PDA

View Full Version : Are West Bank settlements Illegal.



Boston
08-30-2014, 04:53 PM
Give it your best shot folks ;-)

seanz
08-30-2014, 05:01 PM
Who are the Traditional Owners?

skuthorp
08-30-2014, 05:02 PM
Whose laws are we applying?

Boston
08-30-2014, 05:03 PM
Define traditional and what relevance the question might have on the legalities of Israel presence in the disputed territories

Good point Thorp, I'm open to suggestion

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-30-2014, 05:06 PM
Fill in the blanks. Posession is .... ..... ........ .... .... .....

seanz
08-30-2014, 05:08 PM
In situations where colonizers establish settlements there is usually a traditional owner and that group is having their rights usurped. Which group is the traditional owner of the West Bank?

Boston
08-30-2014, 05:12 PM
You would also have to define colonizers and differentiate then between acts of war, IE aggressors or defenders, if it was a simple act of colonization or an act of self defense or aggression, another question would be if each act is to be considered as an individual event or if each group of acts can be tied to a particular category of action or reaction

skuthorp
08-30-2014, 05:13 PM
Well, at present the laws of those with the biggest guns seems to be the law applied, though I seem to remember there have been judgements made and laws passed that are being ignored by the Israeli State.

seanz
08-30-2014, 05:16 PM
You would also have to define colonizers and differentiate then between acts of war, IE aggressors or defenders, if it was a simple act of colonization or an act of self defense or aggression, another question would be if each act is to be considered as an individual event or if each group of acts can be tied to a particular category of action or reaction

So many questions.
:)

"Settlements" (especially on land already occupied/claimed by other people) does firmly imply colonization. Who are the traditional owners of The West Bank?

Boston
08-30-2014, 05:19 PM
Yup, its an extremely complex issue. I was reading resolution 242 and then several commentaries on it by either side as well as the authors and man was it ever carefully worded. It would be interesting to discuss just that but I don't think you can isolate one legal instrument from another in this or any other case of international law. But if you don't, its a huge can of worms cause one says one thing and another something completely different, or at least sufficiently different to cause problems

skuthorp
08-30-2014, 05:22 PM
Legal wranglings are a bit pointless where people are shooting rockets at each other. And that won't change. But I still reckon other events will overtake all parties.

Donn
08-30-2014, 05:24 PM
Well, at present the laws of those with the biggest guns seems to be the law applied...

Only in cases where there are three or more sides involved in the conflict. If there are only two, it would be those with the bigger guns.

skuthorp
08-30-2014, 05:27 PM
:d:d

Boston
08-30-2014, 05:29 PM
There is also the questions and disputes in interpreting the fourth geneva convention. So it gets complex fast.

Horace
08-30-2014, 05:32 PM
"Settlements" (especially on land already occupied/claimed by other people) does firmly imply colonization. Who are the traditional owners of The West Bank?Up until about 95 years ago, the Ottoman Empire, along with a number of private owners. Since then, various governing bodies, along with some private owners.

What answer were you expecting?

Boston
08-30-2014, 05:40 PM
some interesting thoughts on the fourth geneva convention


Those who reject the application of Article 49 to the situation in the Israeli-held territories argue that even if the Convention did apply, it should be read only in the context of the World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) forcible migrations. It is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement:


Article 49 (1) specifically covers "individual or mass forcible transfers", whereas the Israelis who live in the settlements have moved there voluntarily.
Article 49 (6) only applies when the transfer of the Occupying Powers civilian population involves the displacement of the local population, whereas the Israeli settlements are not intended to, or have ever resulted in, the displacement of Palestinians from the area.[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#cite_not e-Rostow1-62)[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#cite_not e-mfa-63)[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#cite_not e-Lacey-95)[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#cite_not e-Dann-96)[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#cite_not e-Einhorn-97)

In addition, they state that the Geneva Convention only applies in the absence of an operative peace agreement and between two powers accepting the Convention. Since the Oslo Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords) leave the issue of settlements to be negotiated later, proponents of this view argue that the Palestinians accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation, and that there is no basis for declaring them illegal.[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#cite_not e-mfa-63)[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#cite_not e-Helmreich-66)[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#cite_not e-Lacey-95)[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#cite_not e-Einhorn-97)97 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#cite_not e-Einhorn-97)] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#cite_not e-Einhorn-97)

seanz
08-30-2014, 05:47 PM
Up until about 95 years ago, the Ottoman Empire, along with a number of private owners. Since then, various governing bodies, along with some private owners.

What answer were you expecting?


Not that one, try again.
:)

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
08-30-2014, 05:54 PM
Illegal? - who knows.

Disgusting, immoral, and against all common decency, and a crime against humanity - beyond question.

But you knew that already.

Boston
08-30-2014, 06:07 PM
I kinda liked it. The Ottomans gave up claim to it tho, treaties of Sevre's as I recall. After that it was the league of nations. Then the UN under the British mandate, after which Jordan grabbed it, but Jordan revoked Jordanian citizenship to the people living there, or at least those of palestinian origins.

Interesting article on the subject of citizenship revocation in Jordan

Jordan promises to stop revoking citizenship from Palestinians | The ... (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.timesofisrael.com/jordan-promises-to-stop-revoking-nationality-from-palestinians/&sa=U&ei=xEkCVNLUNdewggS3wYKIBQ&ved=0CEcQFjAH&sig2=Ry6TSyZVBkCKoMZ3AbC0IA&usg=AFQjCNGSZwg0TDZklB3_AY7whT5lGOs-xg)

Boston
08-30-2014, 06:09 PM
Illegal? - who knows.

Disgusting, immoral, and against all common decency, and a crime against humanity - beyond question.

But you knew that already.

I was kinda hoping to keep this thread on a more rational basis and leave off the over emotional hyperbole

Please lets try and stick to the facts of the case so to speak

Horace
08-30-2014, 06:10 PM
Who are the Traditional Owners?


In situations where colonizers establish settlements there is usually a traditional owner and that group is having their rights usurped. Which group is the traditional owner of the West Bank?



So many questions.
:)

"Settlements" (especially on land already occupied/claimed by other people) does firmly imply colonization. Who are the traditional owners of The West Bank?




Who are the traditional owners of The West Bank?Up until about 95 years ago, the Ottoman Empire, along with a number of private owners. Since then, various governing bodies, along with some private owners.

