Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 63 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 13 Mar 2013 20:19:12 GMT
Pendragon says:
The vexed question of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT, also known as the West Bank or Judea and Samaria) is to be considered at the 22nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC), which is currently in progress, at its session next Monday, 18 March 2013.

At that session, the HRC will address the 7 February 2013 Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements. The Report is at
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session22/A-HRC-22-63_en.pdf

Since the HRC's decision to establish the Mission in March 2012 the Israeli Government has boycotted the Mission's proceedings and suspended its relations with the HRC.

In its report, the Mission concludes (amongst other things) that in the OPT Israel is committing serious breaches of human rights law and international humanitarian law, and that violence and intimidation is being committed against Palestinians with the motivation to drive the local populations away from their lands and allow the settlements to expand. The Mission calls upon Israel to cease all settlement activities and to withdraw all settlers from the OPT, and provide effective remedy for the Palestinian victims.

There can be little doubt that Israel will ignore the findings and recommendations of the Mission. The day after the overwhelming vote in the UN on 29 November 2012 which recognised Palestine as a non-member observer "state", Israeli prime minister Netanyahu ordered the construction of thousands of new homes in Jewish settlements in the OPT.

The more interesting question is what does Israel expect to achieve in the mid to long term by continuing its settlement building in the OPT?

This policy in the short (some would say short sighted) term is about grabbing prime OPT land and resources, consolidating Israel's military occupation of the West Bank, annexation of the OPT, and pacification of Israeli zealots who insist that the OPT is to be regarded as part of historic biblical Israel.

But if all that is achieved, and the OPT annexed by Israel, what then? Given its intention to preserve a Jewish demographic majority and Jewish political control, how will Israel avoid the need either to establish an overtly apartheid state, or to ethnically cleanse (by deportation and displacement) the OPT of its non-Jewish Palestinians?

In short, is the Israeli policy on settlements plotting a course that will inevitably lead to the destruction of Israel?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2013 21:43:04 GMT
Bellatori says:
"In short, is the Israeli policy on settlements plotting a course that will inevitably lead to the destruction of Israel?"

Whilst America has an effective Jewish lobby then Israel can get away with slowly annexing a bit at a time, Palestine. Who is going to stop them. The security council? No, not with the US veto.

Eventually the Palestinians will be a nomadic group, foreigners in their own land.

The UK has a lot to answer for in their capitulation in the formation of Israel in the late 40s.

I, my children and their grandchildren will die before there is an equitable settlement.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2013 16:04:26 GMT
Pipkin says:
Hi Pen,
I've missed you.
As always an excellent post.

**In short, is the Israeli policy on settlements plotting a course that will inevitably lead to the destruction of Israel? **
In answer to this question I would like to say I wish it was..... but as Bellatori says:
** Whilst America has an effective Jewish lobby then Israel can get away with slowly annexing a bit at a time, Palestine. Who is going to stop them. The security council? No, not with the US veto.**

Do you know what I keep pondering? How come Isreal always appear to have a smoke screen each time they do a dastardly deed? For instance there is so much trouble, now in Syria - that nobody really gives a damn if Isreal shove a few people whose hands have been tied off their lands and build houses??
I thought we might have seen you on the Syria thread?

Mx

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2013 12:50:35 GMT
Pendragon says:
Hi Margaret

Sorry to hear on the Blair thread that you have been unwell. I trust you are now fully mended. Welcome back!

I did place a post on the Syria thread (5th on page 1). I still think that it is unclear who is dominant in the anti-Asaad regime Free Syrian Army, which appears to be a confederation of up to 50 different groups. The Syrian civil war is different in many ways from the other conflicts produced by the Arab Spring 2 years ago, for example the Syrian (regular) army has mostly stayed loyal to the Asaad regime.

The problem is, if the FSA prevail and Asaad is toppled (not a bad thing in itself imho), will that merely result in a continuation of the civil war as the FSA factions then fight it out for control of the country?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2013 12:59:58 GMT
Pendragon says:
Hi Bella

"Whilst America has an effective Jewish lobby then Israel can get away with slowly annexing a bit at a time, Palestine. Who is going to stop them. The security council? No, not with the US veto."

I agree. However, the surprising isolation of the US and Israel (joined in opposition only by Canada, Czech Rep and Panama plus some US satellites) in the UN vote to admit Palestine may be a harbinger of gradual change. Also, for example, Norman Finkelstein suggests in his recent book, Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End that the support of America Jews for Israel has begun to fray.

