Israel/Palestine discussion

[yoni45]

The 'facts on the ground' are not actually changing anything, there is only building in already long established settled areas, not in new ones.

Also, Israel's government isn't so incredibly right wing as you describe. The ultra-religious parts of it, Shas, UTJ etc are not actually Zionist, UTJ even anti-Zionist. Shas has supported land-for-peace in the past. Lieberman may well be racist, but even he is for land for peace, just he wants to give Arab parts of Israel inside the Green Line as part of that land. Likud has been moving steadily leftwards for ever. And there is also Barak's new party, which is clearly left wing.

(Left / Right all in Israeli political terms - different from general Left/Right)

As to the Palestinians getting their shit together, its just not happening. The Fatah President and Fatah PM aren't on speaking terms any more. The elections have been pushed off again, meaning that Abbas's mandate ran out years ago which gives Hamas their excuse to do stuff like execute people without his permission. Hamas just held secret elections electing Haniyeh - who is in open confrontation with the Hamas outside leadership, itself looking for a new home. The latest Qatari sponsored unity deal between Fatah and Hamas collapsed within hours because Hamas-Gaza wouldn't accept a deal agreed by Hamas-Syria. Hamas still sticks to the line of 'the best we will ever offer is a temporary truce, never peace.'

So while Israel's good-faith in negotiations is debatable, the current feeling in Israel is that there really is no one to speak to. 'There is no partner' in the local political jargon. And nobody from any party except Meretz disputes this.

Israel is starting to gear up for elections with a date probably being set in the next week or two. For the first time in decades the Palestinian issue just isn't an issue.

Of course they're changing things -- X people are easier to move than X+Y people. Not to mention Israel's recent legalization of otherwise illegal outposts, together with Israel's generally blind eye towards illegal outposts essentially cements the current administration's aims vis a vis the Palestinians.

As for Shas previously supporting land-for-peace. Everybody and their mother has "supported" land for peace. It just often happens to be political posturing to look good while doing things like expanding settlements.

Just like Lieberman "supports" land-for-peace: in ways that he knows are untenable practically.

As far as the Palestinians -- there's always going to be internal political shifts, rifts, alliances, and whatever. A quick look at Israel should make that pretty obvious. The idea that Abbas's mandate somehow "gives" Hamas any sort of excuse is just silly: we both know Hamas finds "excuses" one way or another.

What's relevant is that the Palestinians (in terms of the West Bank, anyway -- Hamastan is a different story altogether) are largely abiding by what would be expected of them in peace negotiations -- Israel is not.

[BattleMoose]

Camp David Summit

You mean where Israel's offer was "We get everything we want, and you get a state divided into four or five disconnected pieces, we have the right to close your borders and permanently separate the pieces whenever we want, and our military is free to move in your lands and airspace without your consent, and you have no right to enter international agreements without our consent. Oh, as for your concerns regarding Jerusalem and the refugees: Go fuck yourselves." Is that the offer you're referring to?

Although I just made comments about foolish comparisons to other historical events, I am going to try just that.

The Camp David Offer I would like to compare to the Treaty of Vereeniging, which the Boers (In South Africa) consented to when they lost the 2nd Boer War. The Boer Republics lost their independence immediately after the war but within the Treaty of Vereeniging, it guranteed the eventual independence of both the Boer Republics. And this did happen, the Boer Republics, after losing a war and their independence, agreed to a treaty wherin they would lose their independence on the promise of eventual self-government and to reemphasize, this is exactly what happened.

The Camp David offer is somewhat analogous to this, it doesn't immediately give complete self governance but the promise is there.

My main objection was the complaint that Israel has the inclination to not wanting the Palestinians having their own country when (in my opinion at least) a sincere offer for just that was made.

[yedidyak]

Except under any agreement Israel would ever sign, places like Maale Adumim, Gush Etzion and parts of Jerusalem such as Gilo, Har Homa and Ramat Shlomo would never be given away. Never. So building in them is not a barrier to peace.

