bring back the Phoenicians and the Canaanites and let them fight over it.

The shrewd Palestinians pretty much got out long ago.

And it's not the Palestinians in control, anyway. The war is perpetuated by the Islamists, the Palestinians are puppets. They shouldn't really be considered a side, any more than you would consider Patton's army a side in WWII. (Which is also why peace talks never work--Israel can no more negotiate peace with the Palestinians than Hitler could negotiate peace with Patton.)

If this were true, then why does all recent violence emanate from the Gaza Strip and not the West Bank? If they are puppets, then certainly the war would be fought on every front?

 

[Axulus]

Israel's oldest demand is that the Arab world, including the Palestinians recognize their right to exist, yet at the same time act in a way which insures Palestine will never exist.

And this point is always dodged. But it is huge and brutal.

It depends on popular sentiment in opposing the settlements or passively allowing them. Such support ebbs and flows. There are periods in Israel's history where they are opposed and actually actively removed. Other times they are passively allowed (even though they technically violate prior agreements and Israeli law).

 

[Metaphor]

In Year 10, my English teacher told me something I never forgot.

it's=it is
its is a possessive, like "his" or "her".

I wish my Year 10 English teacher had taught the whole world.

 

[Axulus]

In Year 10, my English teacher told me something I never forgot.

it's=it is
its is a possessive, like "his" or "her".

I wish my Year 10 English teacher had taught the whole world.

The purpose of language is communication - to be understood as intelligibly as possible by as many (of the intended audience) as possible. Is anyone really confused or is communication hindered when this mistake is made?

Grammar is also essentially determined by convention. Perhaps this is one rule that should change, given the error rate of its vs. it's under proper grammar rules? I propose a change in proper grammar rules to either of the two methods being acceptable unless, given the context of the sentence, it's vs. its would possibly be confused for "it is" when the intended meaning is the possessive of it.

I am both aware of the proper grammar and am also guilty of improper use under conventional grammar rules. When I am in "passive mode" using it's for possessive is automatic and unintentional.

 

[Metaphor]

The purpose of language is communication - to be understood as intelligibly as possible by as many as possible. Is anyone really confused or is communication hindered when this mistake is made?

Whenever I see them mixed up, I am 'taken out' of what I'm reading and have to re-read the sentence. That can't possibly be helpful to communication. I started reading this thread because I was interested in the topic line, but I got so distracted by the incorrect usage I felt compelled to make an off-topic post.

Grammar is also essentially determined by convention. Perhaps this is one convention that should change, given the error rate of its vs. it's under conventional grammar rules?

Are we also going to change his to hi's and hers to her's? Of course, I've seen the last abomination many times, too.

I am both aware of the proper grammar and am also guilty of improper use under conventional grammar rules. When I am in "passive mode" using it's for possessive is automatic and unintentional.

I'm not going to say I don't make slip-ups, but I'm bewildered by the staggering array of mistakes I see online all the time, from posters on message boards where you'd think people have a better command of English.

Why on earth do people put an apostrophe after nouns they want to pluralise? Holy apostrophe excess, Batman.

 

[Axulus]

Whenever I see them mixed up, I am 'taken out' of what I'm reading and have to re-read the sentence. That can't possibly be helpful to communication. I started reading this thread because I was interested in the topic line, but I got so distracted by the incorrect usage I felt compelled to make an off-topic post.

Is this because you are genuinely confused (even for a brief moment) as to whether the word is intended to mean "it is" vs. the possessive of it, or is this because the proper rule has been so ingrained into your mind? If the latter, perhaps the problem is the ingraining of a rule that should never have been ingrained in the first place?

Are we also going to change his to hi's and hers to her's? Of course, I've seen the last abomination many times, too.

I would say no, as the error rate per the proper grammar rule is so much lower compared to "it's" vs "its". hi's (his'?) or her's is so much more out of place. Now, if the error rate became substantial enough, and the intended meaning of the word was clear, then I would have no problem with it.

I'm not going to say I don't make slip-ups, but I'm bewildered by the staggering array of mistakes I see online all the time, from posters on message boards where you'd think people have a better command of English.

Why on earth do people put an apostrophe after nouns they want to pluralise? Holy apostrophe excess, Batman.

Far more rare than the "it's" vs "its" error. I can't speak to the apostrophe for a noun that is intended to be pluralized. At least the "it's" error makes some sense - the possessive form of a noun always has the apostrophe, and the gender neutral pronoun has always been a little awkward in the English language.

It's really no different to the use of "they" instead of his/her or "his or her". The original proper grammar rule was to never use "they" as a singular pronoun. Thankfully the official rule has changed (according to most guides) to either being acceptable. There are of course still some purist holdouts - according to some it is acceptable to use they as a singular pronoun "informally", but not when speaking or writing "formally".

 

[laruan]

In Year 10, my English teacher told me something I never forgot.

it's=it is
its is a possessive, like "his" or "her".

I wish my Year 10 English teacher had taught the whole world.

The purpose of language is communication - to be understood as intelligibly as possible by as many (of the intended audience) as possible. Is anyone really confused or is communication hindered when this mistake is made?

The idea of a post is to get the message across in a hurry . So communication is the key ; too much pedantry just creates hot air ; but there are a few pedantic operators residing in the forums of the net .. and also in Middle East , hence the West Bank conundrum.