What answer were you expecting?
Not that one, try again.
:)What's your answer, then? Are you implying that all property in the West Bank was privately held (and wrongfully or forcefully converted to another group's use)? Or if not privately held, that usage by one group (if such usage actually exists) precludes usage (or ownership) being transferred to another by the governing body?

Boston
08-30-2014, 06:14 PM
I'm out, off to Lakeside Amusement Park with a few friends. Have fun with it and try and keep it clean and polite.

Cheers
B

seanz
08-30-2014, 06:19 PM
What's your answer, then? Are you implying that all property in the West Bank was privately held (and wrongfully or forcefully converted to another group's use)? Or if not privately held, that usage by one group (if such usage actually exists) precludes usage (or ownership) being transferred to another by the governing body?

You're rather bold today. It's unlikely that an empire would be considered a Traditional Owner. Would you like to try again?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaria)

Horace
08-30-2014, 06:23 PM
You're rather bold today. It's unlikely that an empire would be considered a Traditional Owner. Would you like to try again?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaria)Bold? How so? Who, if not the governing body, owns or controls land within territorial boundaries that is not privately owned?

wardd
08-30-2014, 06:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGrAj5tf3xs

seanz
08-30-2014, 06:45 PM
Bold? How so?

Oh dear.


Who, if not the governing body, owns or controls land within territorial boundaries that is not privately owned?

When you see the words "Traditional Owners", what do those words mean to you?

wardd
08-30-2014, 06:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-aY7SnswrU

changeng
08-30-2014, 06:49 PM
Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_Peninsula) in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip) and 4 in the West Bank in 2005,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-West_Bank-2) but continues to both expand its settlements and settle new areas in the West Bank,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-7) despite being condemned by 158 out of 166 nations in one vote, and 160 nations out of 171 nations in a different vote, in the UN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-Aussie-8) The international community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_community) considers the settlements in occupied territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories) to be illegal,[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-ic-9) and the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-UN_Resolutions_446.2C_452.2C_and_465-10)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-11) Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem) and communities in the Golan Heights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights), areas which have been annexed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation) by Israel, are also considered settlements by the international community, which does not recognise Israel's annexations of these territories.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-12) The International Court of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice) also says these settlements are illegal in a 2004 advisory opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_opinion).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-fco.gov.uk-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-15) In April 2012, UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Ki-Moon), in response to moves by Israel to legalise Israeli outposts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_outpost), reiterated that all settlement activity is illegal, and "runs contrary to Israel's obligations under the Road Map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace) and repeated Quartet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartet_on_the_Middle_East) calls for the parties to refrain from provocations."[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-16) Similar criticism was advanced by the EU and the US.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-17)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-18) Israel disputes the position of the international community and the legal arguments that were used to declare the settlements illegal.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#cite_note-MFA_FAQ_settlements-19)


Well I suppose that Israel and Boston know better than the International court of justice.:rolleyes:

Horace
08-30-2014, 06:49 PM
When you see the words "Traditional Owners", what do those words mean to you?It could mean any number of things, but I suspect you may be referring to settlement, usage, and control by oral tradition, or possibly by simple presence. (Isn't working too well for Cliven Bundy, is it?)

How many non-Jewish residents have been evicted who had either legal title or squatter's control of the land? I presume you have the answers, since you're the one playing games.

Peerie Maa
08-30-2014, 06:59 PM
Well changeng has answered the question, but I expect the bollocks to continue to be spouted.

wardd
08-30-2014, 07:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSn1BCpZz4s

Peerie Maa
08-30-2014, 07:29 PM
How many non-Jewish residents have been evicted who had either legal title or squatter's control of the land? I presume you have the answers, since you're the one playing games.

Here are the first three Google hits on the topic of Israel's eviction of Arabs:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/eviction-israels-bedouin-parallels-armys-west-bank-tactics/8415
http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2013/07/23/bedouins-face-mass-eviction/
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.539057

Horace
08-30-2014, 07:56 PM
Here are the first three Google hits on the topic of Israel's eviction of Arabs:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/eviction-israels-bedouin-parallels-armys-west-bank-tactics/8415
http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2013/07/23/bedouins-face-mass-eviction/
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.539057Thanks, Nick.

However, judging by a quick scan of the text for each of the links, all of this is so far speculative. Neither the Prawer plan nor the eviction of residents for a prospective training facility seems to have been put into effect.

But it is something to watch.

seanz
08-30-2014, 08:50 PM
It could mean any number of things, but I suspect you may be referring to settlement, usage, and control by oral tradition, or possibly by simple presence. (Isn't working too well for Cliven Bundy, is it?)

How many non-Jewish residents have been evicted who had either legal title or squatter's control of the land? I presume you have the answers, since you're the one playing games.

No, I wasn't playing games. Lucky, you mentioned Cliven Bundy on a West Bank thread so you'd have lost.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-30-2014, 10:48 PM
The Israelis are not going to do anything that imperiles their military situation. And since they are outnumbered by about 20:1 many of whom are too crazy to bargin with there ain't going to be no give-back any time soon. Israeli military power is in control and at the moment that is to our benefit. God knows the US does not want to confront any more Islamic radicals who are unhappy with the hand Allah has dealt them.

changeng
08-30-2014, 10:59 PM
The Israelis are not going to do anything that imperiles their military situation. And since they are outnumbered by about 20:1 many of whom are too crazy to bargin with there ain't going to be no give-back any time soon. Israeli military power is in control and at the moment that is to our benefit. God knows the US does not want to confront any more Islamic radicals who are unhappy with the hand Allah has dealt them.

What's that got to do with the legal status of Israeli settlements in the west bank?

Peerie Maa
08-31-2014, 05:28 AM
Thanks, Nick.

However, judging by a quick scan of the text for each of the links, all of this is so far speculative. Neither the Prawer plan nor the eviction of residents for a prospective training facility seems to have been put into effect.

But it is something to watch.

Those demonstrate a mind set. The treatment of the Bedouin village is more than just speculative, it is on a par with the treatment of all of the Arab settlements, and is more that likely aimed at making their lives so impossible that they will have to leave.