Of course there are political shifts, but you can't compare the two. Israeli governments change democratically, each will respect the decisions made by the previous administration regardless of what their own view is. When the PA (Fatah) President sees that he may lose the election, he just doesn't hold them for years. He has no mandate, negotiating with him is a waste of time. My point with Hamas's excuse to execute people is that any Palestinian group can use that excuse to ignore anything Abaas does - hes worse than useless as a negotiating partner. And you can't split the 'West Bank' and Gaza, because the Palestinians would never agree to that. And there cannot be a deal involving Gaza when Hamas is in charge there.

If the Palestinians really did get their shit together, that would mean free elections, an end to the Gaza - PA divide, and all sides willing to sign a permanent peace deal that could be guaranteed. And thats not something that anyone in Israel sees as possible in the foreseeable future.

[yoni45]

Except under any agreement Israel would ever sign, places like Maale Adumim...

Would that be because they kept building them up? You know, that thing that you claimed doesn't change anything?

There's no reason that places like Maale Adumim wouldn't be on the negotiating table, apart from Israel's decision to knowingly frustrate the peace process to pander to religious zealotry -- and no, that's not a good reason.

If the Palestinians really did get their shit together, that would mean free elections, an end to the Gaza - PA divide, and all sides willing to sign a permanent peace deal that could be guaranteed. And thats not something that anyone in Israel sees as possible in the foreseeable future.

Yeah, see now -- that's probably why Israel isn't seen as even trying to negotiate in good faith. It keeps making up these bullshit excuses to avoid doing anything substantive. The West Bank and Gaza are already split up, and what you "think" the Palestinians are willing to do or not is completely irrelevant until it gets to the point whereby they actually need to do it or not. The same applies to internal Palestinian issues.

[yedidyak]

Its not what I 'think' they are willing to do, but what they say they are willing to do. When one half of the Palestinian leadership is saying that they will never sign or respect any peace deal, that's a literal deal-breaker.

Just wondering, have you ever been to Maale Adumim?

[yoni45]

Its not what I 'think' they are willing to do, but what they say they are willing to do. When one half of the Palestinian leadership is saying that they will never sign or respect any peace deal, that's a literal deal-breaker.

Just wondering, have you ever been to Maale Adumim?

One half of the Palestinian leadership is saying no such thing -- Hamas isn't part of the Palestinian leadership, and its influence is limited to the Gaza Strip, a region unrelated to negotiations.

And, I haven't.

[yedidyak]

Its not what I 'think' they are willing to do, but what they say they are willing to do. When one half of the Palestinian leadership is saying that they will never sign or respect any peace deal, that's a literal deal-breaker.

Just wondering, have you ever been to Maale Adumim?

One half of the Palestinian leadership is saying no such thing -- Hamas isn't part of the Palestinian leadership, and its influence is limited to the Gaza Strip, a region unrelated to negotiations.

And, I haven't.

But that's not true. Hamas won the elections that were held across the PA territories. Hamas won in most parts of the 'West Bank', the only reason they don't have official positions is because they were kicked out when Hamas took over Gaza. And Gaza cannot be unrelated to negotiations. As long as the two sides see themselves as linked then they are linked. There can be no deal with one and not the other.

As to Maale Adumim etc. Its a suburb of Jerusalem, I used to live there when I was little. It's not especially religious, its just a normal suburb. There is just no way it could be evacuated, and all sides know that.

[Ghostbear]

If the Palestinians really did get their shit together, that would mean free elections, an end to the Gaza - PA divide, and all sides willing to sign a permanent peace deal that could be guaranteed. And thats not something that anyone in Israel sees as possible in the foreseeable future.

I believe a major part of the argument is that the state that Israel keeps the Palestinians in ensures that the Palestinians are unable to go ahead with getting their shit together. Israel has a lot of legitimate concerns with the area, no doubt about it, but keeping the Palestinians in permanent quasi-refugee quasi-outcast status is helping to create those situations that they worry about in the first place.