I also agree with you that the UK bears its share of historical responsibility for the present mess.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2013 17:52:56 GMT
Pipkin says:
Hi Pen,
Thank you. Good to see you again too. I have been quite ill and am still struggling... however... I'm keeping my brain active by researching and following these threads. At least I can do that?
As you say the Free Syrian Army are a (rag tag) bunch of 50; or even more; different (foreign) groups. How in God's name are they ever going to sort this out when they each have a different agenda for the outcome. We only have to look at the complete chaos in Lybia.
IMO NATO have opened a can of worms that they have no hope in hell of containing.
I do believe as you say the Syrian Army is loyal to the legitimate Asaad Regime, as we would expect, and just as we generally would be to our legitimate Government? I for one.. infirm as I am.. I would not stand for what the 'NATO funded mercenary rebels' are doing and have done in the Middle East.
I have written a four page letter to the grinning ninny Hague expressing my concerns... I expect a knock at the door anytime now :)
There has to be a better way than maiming and killing millions of innocents? And I don't think it is helped at all by the Media lying through their teeth and selectively reporting what their Masters demand?
I dread to think what will happen if Asaad is toppled.... we only have to look at Iraq/Afghanistan and Lybia. Absolute desolation and chaos?
Have a peek at my new thread Lybia Revisited and lets have a chin wag?
Regards,
Margaret x.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2013 17:04:58 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Mar 2013 17:06:30 GMT
The day after the overwhelming vote in the UN on 29 November 2012 which recognised Palestine as a non-member observer "state", Israeli prime minister Netanyahu ordered the construction of thousands of new homes in Jewish settlements in the OPT.

LMW: of course he did. A recognation of a Palestinian State works against the fraud that the world is still waiting for Israel to agree with a "Two State" soltion. Just two points in the history of the region: when Palestine existed, it was inhabited by - or course - Palestinians. Some were Jewish, some were Christian, some were Islamic; and there were other peoples as well. The former Palestine, in recent history, did not own to the Islamics. If you want to return the land to the people that owned it originally, you're going to first identify the present day ancestors of the Canaanites, Hitites, and Hivites.

Good luck!

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2013 17:26:22 GMT
Pipkin says:
Hi Leonard,
Good to see you again... Nice post.

Posted on 20 Mar 2013 17:45:00 GMT
Thanks :-)

I guess i don't do much "traveling". Nice to set down in the forum of a land that - if the former is a microcosm of the later - is much more civilized than my home country. If my "good luck" comment is a bit snippy, it pales in comparison to what i am used to. Well, not really used to it. In fact, have hit the "ignore this customer" on more than just a few occasions. I could say i clicked on the UK "version" by mistake. But as my wife just opened a Facebook account for me, i am inclined to think that my subconscious processed the link that certainly was in my field of vision. Facebook is rated G (what kind of movie ratings do you have across the pond?) It's too much of a "coincidence", i think. And the US forum is nasty, nasty, nasty! The contrast was too glaring.

Posted on 20 Mar 2013 17:56:00 GMT
(continued)
Just earlier today someone posted a letter from a dying soldier that was quite critical of the Bush administration. IMO, it was really not partisan, as the author stated that he could have accepted the consequences to him, and others, had he been stationed in Afghanistan rather than Iraq (re: 9/11 attacks).

Someone made a derogatory comment about the Left/Liberals (we're only allowed two parties here in the States). And i said that the person could have refrained from partisan politics for ONE thread. I resisted adding something like WELL, I WOULD HAVE since it really wasn't about me. But i succumed when i looked back later - i really shouldn't have - and the person said basically, that i was the one who started the partisan remarks. The Freudian projection there is staggering. I responded that i used to post on the 9/11 thread, but during that time, i didn't post on Sept. 11, July 4th. It's just a matter of a little manners, a little respect, i think.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2013 23:14:28 GMT
J. Forbes says:
Are you dyslexic as well?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Mar 2013 13:30:09 GMT
Pipkin says:
Ho Leonard,
Can I apologise for the ignorance of the poster J. Forbes.... he is new to these threads, and really has such a serious inferiority complex that he feels the need to sit in judgement, and put down everyone he disagrees with. I now have him on ignore.
As you say, all that is required to have a good dialogue, whether agreeing or disagreeing is to have manners and respect.
Regards,
Margaret.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Mar 2013 13:47:44 GMT
Pipkin says:
Hi Leonard,
I was aware of ratings, but hadn't a clue the actual ratings we had here in the UK, so I looked it up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

12A - Suitable for all
PG - Parental guidance
12A - Cinema release suitable for 12 years and over
12 - Video release suitable for 12 years and over
15 - Suitable only for 15 years and over
18 - Suitable only for adults
R18 - Adults works for licensed premises only

I would be interested to know why you think the US forum is 'nasty', and why you that the UK is more 'civilised' than the US?
Maybe start another thread? Becasue there are those on here who get really steamed up about going off topic, although generally people are quite tolerant.. After all we are having a conversation, and sometimes good conversations deviate a little?
Mx