Here is the Wiki. It is on demolition not eviction. But if your house is demolished around your ears, I guess that counts as eviction.
There are other examples not discussed by the Wiki, e.g. the demolition of the Moroccan quarter in front of the Wailing Wall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Quarter).

isla
08-31-2014, 10:49 AM
The great majority of UN member states have supported numerous draft resolutions over the years, which condemn the West Bank settlements, and confirm the validity of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. The settlements probably would have been forbidden under international law a long time age, except for US vetoes of these resolutions. Since 1972, the US has vetoed 42 UN resolutions which were critical of Israel, with a considerable number of these explicitly condemning the West Bank settlements.
http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact_veto_en.shtml - All vetoed UN resolutions.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html - US only vetoes

On the other hand, as long ago as 1979, UN Security Council resolution 446 (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/BA123CDED3EA84A5852560E50077C2DC) was passed with a vote of 12-0 with 3 abstentions from Norway, UK and USA. It would appear that Israel has just ignored it.

Article 3 from UN 446
3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;

Extract from one of the vetoed resolutions (S/2011/24 (http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2011/24))

Reaffirming that all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of peace on the basis of the two-State solution.

Condemning the continuation of settlement activities by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of all other measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions.

Gerarddm
08-31-2014, 11:00 AM
There is a horrible chicken/egg conundrum there. Settlements beget rockets is the basic equation, it seems to me. Both sides are in thrall to absurd religious dogma preventing a solution to the equation.

And all this for a scrap of flea-bitten wasteland.

BrianY
08-31-2014, 11:21 AM
It doesn't matter if they are "illegal" according to the UN, Geneva Convention, etc. The only thing that matters is that they exist. Unless, of course, some entity is willing and able to go in and enforce the "law" ...but that's not going to happen.

Boston
08-31-2014, 11:28 AM
This thread is testimony to the truth that you can rationalize absolutely anything.... Whether by some ancient historical claim, or a highly selective reading of international law, or by the law of the jungle.... If a person is determined to pose an issue in their favor, there are countless possible rationalizations.

Fortunately that concept works for both sides of any issue.

But this particular issue is concerning the legalities of the Israeli presence in the disputed territories. It seems there are numerous legal instruments concerning the issue some of which can be successfully argued in either direction. Res 242 ( written 1967 ) seems to be chalk full of holes which would allow for an Israeli presence in the disputed territories. The fourth Geneva ( written 1949 ) convention on the other hand enjoys a majority opinion in favor of the palestinians.

There appears to be no clear legal view and eventually it boils down to the individual justification of personal opinion. Chalk one up for Norm, you nailed it.

So the pro palestinians tend to argue for the 67 borders. OK so why did the 67 conflict occur ? Was the Israeli preemptive strike an act of aggression ? Was the Arab build up an act of war ? Is Israel required to give back All of the territories lost by the Arab armies in 67 ?

One interesting point is that Israel did return about 90% of the captured territory from the 67 conflict. Keeping what it believed was necessary for its national security, doesn't take much of a look at the map to see where the concerns where given the former geographic condition of Israel.

Boston
08-31-2014, 11:34 AM
There is a horrible chicken/egg conundrum there. Settlements beget rockets is the basic equation, it seems to me. Both sides are in thrall to absurd religious dogma preventing a solution to the equation.

And all this for a scrap of flea-bitten wasteland.

That was perfect

although you might have also said, "or rockets beget restrictions and settlements"

Peerie Maa
08-31-2014, 11:40 AM
It doesn't matter if they are "illegal" according to the UN, Geneva Convention, etc. The only thing that matters is that they exist. Unless, of course, some entity is willing and able to go in and enforce the "law" ...but that's not going to happen.

I would not mind the settlements providing the land was obtained with the agreement of the families that rely on it for their lively-hood.
Furthermore I would have no problem with them at all if the Arabs were allowed equal freedom of movement and access to water etc. as the immigrants/occupiers.

Until those issues are sorted I would support economic sanctions against Israel.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-31-2014, 11:55 AM
What's that got to do with the legal status of Israeli settlements in the west bank?It means that your question is relevant if you are writing a doctoral dissertation but the facts on the ground make your query mute in actuallity. The Iraelis may find it to their advantage to give back territory at some point but when they do it will be a little at a time when and where there is no threat to their military situation.

isla
08-31-2014, 12:15 PM
Leaving aside the legality for the moment, one of my concerns about the settlements is that, their existence suggest that the Israelis are already running out of space to accommodate the ever growing population. Israel's population has grown from just 806,000 in 1948, the year the state was founded, to an estimated 6.9 million in 2005 (probably over 7 million today). The state still has an open immigration policy for Jews (with one recently reported exception being a restriction on the immigration of some Ethiopian Jews (http://www.jta.org/2007/02/15/archive/behind-the-headlines-is-israel-capping-ethiopian-aliyah)), and encourages the raising of large families. Unless they cap immigration, they will be in serious trouble 10-20 years down the line, and will have to expand somehow.

Boston
08-31-2014, 01:54 PM
Well you could always start a new thread on that. My take is that Israel will most likely keep the west bank as a security area, the world court will remain toothless and the palestinians will remain belligerent. Jordan will continue to discriminate against the palestinians both internally and externally and Egypt will maintain the closure of tunnels.

But, are the settlements legal ? Which to me stems from the question, was the 67 conflict a defensive action by Israel.

If Israel can be found to have acted in its own self defense then it would to some degree justify not returning 100% of the land area lost by the Arab nations.

isla
08-31-2014, 02:30 PM
But, are the settlements legal ? Which to me stems from the question, was the 67 conflict a defensive action by Israel.

If Israel can be found to have acted in its own self defense then it would to some degree justify not returning 100% of the land area lost by the Arab nations.It's a hard one to call. There were many border "incidents" before the war, including al-Fatah terrorist attacks into Israel, followed by Israeli reprisals. The Samu incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samu_Incident) in 1966 (wiki for background info only) was a notable example. Official UN report here...

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AF3BF4FC576922B60525672E0050BEA5 (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AF3BF4FC576922B60525672E0050BEA5)

Boston
08-31-2014, 02:43 PM
100,000 ~ 120,000 Egyptian troops massing in the Sinai wasn't exactly minor either

I think a very strong argument can be had for Israel's action in the 67 conflict being considered defensive. In which case their interest in keeping a better security barrier between those states seems like a legitimate legal position.

Peerie Maa
08-31-2014, 03:01 PM
It's a hard one to call. There were many border "incidents" before the war, including al-Fatah terrorist attacks into Israel, followed by Israeli reprisals. The Samu incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samu_Incident) in 1966 (wiki for background info only) was a notable example. Official UN report here...