As to Maale Adumim etc. Its a suburb of Jerusalem, I used to live there when I was little. It's not especially religious, its just a normal suburb. There is just no way it could be evacuated, and all sides know that.

I don't have any particular opinions on Jerusalem related matters (not being knowledgeable enough on any details), but why, specifically, is there "just no way" that that area could change hands?

[yedidyak]

believe a major part of the argument is that the state that Israel keeps the Palestinians in ensures that the Palestinians are unable to go ahead with getting their shit together. Israel has a lot of legitimate concerns with the area, no doubt about it, but keeping the Palestinians in permanent quasi-refugee quasi-outcast status is helping to create those situations that they worry about in the first place.

That's just not true. The Palestinians can get their own political stuff sorted out without Israeli help. They could hold elections, can negotiate etc without Israeli help or hindrance.

I don't have any particular opinions on Jerusalem related matters (not being knowledgeable enough on any details), but why, specifically, is there "just no way" that that area could change hands?

Its a city. You can't just remove all the people from a city. Its literally a five minute drive from the capital of Israel, from the Knesset etc.

[Ghostbear]

That's just not true. The Palestinians can get their own political stuff sorted out without Israeli help. They could hold elections, can negotiate etc without Israeli help or hindrance.

I wasn't talking about needing Israel to hold their hands type of stuff, but the fact that they're in a constant refugee limbo. The blockades, or stories like earlier in the thread where they get their solar panels destroyed. A group of people can't get their shit together in that kind of situation, however justified the actions putting them in that situation may or may not be. I want to emphasize that last part -- even if there is 100% justification for doing those actions, that justification does not change the situation that is being created.

Its a city. You can't just remove all the people from a city. Its literally a five minute drive from the capital of Israel, from the Knesset etc.

Those both seem like issues that just about any agreement to have territory change hands will face if it's to be acceptable to both parties. The geography strikes me as the more difficult sticking point -- this is a (relatively) tiny part of the world, so just about any splitting of territory is going to be crazy close to somewhere of sufficient importance to either side. Large numbers of people can be moved with enough compensation, preparation and the availability of somewhere for them to go, but there's nothing that can be done to make that drive less than five minutes.

Of course, that leaves the problem at "What distance is acceptable?" -- since this is such a small area being dealt with, just about anything is going to result in many people thinking it's too close to somewhere.

[yedidyak]

It might be a sort of chicken and egg thing. As long as the Palestinian political scene is violently chaotic, there won't be serious negotiations. That lack of negotiation then doesn't help the politics. But plenty resistance movements have got their act together in far worse circumstances.

Of course, that leaves the problem at "What distance is acceptable?" -- since this is such a small area being dealt with, just about anything is going to result in many people thinking it's too close to somewhere.

And the hills overlooking Tel Aviv and most of Israel's population is a little close too.

[Ghostbear]

It might be a sort of chicken and egg thing. As long as the Palestinian political scene is violently chaotic, there won't be serious negotiations. That lack of negotiation then doesn't help the politics. But plenty resistance movements have got their act together in far worse circumstances.

Certainly, but resistance movements are often going to be in a much different situation practically -- they probably aren't going to be run democratically, they're going to have a unified goal, they're going to be made up entirely of people dedicated to that goal, and so on. What is the "goal" of the Palestinians? For some, it's just getting through this day, this week, this year.. For some others, it's going to be gaining sovereignty for themselves. Maybe some others want sovereignty over very specific spots of land, and of course that group is going to have several subgroups who all care more about different areas than each other. And even some others will be a big problem to everyone involved, such as Hamas.

To have any legitimacy, any created political process is going to need the support of a large number of people in those various groups (and other groups as well, I'm sure). That's a lot harder to do when you have the current situation the way it is, with the last group making trouble for everyone, with the first group unwillingly or unable to care beyond surviving the day due to the quasi-refugee status, and so on. I just don't think the resistance movement comparison is really valid in this case. That said, it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation, you're right; and Israel is, by far, the more powerful actor in this situation, which puts more of the impetus on them to not prevent that red junglefowl from evolving so it can lay that egg.

