Israeli Settlements

Guilty as charged, I have been spending a disproportionate time in the stump lately but there are currently a couple of subjects that interest me a lot (if for diametrically opposed reasons) and a corresponding lack of equally fascinatinfg WW2 threads (the "alternate Leyte" comes close but I'm too little knowleadgeable there to contribute).

Birth of Israel is very connected to WW2 though it has it's roots in WW1, the Turks would nerver have allowed the mess, so it's inevitable that any WW2 researcher has an interest in it.
Since I learned to read the Middle East has gotten huge amounts of media attention, often badly propaganda tainted, so the temptation to discuss it with people I respect and that like to dig under the surface is close to irresistible.

Allow me a "parting salvo" how about theads on
-The Arab Legion and trans Jordan Frontier Force in WW2 ? BTW What can anyone recognize this ? (Looks like a French chassis but the gun?) http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eQNPu6zzxaU/ScP5zTaZ5kI/AAAAAAAALgQ/BEL3ZFRW3d0/s400/BE028967.jpg&imgrefurl=http://idf-israel1948.blogspot.com/2009/01/arab-forces-invading-israel-1948.html&h=315&w=400&sz=35&tbnid=6JYAQt46PiYJyM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=117&prev=/search%3Fq%3Darab%2Blegion%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=arab+legion&usg=__jEwXrxw5RaMbUXWvPiECzaXsSO0=&docid=nv0LlTAuWcz9iM&sa=X&ei=qlExUtH3KeKn4gSwi4E4&ved=0CGEQ9QEwBg&dur=348
- Orde Charles Wingate (another favourite) ?
- The Grand Mufti ?
- Or my current "question of the month" was there an organic Jewish batallion with the French at Bir Hakeim in 1942 ?

Just joking ......... back to the official history of Italian army operations in September and October 1943 ... fascinating book and quite a mith breaker, can't wait until I get to the operational logs of the division stationed in Corsica.

 

OK Slipdigit - just one last parting shot and then I am done.

40% of Israeli want to leave:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/bye-the-beloved-country-why-almost-40-percent-of-israelis-are-thinking-of-emigrating.premium-1.484945

Time for a new approach (to the worst problem created by Nazi policy in WW2) perhaps?

 

Before I start responding to posts I think I should clarify my position a bit.
I have challenged the concpet that there is no reasonable way to justify the Settlements. That doesn't mean I think they are a good idea indeed for the most part I don't. It's also worth while pointing out that it is possible to class them in three distinct groups.
1) Ones that are illegal by Israeli law
2) Ones whose legality is in question
3) Ones that are legal and in some cases sponsored by the Israel governement.

The first the Israeli government should be preventing/closing as fast as possible. Apparently political factors are preventing this.
As for the others they should be taking a very close look at them and indeed the laws governing them.

 

Interesting. hundreds you say? I have no trouble believing they want peace. Accepting the long term survival of Israel is a bit more problematic. Exactly what peace terms would they be satisfied with? I suspect most would include terms that would preclude the survival of Israel. Then there's the noted tendency of the Arab press (and especially of the Pallestinain press) to say one thing in their European language version and another in the Arab language versions.
A lie by the way is a deliberate falsehood. I don't believe my statment was or is false so it certainly isn't delliberate and you have a long way to go to prove it false so it's certainly not a lie.

??? The press is a reflection of the opinions of the people. Not a perfect one certainly but not too far off either. The public opinions of their leaders particularly their elected leaders are also an indicator.

Interesting in particular since at least some Arab governments seem to be coming to the conclusion that it's time to move on and that Israel might even be a valuable ally. Just what areas have you visited by the way and when? Certainly I've seen very little to support the proposition that "peace at any price" is accepteable to many Palestinians much less most.

That is a problem and one that needs to be addressed but as I pointed out it's hardly unique to Israel. As I also stated I've read of the Palestinians winning in Israeli courts as well. I would be surprised if this is the rule though.