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AF3BF4FC576922B60525672E0050BEA5 (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AF3BF4FC576922B60525672E0050BEA5)

Not that hard to call. If the settlements were legal, the UN would not have said that they were not.

We no longer grab land by right of conquest, it is only ever done by treaty now, and then extremely rarely.

Boston
08-31-2014, 03:20 PM
Not that hard to call. If the settlements were legal, the UN would not have said that they were not.

We no longer grab land by right of conquest, it is only ever done by treaty now, and then extremely rarely.

But where the disputed territories a conquest or a defensive action ? the distinction is all important.

If there had been armed incursions, missiles fired from the Golan heights and a hundred plus thousand Egyptian troops massing in the Sinai then I don't think there's much doubt that the Israeli response was anything but defensive in nature. The question becomes does the UN standing on land acquired in military conquest apply to the defending party as well. If so, is the defending party required to return "all" land lost by the aggressor ?

Israel has after all returned over 90% of the land it won in the 67 conflict and only kept what it felt necessary for its own self defense

So the next question becomes, did Israel forcefully remove the existing population of the disputed territories and did they "transfer" their own population into the area. Or did the existing population remain in the disputed territories and what Israelis did move in and set up camp do so of their own accord without government incentives

wardd
08-31-2014, 03:39 PM
even by bostons argument the settlements on occupied land are not necessary for defense.

Boston
08-31-2014, 04:18 PM
Ahahahahaaha yur funny

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-31-2014, 10:25 PM
But where the disputed territories a conquest or a defensive action ? the distinction is all important. If there had been armed incursions, missiles fired from the Golan heights and a hundred plus thousand Egyptian troops massing in the Sinai then I don't think there's much doubt that the Israeli response was anything but defensive in nature. The question becomes does the UN standing on land acquired in military conquest apply to the defending party as well. If so, is the defending party required to return "all" land lost by the aggressor ? Israel has after all returned over 90% of the land it won in the 67 conflict and only kept what it felt necessary for its own self defenseSo the next question becomes, did Israel forcefully remove the existing population of the disputed territories and did they "transfer" their own population into the area. Or did the existing population remain in the disputed territories and what Israelis did move in and set up camp do so of their own accord without government incentivesIn it's original configuration Israel did not control the West Bank and the distance from a border point in the West Bank to the Mediterranian shore was about 15 miles. A well led enemy tank collum could have cut Israel in half in about one hour. That isn't a problem any more but the idea Israel would go back to that configuation isn't going to fly.

isla
09-01-2014, 07:22 AM
Not that hard to call. If the settlements were legal, the UN would not have said that they were not.
We no longer grab land by right of conquest, it is only ever done by treaty now, and then extremely rarely.

Sorry Nick, slight misunderstanding there. in #48 I was referring to the uncertainty surrounding the start of the war mentioned by Boston in #47. Was Israel's pre-emptive strike justified? etc.
The issue of the illegality of the settlements is beyond question in my mind. The text of UN Resolution 446 of 1979 is clear and unambiguous (see my post #39). The resolution was approved by the Security Council by a vote of 12-0, and Security Council resolutions are legally binding. Besides which, UN member states are obliged, by the terms of their membership, to comply with UN decisions. Israel has clearly failed to comply, so should either, comply without further ado, leave the UN, or accept sanctions.

Peerie Maa
09-01-2014, 07:36 AM
Sorry Nick, slight misunderstanding there. in #48 I was referring to the uncertainty surrounding the start of the war mentioned by Boston in #47. Was Israel's pre-emptive strike justified? etc.The issue of the illegality of the settlements is beyond question in my mind. The text of UN Resolution 446 of 1979 is clear and unambiguous (see my post #39). The resolution was approved by the Security Council by a vote of 12-0, and Security Council resolutions are legally binding. Besides which, UN member states are obliged, by the terms of their membership, to comply with UN decisions. Israel has clearly failed to comply, so should either, comply without further ado, leave the UN, or accept sanctions.Boston's question was twofold, hence the mis-understanding. 1. Was a pre-emptive strike justified? That is hard to call. 2. Should they return all of the land fought over? This should be covered by a peace treaty brokered by an appropriate authority. In the absence of such, yes they should.

isla
09-01-2014, 08:04 AM
Boston's question was twofold, hence the mis-understanding. 1. Was a pre-emptive strike justified? That is hard to call. 2. Should they return all of the land fought over? This should be covered by a peace treaty brokered by an appropriate authority. In the absence of such, yes they should.I wouldn't like to take a position on point 1 at this time, because I haven't read enough about it to make an unbiased judgement. On the second point, I would say that an appropriate sanction against Israel, for defying the numerous UN resolutions that have been critical of their actions, would be to force them to give up the West Bank. Of course, this would be subject to a new resolution, which would undoubtedly be vetoed by the USA. So back to square one.

isla
09-01-2014, 10:53 AM
A fairly recent development in the West Bank is a report from a number of news sources, saying that Israel is to appropriate 400 hectares (1000 acres) in West Bank for ‘state use’.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-claims-400-hectares-in-west-bank-for-state-use-9702112.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-claims-400-hectares-in-west-bank-for-state-use-9702112.html)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/us-criticises-israel-appropriation-land-settlements

Israel has said construction at Gevaot would not constitute the establishment of a new settlement because the site is officially designated a neighbourhood of an existing one, Alon Shvut, several miles down the road.

While most other news sources say the area is 1000 acres, this report from the American Jewish online newspaper The Jewish Daily Forward, claims it is only 250 acres. However, it was published back in April, while the other sources are current.
http://forward.com/articles/196492/israel-grabs-more-palestinian-land/#ixzz3C4R4rqHw

They report..
The measure, which falls short of annexing the land to Israel, is based on an Israeli interpretation of an Ottoman-era law that allowed the confiscation of tracts that had not been planted or cultivated for several years in a row.

It seems that some aspects of Ottoman law are still in use by the Israeli legal system. But in 2012, another common practice, also based on Ottoman land laws from 1858, was overruled by the Israeli Supreme Court (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-supreme-court-settlers-can-no-longer-gain-possession-of-land-by-farming-it-1.419804)...