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Mar 2013 13:59:57 GMT
I think you meant U for the first one ME.
And 12A is a cinema only classification which means only suitable for under 12's if they are acompanied by an adult.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Mar 2013 14:14:11 GMT
Pipkin says:
Thanks for the correction..
I probably should have read more closely?
Margaret

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Mar 2013 04:52:31 GMT
ours used to be
G general audience
PG parental guidance
R adults, and
X which i think meant nudity

now we have PG 13, and about every specific thing you can describe, such as "scifi action and violence", "crude humor" which basically means a fart joke for the kids, "sexual innuendo", brief nudity, "strong sexual content"....
There are movies on cable that come with a subsciption that kind of make a joke of it; the make up things, like MKZ, for mobs of killer zombies, or BB, babes in bikinis....

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Mar 2013 04:53:41 GMT
We go off topic all the time, usually before the first "page" is full. But it's kind of taken as a joke; noone gets mad about it. I'll scoot back to US and find something nasty>

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Mar 2013 05:27:48 GMT
I would be interested to know why you think the US forum is 'nasty',

Don Mcdougall says:
No one should send their kids to a soccer game and have them die, or a pool, or the beach. Roughly 1,200 children drown every years, 500 people are killed by a rifle, less then 200 are killed by assault rifles. So tell me WHY - oh WHY do these 1,200 dead children mean NOTHING TO YOU! I hope you like the caps. Why does HOW the child dies matter more to you lefties then why they died?

Susie says:
Bill O'Reilly on his show last night said that 583 children are murdered by guns from a study from 2011. Why don't you care about THOSE children???

Anthony Wikrent says:
Dear conservatives: We will keep rubbing your face in your own doo-doo until you stop being such loathsome, destructive, heartless deceivers.

tokolosi says:
"...whine whine ...I joined the Army... whine whine..."
Call me cynical, but IMO this takes the wind out of what is otherwise a very heart-rending tale. No one forced any of these people to join. Anyone naive, gullible or plain gung-ho enough to by into the BS from GW and company should be willing to accept the hand they were dealt. Especially any who joined after 9/11. WTF were you expecting?

Brian McGregor says:
andthehorseirodeinontoo is the most evil moron to ever live

ZOMG PINK PONIES says:
The right wingers are never happy until one of their own proves their loyalty by sucking Netanyahu off to completion.

ZOMG PINK PONIES says:
You could probably turn people gay with the smell of unwashed trailer cooch.
TOPICWAQ says:
you shouldn't talk about your significant other like that....
turn people gay? is that what happened to you?

Timothy M. Sowder says:
You are so pitiful seeker of attention. You know nothing about anything from AGW to gun control. You are unable to interpret what soo many have plainly laid out for you that its embarrassing. Just go away please. We are all painfully aware of your feelings on issues and while they make no sense whatsoever you are nothing but a sad excuse for a human being. I myself am so tired of your pointless rants and feel certain there are others who feel the same way.

Posted on 24 Mar 2013 21:46:45 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2013 03:18:47 GMT
was the purpose of this post to see if you could be nastier than the jerks in the US forum?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2013 19:50:28 GMT
Paul Marks says:
The United Nations General Assembly, and such things as the Human Rights Council, have been dominated for many years by a majority that wishes to exterminate Israel. The words of the United Nations (and entities connected to it) are, therefore, worthless.

As for houses and so on - IF the land has been voluntarily bought (as much of it was way back in the 19th century - long before most of the Arabs came from Egypt) then there is no moral issue.

The security issue is a simple one - Israel must have clear, defendable borders. The Cease Fire lines of 1948 were never intended (by anyone) to be the borders of Israel Some of the present "settlements" will be within these borders - others will be outside (and will go - no longer exist).

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2013 20:17:27 GMT
Paul Marks says:
What British governments have a lot to answer for is breaking their word to allow a Jewish Home in the Holy Land captured from the Turkish Ottoman Empire (there was no such state as "Palestine") much of the land had been privately bought long before the First World War. Even in 1890 the largest population group in Jerusalem were Jews - in spite of the effort to destroy Jewish homes and places of worship in 1948, this can not be seriously denied.

In the 1920s and 1930s British governments prevented many Jews going to the Holy Land (Arabs from Egypt were not kept out) this led to the deaths of six million Jews.

Even after World War II the Atlee Labour government continued to try and keep Jews out of the Holy Land - leading Jews to turn violent (in the face of DECADES of attack from Arabs), against the Arabs - and, increasingly, against the British also. This is why the British left.