[yoni45]

But that's not true. Hamas won the elections that were held across the PA territories. Hamas won in most parts of the 'West Bank', the only reason they don't have official positions is because they were kicked out when Hamas took over Gaza. And Gaza cannot be unrelated to negotiations. As long as the two sides see themselves as linked then they are linked. There can be no deal with one and not the other.

If Israel cared about Palestinian democratic aspirations they'd have a state. Let's not pretend Israel doesn't want to negotiate because Palestinians don't have a properly functioning democracy. The Palestinians are being represented by the PA, and the PA has enough control over the populace for them to negotiate with Israel. Internal matters between them and Hamas are just that: internal matters irrelevant to Israel's excuses to negotiate in bad faith.

As to Maale Adumim etc. Its a suburb of Jerusalem, I used to live there when I was little. It's not especially religious, its just a normal suburb. There is just no way it could be evacuated, and all sides know that.

Not really a normal suburb when it was developed as a land-grab across occupied territory, is it now?

[yedidyak]

and the PA has enough control over the populace for them to negotiate with Israel

But they don't. A third of their populace is under an entirely different government. And even in the areas they control, a large percentage voted against for a movement that won't recognise anything they agree to. Oslo Accords for example.

Not really a normal suburb when it was developed as a land-grab across occupied territory, is it now?

It is now though.

[yoni45]

But they don't. A third of their populace is under an entirely different government. And even in the areas they control, a large percentage voted against for a movement that won't recognise anything they agree to. Oslo Accords for example.

No -- none of their populace is under a different government, since 'their' populace is in the West Bank. If you look for these silly excuses, you'll find them. That won't change the fact that the PA has control over the relevant populace and is in a position to negotiate with Israel -- and in turn, it won't make Israel's obstinance any less in bad faith.

If negotiations break down because of Palestinian impotence, then they'll break down when they do -- as it stands, it's not such impotence holding things up.

It is now though.

I wouldn't consider a town that is outside the border of the country to which it supposedly belongs to be 'normal', even 'now'.

[LaserGuy]

But they don't. A third of their populace is under an entirely different government. And even in the areas they control, a large percentage voted against for a movement that won't recognise anything they agree to. Oslo Accords for example.

This is pretty typical of modern democracies. Especially in Westminster systems, it's not uncommon for a party to have complete control over the legislative agenda with <40% of the popular vote. This does not mean that the government is illegitimate or does not have the authority to speak for the people at large.

[yedidyak]

This is pretty typical of modern democracies. Especially in Westminster systems, it's not uncommon for a party to have complete control over the legislative agenda with <40% of the popular vote. This does not mean that the government is illegitimate or does not have the authority to speak for the people at large.

When the term expires and they don't hold new elections in case they lose, thats when they lose legitimacy. When the main opposition says that whatever happens they don't respect deals signed by the governing party, then there's a serious problem with the government's legitimacy. Imagine if the Republicans said they wouldn't follow any law Obama signs, even international treaties.

No -- none of their populace is under a different government, since 'their' populace is in the West Bank. If you look for these silly excuses, you'll find them. That won't change the fact that the PA has control over the relevant populace and is in a position to negotiate with Israel -- and in turn, it won't make Israel's obstinance any less in bad faith.

Seriously? You don't think that there's a link between the 'West Bank' and Gaza? The 'Palestinian Territories' are both. Both will be the subject of any deal, not just one or the other.

[LaserGuy]

Seriously? You don't think that there's a link between the 'West Bank' and Gaza? The 'Palestinian Territories' are both. Both will be the subject of any deal, not just one or the other.

On the contrary, a three state solution, I think, has a lot going for it and actually simplifies/eliminates many of the logistical hurdles associated with the two-state model. Either an independent West Bank/Gaza model or the Egypt-Jordan model, or possibly a combination (West Bank-Egypt seems plausible, although I don't know if Egypt would actually want Gaza in its current state) would probably be politically much more feasible to attain than West Bank and Gaza combined into a disconnected state separated by a hostile one. Considering that the West Bank and Gaza already function essentially independently of each other anyway, with separate governments and economies, and little or movement of goods, services, or people between them, it doesn't seem like that much of stretch.