The Israeli Supreme Court set a precedent on Tuesday ruling that an Ottoman law, under which settlers could get custody of agricultural land by showing they had been farming it for a decade or longer, was not enough to grant ownership of the land.

wardd
09-01-2014, 11:26 AM
so if bostons neighbors commits a crime and i like bostons house more i can seize it?

Boston
09-01-2014, 11:28 AM
Boston's question was twofold, hence the mis-understanding. 1. Was a pre-emptive strike justified? That is hard to call. 2. Should they return all of the land fought over? This should be covered by a peace treaty brokered by an appropriate authority. In the absence of such, yes they should.

actually in the absence of such, and considering that hostilities continue, this must be covered by a peace treaty. You can't expect the defending country to return land lost by an attacking country which is critical to that defending countries continued security while hostilities continue. Particularly when the attacking country has abandoned all legal claims to the territory decades ago.

Boston
09-01-2014, 11:34 AM
so if bostons neighbors commits a crime and i like bostons house more i can seize it?

Once again you are confused.

wardd
09-01-2014, 12:57 PM
Once again you are confused.

whose property was seized?

Boston
09-01-2014, 01:18 PM
well a couple million or so Judaic people had their property seized in Arab lands, why do you ask ?

The Jordanians faced the loss of a large amount of personal and hardware and strategically withdrew across the jordan as the best line of defense after their failed attack. The israelis as I recall advanced unopposed into the abandoned territory and also felt that the Jordan River was a defensible natural barrier. Seems pretty clear property wasn't seized, it was lost in a failed attack on Israel.

isla
09-01-2014, 02:33 PM
But where the disputed territories a conquest or a defensive action ? the distinction is all important.
If there had been armed incursions, missiles fired from the Golan heights and a hundred plus thousand Egyptian troops massing in the Sinai then I don't think there's much doubt that the Israeli response was anything but defensive in nature.


In 1968 Yitzhak Rabin was interviewed by Eric Rouleau of the French newspaper Le Monde. Rabin was quoted as saying..

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

From The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War. By John Quigley (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OLogAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=I+do+not+think+Nasser+wanted+war&source=bl&ots=wfNhy7Q6cB&sig=ShW4Tzu1MgniQGkLOwzej2Lwfo4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i7UEVLu-GcXKaLaYgAg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=I%20do%20not%20think%20Nasser%20wanted%20war&f=false) - See Page 128

John Quigley is the President's Club Professor in Law at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University. After earning his AB, LLB and MA degrees at Harvard University, he was a research associate at Harvard Law School. He has written extensively on international law, in particular on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is the author most recently of The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict (2010) and Soviet Legal Innovation and the Law of the Western World (2007).




Israel has after all returned over 90% of the land it won in the 67 conflict and only kept what it felt necessary for its own self defense That would be the Golan Heights back to Syria, and the Sinai back to Egypt.



So the next question becomes, did Israel forcefully remove the existing population of the disputed territories and did they "transfer" their own population into the area. Or did the existing population remain in the disputed territories and what Israelis did move in and set up camp do so of their own accord without government incentives

From the Jewish Virtual Library... (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settlements.html)

Following Israel's resounding defeat of the invading Arab armies in the Six-Day War, strategic concerns led both of Israel's major political parties - the Labor and Likud - to support and establish settlements at various times. The first settlements were built by Labor governments from 1968 to 1977, with the explicit objective to secure a Jewish majority in key strategic regions of the West Bank - such as the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor - that were the scene of heavy fighting in several of the Arab-Israeli wars.

In 1977, Begin's government, as well as subsequent Likud-led governments, provided financial incentives for Jews to move to parts of Judea and Samaria that did not necessarily have any strategic value. Their purpose was to solidify Israel's hold on territory that was part of biblical and historical Israel and preempt the creation of a Palestinian state.

A third group of Jews who are today considered "settlers," moved to the West Bank primarily for economic reasons; that is, the government provided financial incentives to live there, and the towns were close to their jobs.

Peerie Maa
09-01-2014, 03:05 PM
They report..
The measure, which falls short of annexing the land to Israel, is based on an Israeli interpretation of an Ottoman-era law that allowed the confiscation of tracts that had not been planted or cultivated for several years in a row.



Which may explain the image I posted of Palestinian water tanks being destroyed. If you are prevented from watering your crop for several years the government can claim that you are not cultivating the land. Hmmm.

Boston
09-01-2014, 04:12 PM
There was a lot more than two brigades lined up against the Israelis



On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai, including all of its seven divisions (four infantry, two armoured and one mechanized), four independent infantry brigades and four independent armoured brigades. No fewer than a third of them were veterans of Egypt's continuing intervention into the Yemen Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen_Civil_War) and another third were reservists. These forces had 950 tanks, 1,100 APCs, and more than 1,000 artillery pieces.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#cite_note-42)

Syria's army had a total strength of 75,000 and amassed them along the Syrian border.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#cite_note-43)
Jordan's army had 55,000 troops[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#cite_note-44) and 300 tanks along the Jordanian border, 250 of which were U.S. M48 Pattons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M48_Patton), sizable amounts of M113 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_Armored_Personnel_Carrier) APCs, a new battalion of mechanized infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanized_infantry), and aparatrooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratrooper) battalion trained in the new U.S.-built school. They also had 12 battalions of artillery and six batteries of 81 mm and 120 mm mortars.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#cite_note-segevs-45)


But you might be right about the government incentives. I wasn't aware of any, but doesn't mean they didn't or don't exist

Boston
09-01-2014, 04:14 PM
Which may explain the image I posted of Palestinian water tanks being destroyed. If you are prevented from watering your crop for several years the government can claim that you are not cultivating the land. Hmmm.

Or if you were stealing water from the Israeli municipal system. Might also explain why illegal cisterns would be destroyed

wardd
09-01-2014, 05:04 PM
Or if you were stealing water from the Israeli municipal system. Might also explain why illegal cisterns would be destroyed

where was the water extracted?

Peerie Maa
09-01-2014, 05:43 PM
where was the water extracted?

This from 2009:

“Israel allows the Palestinians access to only a fraction of the shared water resources, which lie mostly in the occupied West Bank, while the unlawful Israeli settlements there receive virtually unlimited supplies. In Gaza the Israeli blockade has made an already dire situation worse,” said Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s researcher on Israel and the OPT.

In a new extensive report, Amnesty International revealed the extent to which Israel’s discriminatory water policies and practices are denying Palestinians their right to access to water.