If you could prove it was incorrect then I'll accept it. At this point however what you have done is taken a position you don't like and simply stated your opinion in rather derogatory and insulting terms. Doing so often makes it harder to make your points if that is what you are trying to do.

 

Tyranny of the majority is a fundamental problem with democracies it doesn't mean that they are not democracises as your later post of defintions proves. Your assumptions as to what constitures "a basic fundamental rule" or for that matter a "modern, and fair decocracy" are just that assumptions/opinions. Furthermore they don't rest on a very solid footing.

Nice in theory but when you get down to the details where do you draw the line? A minoirty of people think they shoudl be able to exceed the speed limit by 10 miles an hour or more if you protect their rights to do so what use are speed limits? Other examples abound. Some have already been posted.

Why does it matter that the UN recognize it as a "right" or not? Isn't there failure to do so a "tyranny of the majority" just like orther countries failing to do so? One could also take from your post that denying fellons the right to bear arms is also a "tyranny of the majority" and undemocratic.

Who are you to define who constitutes a minority? I also suspect you would find that if you looked closely at teh "gun-toting gun-lovers" you would find them made up of a number of subgroups that do indeed share a "common identity". So it's not a problem if you discriminate against a number of minorities but it is if you do vs one?

That's easy to say but then the devil is in the details. just what "rights" do you protect and which "minorities"? Many "great" political and philosphical thinkers come up with ideas for utopias that are simply not practicle. Communism is a rather classic example.

 

This is obviously false. Examples:
1) French help was critical for the US in the revolutionary war.
2) British (including all the Commonwealth countries), US, and indeed Brazilian, Polish, etc military help was necessary for the independce of Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, ... etc in WWII.
3) UN help was necessary for South Korean in the 50s.
I could go on but I think that makes the point.

But the Jewish state didn't really have a military at that point either did it? If the Arabs had accepted the resolution along with the Jews why would they need a military? Wouldn't they also have time to create one?

The point is you have to be careful of just how you define things. I personally don't like the label either but ...

It can be but on the other hand hardliners often have more flexability politically to make deals. In the 70s it was often said over here that "only Nixon could go to China". A hardliner who can be convinced that changeing his tune often has the political believablilty to do so. Of course convincing them to do so can be a problem and with them on both sides it becomes very problematic.

The Israelis have alternated between hardliners and moderates over the years. The Palestinian case is more difficult. Hammas won not because they had a majority but because their opposition was fragmented and they got a plurality. On the other hand one of the biggest if not the biggest problems for the Palestinians right now is the corruption in their government(s). From my understanding Hammas gained the votes it did in large part due to claims that it would eliminate corruption.

 

Back again and continuing...

4. Already then the Jews were supposed to get (by the UN unfair plan) far too much land - which was already owned by somebody else! No wonder the Arabs (the original inhabitants) could not agree with such robbery of their lands. I know I wouldn't have!

The area of Israel was supposed to be 56 % of the total area, despite the facts that the freshly immigrated Jews were only 1/3 of the population and only owned 6,6 % of the land (the Palestinians owned 48 %) in 1947!

The Arabs would not have "attacked" (actually they were defending themselves from the Jewish attacks with the reluctant, haphazard, halfhearted and separate help of their neighbours) if the UN plan had first been such that BOTH parties could have accepted it and if the Jews had not violated that plan with their arbitrary actions.

The "hostility" of the Israeli neighbours is only the result of the her own doings. It's like if the soviets would have accused the Finns of being hostile against them when they attacked Finland and tried to conquer the country - well, actually they did that too...

So it's "quite remarkable" to "give" 22 % of the hole land (naturally still occupied by the intruders) back to the original owners, who were the 2/3 majority before the Israeli purges and owned half ot the lands? Somehow I cannot see the great generosity here which you seem to do...

I have seen and heard multiple time the fundamentalist Jews, who seem to control the Israeli politics, to declare, that the hole of the ancient Israel belongs to the modern Jews! No wonder that is a bit hard to swallow by the original inhabitants.