[yoni45]

Seriously? You don't think that there's a link between the 'West Bank' and Gaza? The 'Palestinian Territories' are both. Both will be the subject of any deal, not just one or the other.

Yes -- it's pretty obvious to any observer that the West Bank and Gaza are two separate entities pretty much in every way, and most importantly: politically. Seriously.

[bentheimmigrant]

Imagine if the Republicans said they wouldn't follow any law Obama signs, even international treaties.

As an aside, this is not a difficult thing to imagine, especially since treaties have to go through (Republican controlled) Congress.

[yedidyak]

Massive drama in Israeli politics.

To sum up: Over the last few days it became clear that there were going to be early elections, a date was set - 4th September, and the Knesset began the process of dissolving itself. All the media had started running polls, campaigns had started from all the parties, the usual group of new parties were set up. The Knesset passed the first reading of the dissolution bill 109-1. Then at 2am Netenyahu and the head of the opposition Shaul Mofaz (who won the Kadima primaries last month) announced that the elections had been called off, and that Netenyahu would serve the remainder of his term as head of a national-unity government.

This massively strengthens the coalition, even with the 15 or so MKs who will leave, the government grows from 66ish to 75-80. (Out of 120). This leaves the way totally clear for new laws such as the 'Tal Law' which would require national service from groups currently exempt, mainly Haredim (ultra-orthodox Jews) and Arabs.

What this means for the peace process is yet to be seen, though I personally doubt it will change anything.

http://www.haaretz.com/

Though its 3am here my facebook is flooding with angry left-wing activists calling for demonstrations against the 'stinking maneuver' of preparing the entire political system for elections only to pull out at the very last second.

('Stinking maneuver' is a reference to a similar trick pulled by Peres in 1990)

[bentheimmigrant]

I'm not generally one to agree with Netanyahu, but a manoeuvre like that is hardly an immoral act within a Parliamentary system. The prime minister is not elected by the people, it is simply the person who can command a majority on confidence votes. So saying "Oh no, they've come to an agreement on confidence votes" is hardly a convincing argument.

[Iulus Cofield]

Iran, other Mideast states hit by computer virus

Iran and other Middle East countries have been hit with a cunning computer virus that can eavesdrop on computer users and their co-workers and filch information from nearby cellphones, cybersecurity experts said Tuesday. And suspicion immediately fell on Israel as the culprit.
...
Schouwenberg [of Russian Internet security firm Kaspersky Lab ZAO] said there is evidence to suggest that the people behind Flame also helped craft Stuxnet, a virus that is believed to have attacked nuclear centrifuges in Iran in 2010. Many suspect Stuxnet was the work of Israeli intelligence.
...
Israel's vice premier did little to deflect suspicion about the country's possible involvement in the cyberattack.

"Whoever sees the Iranian threat as a significant threat is likely to take various steps, including these, to hobble it," Moshe Yaalon told Army Radio when asked about Flame. "Israel is blessed with high technology, and we boast tools that open all sorts of opportunities for us."
...
Udi Mokady, chief executive of Cyber-Ark, an Israeli developer of information security, said he believes four countries, in no particular order, have the know-how to develop so sophisticated a weapon: Israel, the U.S., China and Russia.

"It was 20 times more sophisticated than Stuxnet," with thousands of lines of code that took a large team, ample funding and months, if not years, to develop, he said. "It's a live program that communicates back to its master. It asks, `Where should I go? What should I do now?' It's really almost like a science fiction movie."

[Dream]

Iran, other Mideast states hit by computer virus

Udi Mokady, chief executive of Cyber-Ark, an Israeli developer of information security, said he believes four countries, in no particular order, have the know-how to develop so sophisticated a weapon: Israel, the U.S., China and Russia.