Israel uses more than 80 per cent of the water from the Mountain Aquifer, the main source of underground water in Israel and the OPT, while restricting Palestinian access to a mere 20 per cent.

The Mountain Aquifer is the only source for water for Palestinians in the West Bank, but only one of several for Israel, which also takes for itself all the water available from the Jordan River.

While Palestinian daily water consumption barely reaches 70 litres a day per person, Israeli daily consumption is more than 300 litres per day, four times as much. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/israel-rations-palestinians-trickle-water-20091027

This in 2011
The effect of the water shortage on the Palestinian population is not disputed. The average use of water by Palestininians is 50 litres a person a day for domestic purposes, one-fourth of the Israeli use. Rates of diarrhoea are high, particularly among children in herder communities. One survey found that 44% of children between six months and five years had diarrhoea in the two weeks before. Bodies such as the World Bank, UNRWA, Unicef and the World Food Programme have all carried out studies on it.
Where Palestinian villages are permitted, villagers complain of weak water pressure or the high price of tankered water. In Susiya it comes in at 35 shekels a cubic metre.

from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/14/west-bank-villagers-battle-water
and from 2013
Though the Israeli-Palestinian Joint-Water Committee is responsible for water allocation in the West Bank, Huber-Lee said that in practice, Israel controls most of the water and severely restricts Palestinian access.
She said that 80 percent of water in the Mountain Aquifer, one of the most important sources of water for both Israelis and Palestinians, goes to Israel, while only 20 percent goes to Palestine.


from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/5/3/israel-palestine-water-distribution/

isla
09-01-2014, 06:37 PM
There was a lot more than two brigades lined up against the Israelis Yes, you are absolutely right. The figures you quote from Wiki on Arab forces at the start of the war in June 1967 are perfectly correct. However, Yitzhak Rabin's statement refers to May 14th 1967, when Nasser sent two divisions, one into Gaza and one into Sinai, as a gesture of solidarity with Syria. Nasser claimed to believe that Israel was planning to attack Syria. But I will refer you back to page 128 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OLogAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=I+do+not+think+Nasser+wanted+war&source=bl&ots=wfNhy7Q6cB&sig=ShW4Tzu1MgniQGkLOwzej2Lwfo4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i7UEVLu-GcXKaLaYgAg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=I%20do%20not%20think%20Nasser%20wanted%20war&f=false), it explains better than I can what Rabin thought about that. Even more interesting is page 129...

The sense I get from these two pages is that Israel appeared to be unconcerned about the Arab troop buildup, and I suspect it was because they were aware of the CIA report below, and reassurances from Washington...

Informed by these assessments, President Johnson declined to airlift special military supplies to Israel or even to publicly support it. He later recalled bluntly telling Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, “All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them.”

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_memo.jpg/image.jpg

wardd
09-01-2014, 06:45 PM
so if i steal your water then i can accuse you of stealing it back

WX
09-02-2014, 03:10 AM
The same stunt was responsible for the taking of land. The IDF forces the Palestinians out of their homes and off their land, and then invokes an Israeli law which permits the state to sieze 'abandoned property.
I see they've just stolen another chunk of the West Bank.

WX
09-02-2014, 03:18 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29008045
Expropriate is the word they use.

isla
09-02-2014, 05:10 AM
I see they've just stolen another chunk of the West Bank.This is the same area I mentioned in post #59, but there seems to be some disagreement about the actual area of land involved. The UK Guardian and Independent reports that I linked to in #59 say 1000 acres. The Jewish newspaper Forward says 250 acres.

This BBC report of 1.5 sq miles agrees with Forward i.e 1.5 sq. miles = 250 acres. Sorry, this was a miscalculation on my part, 1.5 sq. miles = 960 acres. Thanks to TigerRegis for the correction. So the BBC report tallies with the UK newspapers, give or take 40 acres.

Boston
09-02-2014, 07:02 AM
The sense I get from these two pages is that Israel appeared to be unconcerned about the Arab troop buildup, and I suspect it was because they were aware of the CIA report below, and reassurances from Washington...

Israel pretty much risked all to deal with that troop build up. The entire Israeli airforce was airborn except for about a dozen planes. Left Israel wide open to attack while they dealt with the enemy one at a time. It was a huge huge risk to take for a country that wasn't that concerned about being attacked. No I'd say they were very concerned even if a few politicians later made some off the cuff comments to the contrary.

Boston
09-02-2014, 07:07 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29008045
Expropriate is the word they use.

I've thought for years that every terrorist act that results in the loss of life should result in the expropriation of land. If the palestinian war machine believes that they can gain land through intimidation then their acts of intimidation should result in the exact opposite effect. I'm kinda surprised it wasn't more land or that they even bothered to announce it. Although it might be a PR move designed to send a message to the militants that exactly this will occur if more kidnapping murders happen. Its important not to forget that Israel is surrounded by hostiles who'd not hesitate for an instant if not for the various punitive efforts to thwart the aggression.

It could also be a PR move on the part of the prime minister who's not looking to sharp at home right now due to his ending the conflict prematurely. Most Israelis thought the conflict should continue till an actual surrender was achieved.

isla
09-02-2014, 07:48 AM
Israel pretty much risked all to deal with that troop build up. The entire Israeli airforce was airborn except for about a dozen planes. Left Israel wide open to attack while they dealt with the enemy one at a time. It was a huge huge risk to take for a country that wasn't that concerned about being attacked. No I'd say they were very concerned even if a few politicians later made some off the cuff comments to the contrary.

Mattityahu "Matti" Peled, a well-known Israeli public figure who was at various periods of his life a professional military man who reached the rank of Aluf (Major General) in the IDF and was a member of the General Staff during the Six-Day War of 1967; a notable scholar who headed the Arabic Language and Literature Department of Tel Aviv University;

Peled told an audience at the Zavta political-literary club...Page 129 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OLogAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=I+do+not+think+Nasser+wanted+war&source=bl&ots=wfNhy7Q6cB&sig=ShW4Tzu1MgniQGkLOwzej2Lwfo4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i7UEVLu-GcXKaLaYgAg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=I%20do%20not%20think%20Nasser%20wanted%20war&f=false)
Peled penned a newspaper article in which he elaborated...page 129
(http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OLogAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=I+do+not+think+Nasser+wanted+war&source=bl&ots=wfNhy7Q6cB&sig=ShW4Tzu1MgniQGkLOwzej2Lwfo4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i7UEVLu-GcXKaLaYgAg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=I%20do%20not%20think%20Nasser%20wanted%20war&f=false)

Yitzhak Rabin
Israeli statesman and soldier who, as prime minister of Israel (1974–77, 1992–95), led his country toward peace with its Palestinian and Arab neighbours. He was chief of staff of Israel’s armed forces during the Six-Day War (June 1967).