5. Not true! Only the hardliners (Hamas and such) are stating that - and IIRC even they would/could settle for more reasonable sized Israel.

Source for what? That Israeli actions are causing hatred? Do you REALLY need sources for that? You could start from the UN resolutions which Israel has ignored:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/study-israel-leads-in-ignoring-security-council-resolutions-1.31971
Haaretz: "Study: Israel leads in ignoring Security Council resolutions"

7. Not true - again! I suggest you should read more and get your facts right...

There were (only?) 45 countries "classified as NOT FREE in 2011 (authoritarian regimes/dictatorships) by the Freedom House" out of 190-207 countries (depending on the definition). So less than 25 % of all countries - not the majority.

http://www.planetrulers.com/current-dictators/

8. Yes - really!

9. Again you have your facts incorrect! The US was the engine behind that unfortunate Un resolution, which would never had succeeded without the US bullying and bribing the small countries. Yes, the US and the USSR were on the same side here - wonder why...!

 

They SAID they accepted that extremely unfair to the Palestinians resolution, but never implemented any of it! If I was an Arab I couldn't have accepted it either.

Would you accept if I promised your lands to some foreigners...?

It was the Jewish intruders and their supporters who were and are responsible.

 

This has already been said, but here it's again:

Israel is not a free nor democratic country for all of her citizens - as the UN and multiple other international organizations have many times stated.

The tyranny of the majority (and majority only as a concequence of crimes against humanity) and oppression of the minority is not democracy. The countries around are not all tyrannies, such as Lebanon, but surely have their problems too. I still cannot see how this is relevant to the abysmall human rights situation of Israel.

I support the human rights, rights of private land ownership and the decisions of the UN.

The only solution is the USA stopping it's catastrophic partiality in Israel/Palestine conflict and Israel starting to act as a democracy it advertises to be - but is not. This great injustice has caused much of the problems not only in that area, but in the hole world.

 

Because lwd asked:

I've lived, worked, and travelled extensively throughout the Middle East.

Firstly; where I've lived;
Iran 2003-2005; Left a few weeks after Ahmedinejad came into office. Saw both him and his predecessor Khatami [for Slipdidgit] who btw, was born during the occupation of Iran by the Allies, in 1943... [/for Slipdidgit].
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 2010: Been berated by the hugest Marine ever: "Get the F_-K out of my Embassey!" (The party was over, and we, the boozeladen, needed some encouragement...we felt very encouraged indeed)
United Arab Emirates 2011-2012: Horrible place to visit, fantastic place to live.

Since 2003 time I've travelled for weeks at a time around the middle east; Inside Iran (Alpine Skiing in the ski-lifts of the Shah, swimming in the Caspian, praying that the old tupolev aircraft stays in the air, Kerman, Tabriz, Esfehan (seeing F-14s and Hercules parked on the runway), Shiraz (drinking a home brew wine, and meeting sweet Shirin...) Persepolis, and Pasargardae, Bam, (missing the Earthquake, just), Palestine (strictly West Bank only, but Ramallah, Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, the Dead Sea...), Israel (Jerusalem, Tel Aviv), Jordan (didn't make Petra :-(, spent most of my time there once in a hotel in the capital, trying not to hear the nocturnal activities of the occupants next door... ), Oman (scuba diving, 4WD, and thoroughly enjoyed Muscat), and Kuwait (which is basically just Kuwait City, and frankly, the least interesting). Less than a week in Qatar, I can't quite remember, but it was, I think, two or three days, and bloody cold. IIRC, it was the coldest day of the year, 14 degrees centigrade at 9 pm.

During my visits, which to date were exclusively for work, I've almost always taken the most of the opportunity afforded me to travel further, and stay longer. I've always attempted to get to know the local population, and never just accepted what gets published in the press, (Neither western nor local press). The Truth is always much more nuanced than what can fit in a byline. It's not always easy to earn people's trust, but it is almost always worth it. And yes, I'm an argumentative prick there as well. Everywhere I've gone, I have met fantastic, wonderful people, and had the most enlightened, entertaining, and informative discussions. Sure, there's been a-holes along the way, but they really are very few and far between, IMX. It sure is eye-opening to talk to people about their perspectives and experiences that actually live the reality.