Bollocks. Anywhere with a well developed software development industry could have done this, had they only the will and the interest. Few countries would want to bother, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do it. Most of Western Europe, some of South America, all of North America, much of Asia. It's a computer program, not an interplanetary space program. While I'm sure the program is very sophisticated and subtle, it's not magic. This is just Israel trying to burnish its myth of superiority to Arab nations, and imply they're some kind of information war superpower.

[Zamfir]

But it's almost science fiction. It calls home and asks its masters what to do, like a cyber-hybrid of ET and the Manchurian Candidate.

[Iulus Cofield]

Tee hee.

I think what he was trying to say is that the money involved in hiring skilled programmers, bug testing, etc, would be prohibitively expensive. It's not trivial cheap to program reliable software, especially when you need extreme discretion. I also take his rather colorful description to mean that it allows some kind of remote access, which would also raise costs as, if it collects as much info as it says, you would need a decent number of people sifting through that data, also raising the costs considerably.

[yurell]

Israel continues to violate international law by building new homes on the West Bank.

[yedidyak]

Israel continues to violate international law by building new homes on the West Bank.

Its really amazing how differently this story has been reported. The real story was that in a town called Bet-El, there was a claim made to the Supreme Court that five houses had been built on private land fifteen years ago. The court ordered that the houses be destroyed. The right objected, saying that although obviously building on privately owned land is illegal, claiming only fifteen years later shows that the owners didn't know or care about an empty hilltop granted to them by the Jordanian occupation. More so, the case was pushed by Peace Now and other extreme left Israeli groups.

An idea was raised to legalise any building on land that had had no claim of ownership for four years after building on it. Similar laws exist pretty much everywhere, and also in Jewish law though obviously thats not relevant. Netanyahu initially backed the proposed law, but then arranged a deal with the AG that the five houses would be moved, and more buildings built on state land to appease the right a bit. He threatened to fire any minister voting for the proposed law. Suddenly all the ministers who had sworn to back it found urgent business elsewhere, and the bill failed 69-22.

Of course, Israel sees building on state land in the 'West Bank' to not be illegal. So the story is that Israel is enforcing the private rights of Palestinians to land in the 'West Bank', even rights given by the illegal Jordanian occupation. Even when the claims are made fifteen years after a building has been built.

[yurell]

This isn't an article about that case, although it does mention it (which is a good thing — I'm glad they're not getting away with it and the government of Israel is willing to do something about it). The story they're telling in there is about a new set of homes to be built.

[yedidyak]

This isn't an article about that case, although it does mention it (which is a good thing — I'm glad they're not getting away with it and the government of Israel is willing to do something about it). The story they're telling in there is about a new set of homes to be built.

Which is the necessary context. These houses are to be built (although lets see if they really are) as part of the deal to destroy those houses. It's Netanyahu's fig leaf for his right wing voters and coalition members.

[yoni45]

Which is the necessary context. These houses are to be built (although lets see if they really are) as part of the deal to destroy those houses. It's Netanyahu's fig leaf for his right wing voters and coalition members.

Does the context affect whether or not "Israel continues to violate international law by building new homes on the West Bank"?

[Iulus Cofield]

Of course, Israel sees building on state land in the 'West Bank' to not be illegal.

This is the point that everyone else is talking about, interesting tangents notwithstanding.

[yedidyak]

It's Israel demolishes illegal homes in the 'West Bank', and builds more non-illegal homes, as Israel sees it. It's not Israel riding roughshod over international law, but rather Israel rigidly enforcing, despite major political troubles that it causes, what Israel sees as the law.

[yurell]

It's Israel demolishes illegal homes in the 'West Bank', and builds more non-illegal homes, as Israel sees it. It's not Israel riding roughshod over international law, but rather Israel rigidly enforcing, despite major political troubles that it causes, what Israel sees as the law.

What do you mean by 'Israel sees' in this case? The Supreme Court of Israel recognises that the territories are held under belligerent occupation, making settlement there illegal under international law.