When Rabin gave his interview with Eric Rouleah an Israeli embassy official was present.This official was visibly upset by Rabin's candour. Page 128 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OLogAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=I+do+not+think+Nasser+wanted+war&source=bl&ots=wfNhy7Q6cB&sig=ShW4Tzu1MgniQGkLOwzej2Lwfo4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i7UEVLu-GcXKaLaYgAg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=I%20do%20not%20think%20Nasser%20wanted%20war&f=false)

So it's your opinion against the well documented statements (not off the cuff remarks), of "a few politicians". Yitzhak Rabin, the Chief of Staff of Israel's armed forces during the six day war, and later Prime Minister twice. And Peled, a Major-General, and member of the General Staff at the time.

Boston
09-02-2014, 08:17 AM
you have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book

So why can't it be a well documented off the cuff remark ? Clearly the Israelis where thrilled with the outcome of the conflict and were likely poking fun at the Arabs in an effort to embarrass them further. But its kinda hard to say the Israelis didn't take the threat seriously when they committed their entire military plus reserves to the fight. The facts on the ground don't support the view. Your welcome to continue with the examples, but I'll remain skeptical until something definitive comes along, but I tend to go with a preponderance of evidence rather than any few pieces. Seems the more prudent way to boil the truth out of the PR.

isla
09-02-2014, 08:18 AM
In 1997 the New York Times published this article quoting Moshe Dayan (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html)...

It is an article of faith among Israelis that the Golan Heights were seized in the 1967 Middle East war to stop Syria from shelling the Israeli settlements down below. The future of the Golan Heights is central to the search for peace in the Middle East, and much of the case against giving the Golan Heights back to Syria rests on the fear of reviving that threat.

But like many another of Israel's founding legends, this one has come under question lately, and from a most surprising quarter: Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan.

General Dayan died in 1981. But in conversations with a young reporter five years earlier, he said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, he said, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland.

''Look, it's possible to talk in terms of 'the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them, and this is the right time,' and other such talk, but that is not policy,'' General Dayan told Mr. Tal in 1976. ''You don't strike at the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.''

According to the published notes, Mr. Tal began to remonstrate, ''But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and . . . ''

General Dayan interrupted: ''Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.''

General Dayan did not mean the conversations as an interview, and the reporter, Rami Tal, kept his notes secret for 21 years -- until he was persuaded by a friend to make them public. They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament, and published two weeks ago in the weekend magazine of the newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

Boston
09-02-2014, 08:34 AM
Yea I've read that account before. Seems so fantastical that he'd say anything against Israel that I'd have to wonder about its authenticity. There is after all a huge PR machine behind just about everything you read concerning the middle east conflict, from either side. For instance why would Rami have kept the conversation secret and why was he taking notes if he wasn't going to publish ? Why wait 20+ years ? Why hold on to that bombshell when a report of that type might just make a career ?

In the end who knows, maybe the Israelis didn't really need to take the heights, but the high ground is a traditional military advantage and from a purely military standpoint it makes sense to have seized it. Was there provocation, I'd be surprised if there weren't, on both sides. Was there valuable farmland, probably. Just how much of a threat were the Syrians after the other Arab armies had their a$$s handed to them, no real way of knowing I guess. But, the heights were the high ground and from a purely military point of view, always a good place to be.

isla
09-02-2014, 10:06 AM
Yea I've read that account before. Seems so fantastical that he'd say anything against Israel that I'd have to wonder about its authenticity. There is after all a huge PR machine behind just about everything you read concerning the middle east conflict, from either side. For instance why would Rami have kept the conversation secret and why was he taking notes if he wasn't going to publish ? Why wait 20+ years ? Why hold on to that bombshell when a report of that type might just make a career ?

In the end who knows, maybe the Israelis didn't really need to take the heights, but the high ground is a traditional military advantage and from a purely military standpoint it makes sense to have seized it. Was there provocation, I'd be surprised if there weren't, on both sides. Was there valuable farmland, probably. Just how much of a threat were the Syrians after the other Arab armies had their a$$s handed to them, no real way of knowing I guess. But, the heights were the high ground and from a purely military point of view, always a good place to be.

The interviews are widely reported including these websites...

Foundation for Middle East Peace (http://www.fmep.org/reports/archive/vol.-7/no.-4/moshe-dayan-on-settlement-in-hebron-a-real-disaster) this is a different section of the same interviews, but I included it to show the bit in bold.

On April 27, 1997, the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharanot published interviews conducted by correspondent Rami Tal with former minister of defense Moshe Dayan in 1976. The following are excerpts from these interviews, which Dayan had requested not be published without his permission.

haGalil.com a German/Jewish site (http://www.hagalil.com/israel/GuShalom/maamarim/dayan.htm)

And these two books...

Defending the Holy Land By Zeev Maoz (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hHQe4qn-EmUC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=Moshe+Dayan+Rami+Tal&source=bl&ots=DYSZYxIFBh&sig=ok52Cc-qtqyNsvw0eYhV8eVrZ8o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7rYFVKfwCpTZaoz3gqgC&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Moshe%20Dayan%20Rami%20Tal&f=false)

and The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences edited by Wm Roger Louis, Avi Shlaim (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AqshAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=Moshe+Dayan+Rami+Tal&source=bl&ots=CNkzYKCMX-&sig=Z4i6a0Kaa070gdZ5RjHiXyS-MDA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=scwFVIb2Jqqa0QWJ8YH4Bw&ved=0CFoQ6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=Moshe%20Dayan%20Rami%20Tal&f=false) page 51 on.

Boston
09-02-2014, 11:05 AM
Yea I've read it before

isla
09-02-2014, 01:53 PM
British Prime Minister David Cameron has condemned the new West Bank settlement proposals which I mentioned in #59. I don't normally read the Daily Mail, but this article brings the story up to date in a way that other UK papers have yet to do. It is unusual for the PM to use such strong language against Israel, as he is usually seen as a staunch supporter of the state.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2739781/Israel-fire-largest-West-Bank-land-grab-30-years-soldiers-swoop-1-000-acres-Palestinian-territory.html

Cameron is quoted as saying...