Have not yet gotten to Lebanon, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, or Syria. Turkey will be added to the list in less than 10 days time. Egypt is next on the list, and Israel/Palestine will follow soon thereafter. Syria will have to wait. Had the current troubles not broken out, I probably would have made it in Spring/Summer 2012.

 

i've been around...I've seen the world...but I've never seen anything like it...never seen anything like it never seen anything like it in my loife...Sorry...

But as to settlements..I'd push some folk to Jeremy Bowens book 6 day war...BBC Middle East bloke for years...

I'd read some of the vetran military folk who fought for Israels survival..and their informed first hand views on settlement history and future and in most cases their despair for the future regarding the establishments of new settlements.

 

The Merkva...extremely good old machine...But isn't it the one that fires forwards only no turret....suffered greatly in the last Lebanon incursion.

 

I have The Six Day War in my library, and it indeed is excellent. Also recommend The Longest War: Israel by Jacobo Timerman.

 

Interesting that you say this:

Then you say this:

A rather sweeping generalization is it not? Of course it does have the qualifier "almost". The question is would this "almost" include terms that would lead to the destruction of Isreal? Any idea what they are?

Interesting. What languages do you speak? and how fluently?

 

Two good reference works Belasar...Used to love the magazine...Born in Battle...May have been propoganda at time but a great little magazine.

 

It's not really ethical to modify the posts of another then claim it's there post. In this case the modifications didn't affect the meaning much although they did mean I had to spend a bit more time trying to find the post so I could figure out exactly what I was responding to.

From all I have read a significant number of the Palestinains left volentarily. They may have been under some duress but the Arab states encouraged them to do so and they could have stayed. So from all I've read and from some of the documents I've linked you are wrong. Your denial without any support is of little weight. I've never seen anything to indicate that Israel has ever tried to make the case that all the immigrants were refugees either. As for some coming from the Arab countries there were almost as many Jewish refugees from the Arab countries in the 1947-1949 time period as there were Palestinian refugees from Israel (600,000 to 700,000 from what I remember reading). While the Jews for the most part volenarily settled in Israel they were most definitely refugees and most of their assets had been siezed by the Arab states they left. In conclusion your point number one is a mix of straw man, falacies, and misleading info.

Some probably did fear this and for some there was likely some validity for that fear but where is the evidence it was the prime motivator? Especially given the call by the Arab states for them to flee?

 

Who owned the rest? In any case just because the land was part of a Jewish or Palestinain state doesn't mean that the land would automatically have changed hands does it? Also I believe the commission tried to assign the land based on the majority of the inhabitants. They made some exceptions to make sure that both states would have been viable so it didn't come out exactly that way.

The Jews were attacking Egypty, Jordan, Syria, etc? In 1947 and 1948? Was it the Jewish government making these initial attacks? or was it gangs? Of course thre was already bad blood both ways wasn't there? I seem to recall one of the main religious leaders from the area takeing refuge in Germany a few years before due to this.

Except of course the state of Israel hadn't taken any significant action at all when it was attacked had it? Furthermore Jewish aremed groups weren't the only ones committing violent acts against their opposite numbers were they?

That's what they are saying in the European language papers and when they speak to Western reporters. However it's not what they are saying in the Arab Press is it? Have you read the Constitution of the supposedly moderate Al Fatah?

???? It was very clear what I wanted a source for. Here's the quote:

Now where's the source? I strongly suspect you can't find one because it's not true.

You are hardly the one to lecture me on getting facts right. Israel has agreed to a number of peace agreements and most were broken by their opponents a couple of times when it was clear their opponents were about to break them they have struck first I'll admit.

It's apparent that you have a flawed defintion/understanding of reality.

That's why the US stopped backing the resolution then it all makes sense now. Not.