[yedidyak]

From the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs site:

International humanitarian law prohibits the forcible transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force. This principle, which is reflected in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, was drafted immediately following the Second World War. As International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. This is clearly not the case with regard to the West Bank and Gaza.

The attempt to present Israeli settlements as a violation of this principle is clearly untenable. As Professor Eugene Rostow, former Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs has written: "the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there" (AJIL, 1990, vol. 84, p.72).

The provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding forced population transfer to occupied sovereign territory cannot be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted. Nor does it prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership. In this regard, Israeli settlements have been established only after an exhaustive investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, designed to ensure that no communities are established on private Arab land.

It should be emphasised that the movement of individuals to the territory is entirely voluntary, while the settlements themselves are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice.

Repeated charges regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements must therefore be regarded as politically motivated, without foundation in international law. Similarly, as Israeli settlements cannot be considered illegal, they cannot constitute a "grave violation" of the Geneva Convention, and hence any claim that they constitute a "war crime" is without any legal basis. Such political charges cannot justify in any way Palestinian acts of terrorism and violence against innocent Israelis.

Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on its historic and religious connection to the land, and its recognized security needs, but also on the fact that the territory was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense, imposed upon Israel. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to conduct negotiations on settlements indicated that they envisage a compromise on this issue.

So the voluntary movement of citizens to state, or unowned land in Judea and Samaria is legal, but not any building on private land (except for security reasons, and temporarily.)


Incidentally, it strikes me as strange for people to simultaneously claim that Israel's occupation is illegal and that any settlement by Israelis is illegal under international law, and yet demand that Israel honour land rights granted by the Jordanian occupation, which was at least every bit as illegal.

[Iulus Cofield]

So the voluntary movement of citizens to state, or unowned land in Judea and Samaria is legal, but not any building on private land (except for security reasons, and temporarily.)

I'm - I'm not sure what Israeli time travel has to do with anything.

[yoni45]

Incidentally, it strikes me as strange for people to simultaneously claim that Israel's occupation is illegal and that any settlement by Israelis is illegal under international law, and yet demand that Israel honour land rights granted by the Jordanian occupation, which was at least every bit as illegal.

The Jordanian occupation of the West Bank is every bit as illegal as Israel's occupation of Tel Aviv. I'm not sure you'd want to follow the path your reasoning leads to.

The Palestinian rights to the West Bank are not based on being granted by Jordanian occupation, but on principles of self-determination.

[LaserGuy]

So the voluntary movement of citizens to state, or unowned land in Judea and Samaria is legal, but not any building on private land (except for security reasons, and temporarily.)

As we discussed ad nauseum earlier in this thread, the "forcible transfer" clause in the Geneva Convention includes government incentives toward or direct funding of population transfer and settlement building.

[yedidyak]

I'm - I'm not sure what Israeli time travel has to do with anything.

Judea and Samaria is the commonly used name here for the areas that have historically always been called that until Jordan started using the name the 'West Bank'.

EDIT - Even UN resolution 181 referred to 'Samaria and Judea' instead of the 'West Bank', because it was before the Jordanian name change.

The Jordanian occupation of the West Bank is every bit as illegal as Israel's occupation of Tel Aviv. I'm not sure you'd want to follow the path your reasoning leads to.

No, Israel's existence in TA has been approved and recognised by the UN, and most of the international community. Jordan's occupation of the 'West Bank' was never recognised as legitimate by anyone, except the UK.

As we discussed ad nauseum earlier in this thread, the "forcible transfer" clause in the Geneva Convention includes government incentives toward or direct funding of population transfer and settlement building.

I was simply paraphrasing the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to explain Israel's legal opinion of the status of the Occupied Territories.

[yoni45]

No, Israel's existence in TA has been approved and recognised by the UN, and most of the international community. Jordan's occupation of the 'West Bank' was never recognised as legitimate by anyone, except the UK.

Citation? From the relevant era ('48-'67), of course.

(I'm not even sure if that would be relevant, but let's start with the citation so we have something to work with here)