‘The appropriation of nearly 1,000 acres of land in the West Bank near Bethlehem is utterly deplorable,’

‘Settlements are illegal under international law and will do nothing to create the kind of peace process we all want, and we urge the Israeli government to reverse this decision.’

WX
09-02-2014, 06:19 PM
British Prime Minister David Cameron has condemned the new West Bank settlement proposals which I mentioned in #59. I don't normally read the Daily Mail, but this article brings the story up to date in a way that other UK papers have yet to do. It is unusual for the PM to use such strong language against Israel, as he is usually seen as a staunch supporter of the state.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2739781/Israel-fire-largest-West-Bank-land-grab-30-years-soldiers-swoop-1-000-acres-Palestinian-territory.html

Cameron is quoted as saying...

‘The appropriation of nearly 1,000 acres of land in the West Bank near Bethlehem is utterly deplorable,’

‘Settlements are illegal under international law and will do nothing to create the kind of peace process we all want, and we urge the Israeli government to reverse this decision.’

Amongst other things I would call it a direct provocation to the Palestinians.

Boston
09-02-2014, 07:13 PM
Yup, I read that as well. It seems to me that there is a two fold purpose in appropriating that land. One is to make the prime minister look better after having tailed off the conflict without a clear victory and the second as a punitive measure against Hamas for the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli school children.

I'd be inclined to forgive him the second reason, but just to save a political career, seems a bit melodramatic.

WX
09-02-2014, 09:06 PM
Yup, I read that as well. It seems to me that there is a two fold purpose in appropriating that land. One is to make the prime minister look better after having tailed off the conflict without a clear victory and the second as a punitive measure against Hamas for the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli school children.

I'd be inclined to forgive him the second reason, but just to save a political career, seems a bit melodramatic.

2,100 dead Palestinians not enough of a price?

Boston
09-03-2014, 01:08 AM
From what I can see there is a cultural value placed on life, for me, I believe every life is ultimately important. But I just don't see that in some societies being reflected. Life seems to have so much less meaning in some cultures. I just don't understand it. Hamas seems happy to hide behind the skirts of their wives and daughters, but it makes no sense to me. Not in a million years could I do that kinda thing.

No there must be some kinda cultural diversion to the value of life involved. I guess I don't have to "get it" I just need to accept it. But its not all that easy. The palestinians seem willing to loose thousands simply to fire a few ineffectual rockets. I mean really, they fire them from school grounds and the roofs of hospitals for gads sakes. Who does that knowing there will be return fire ?

No there is some huge disparity of moral structure going on here that I just don't get. I guess the thinking is if its someone elses life then its OK ? I don't get it, never did, never will.

in any case the palestinians got there a$$s handed to them and still they'd like to pretend victory, makes zero sense to me at all.

changeng
09-03-2014, 08:52 AM
From what I can see there is a cultural value placed on life, for me, I believe every life is ultimately important. But I just don't see that in some societies being reflected. Life seems to have so much less meaning in some cultures. I just don't understand it. Hamas seems happy to hide behind the skirts of their wives and daughters, but it makes no sense to me. Not in a million years could I do that kinda thing.

No there must be some kinda cultural diversion to the value of life involved. I guess I don't have to "get it" I just need to accept it. But its not all that easy. The palestinians seem willing to loose thousands simply to fire a few ineffectual rockets. I mean really, they fire them from school grounds and the roofs of hospitals for gads sakes. Who does that knowing there will be return fire ?

No there is some huge disparity of moral structure going on here that I just don't get. I guess the thinking is if its someone elses life then its OK ? I don't get it, never did, never will.

in any case the palestinians got there a$$s handed to them and still they'd like to pretend victory, makes zero sense to me at all.


Ever heard of "The dance of Zalongo" ?
During the Souliote War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souliote_War_%281803%29) in December 1803, the Souliotes began evacuating Souli after their defeat by the forces of the local Ottoman-Albanian ruler, Ali Pasha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Pasha).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_of_Zalongo#cite_note-Sakellariou250.E2.80.93251-3) During the evacuation, a small group of Souliot women and their children were trapped by Ali's troops in the mountains of Zalongo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalongo) in Epirus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epirus).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_of_Zalongo#cite_note-Sakellariou250.E2.80.93251-3) In order to avoid capture and enslavement, the women threw their children first and then themselves off a steep cliff, committing suicide.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_of_Zalongo#cite_note-4) According to the legend, they jumped down the precipice one after the other while singing and dancing.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_of_Zalongo#cite_note-5) The incident soon became known across Europe. At the Paris Salon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Salon) of 1827, the French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) artist Ary Scheffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ary_Scheffer) exhibited two Romantic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism) paintings, one of which was entitled Les Femme souliotes ("The Souliot Women").[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_of_Zalongo#cite_note-6) Today, a monument on the site of Mount Zalongo in Kassope commemorates their sacrifice.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_of_Zalongo#cite_note-7)

Farewell poor world,
Farewell sweet life,
and you, my poor country,
Farewell for ever

Farewell springs,
Valleys, mountains and hills
Farewell springs
And you, women of Souli

The fish cannot live on the land
Nor the flower on the sand
And the women of Souli
Cannot live without freedom

Farewell springs,
...

The women of Souli
Have not only learnt how to survive
They also know how to die
Not to tolerate slavery

isla
09-03-2014, 10:54 AM
I recall a square mile is 640Acres. 1.5 would be 960, close enough to call the amount 1000.Yes you're right there, I think I used the wrong conversion factor in my earlier post. I'll edit it and credit the change to you, thanks.

Waddie
09-03-2014, 02:22 PM
I may sound harsh, but history has shown that you're only "entitled" to hold land you can defend. No one, or people, has any permanent claim, and territory changes hands, even in "modern" times, usually through force. Israel has some power now and is exercising it. When the Arabs get enough power they will exercise that power. And so it goes. There is no "rule of law" when it comes to territory. That's a wishful illusion. Territorial possession is ruled by the "law of the jungle". Even the Russians understand this, as do the Chinese.

regards,
Waddie

Boston
09-10-2014, 11:49 AM
I'll take enthusiastic proponent of reality.