People with the numbers of the death camps on their arms had no fear - not of the Arabs and not of the British either. And they had learned a vital lesson - those who will not fight (and fight with very ounce of their being - without reservation) die. And people who will not fight do not just die - they die degraded, humilated and shamed.

And the Jews understand quite well what an "equitable settlement" means when offerered by the forces of Islam - it means the extermination of the Jewish people. Gaza shows this - "leave and there will be peace" turned out to mean "leave and we will fire thousands of rockets at you". The so called "West Bank" (much of which is closer to the sea than to the Jordan river) would be the same. Why would it not be?

Better to die in battle (if defeat comes one day) than to die disarmed and helpless - like cattle.

Never again to that - never again.

Such "peace" is not just death - it is humilation, and that is unacceptable.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Mar 2013 01:05:43 GMT
Spin says:
Leonard: Lighten up. It is precisely that attitude, shared by other humourless folk, that my post was addressed to. I think they are quite appropriate on a thread discussing Israel/Judaism and Palastine/Islam. If you think those old and well-known jokes are "nasty", then I dare not think what you would make of some of the more "adult" and "offensive" ones.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2013 16:28:57 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Mar 2013 18:38:49 GMT
Pendragon says:
"much of the land had been privately bought long before the First World War"

Is this the latest version of revisionist Zionist historiography, or did you just make it up yourself?

Zionist supporters and institutions did indeed buy some land in what is now Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza, let's call it all "Palestine" for short) from about 1880 up to 1914. Much of it from absentee Arab landowners. But it was a slow process, and by 1947 the Zionists had purchased only 11% of all land, including 7% of all the cultivable land, in Palestine.

The partition plan of the UN (that body of which you are now so scornful) in 1947 granted 56% of Palestine by area to the Jewish state and its 630,000 Jews and only 44% to the Arab state for the 1.25 million Arab Palestinians.

During the 1948 war Jewish forces conquered a further 22% of Palestine. The newly occupied territories were not returned with the signing of the armistice agreements, but instead were immediately annexed to the Jewish state. This 78% of Palestine became the new state of Israel in May 1948.

Of the land within Israel, much was still owned by Arabs who were citizens of Israel. Under a law introduced in 1950, the Israeli state expropriated 40% of all privately held Arab land in Israel. Following further expropriations, in particular in 1970, combined with private purchases, both voluntary and coerced, Arab owned land in Israel reduced still further. By 2000, when they constituted 20% of the population, Arab Israelis owned only 3.5% of the land within Israel's pre-1967 borders, and by 2010 this figure had reduced to 2.5%.

"(there was no such state as "Palestine")"

Prior to 1948, there had never been a united kingdom encompassing both ancient Israel (roughly Samaria and Galilee) and Judea (in the south) either. The only biblical name for the region was Canaan.

"Even in 1890 the largest population group in Jerusalem were Jews"

This is true - about half of Jerusalem's 22,000 population in 1870 were Jews. However, Jerusalem is not Palestine - when the first Zionist settlers arrived in Palestine in 1882, the people then living in Palestine (ie the Palestinians) comprised an 85% Muslim majority, with 9% Christians and only 3% Jews.

"the effort to destroy Jewish homes and places of worship in 1948"

This event exists only in your own imagination.

"Gaza shows this - "leave and there will be peace" turned out to mean "leave and we will fire thousands of rockets at you"."

What actually happened was that in 2005, under the direction of Ariel Sharon, Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was designed and executed, without negotiation with the Palestinians, with the goal of permitting Israel to retain other territories (specifically the Golan Heights and the West Bank). Israel then mounted a close blockade of Gaza, easier to do when it was not in occupation (by way of settlements and military) of Gaza. And yes since then Hamas and its affiliates have fired thousand of rockets into Israel, itself an unacceptable escalation of the violence to which Israel has reacted on numerous occasions with yet more violence.

Who knows what might have been possible if Israel had made its withdrawal from Gaza on the basis of land for peace instead of military expediency?

"British governments prevented many Jews going to the Holy Land ... this led to the deaths of six million Jews"

What is it about this week and new variants of holocaust denial?

On the Religion Forum on 24 March ("Is science fact or faith" thread) C. W. Bradbury asserted that "a major contributory factor to [the Holocaust] was the British Naval Blockade and Anglo-American Strategic Bomber Offensive" because, he said, "The Blockade prevented food reaching Europe from the World's markets, the destruction of Germany/Europe's road and rail infrastructure by aerial bombing further hampered distribution of the food that was available." [see 13th post on page http://tinyurl.com/c7gok7y]

Now you say the deaths of the Jews in the Holocaust were caused by British immigration restrictions.

And all this time I had thought that the 11 million deaths in the Holocaust were caused not by food shortages or immigration restrictions, but by systematic killing, mostly using poison gas, carried out on an enormous scale by the Nazis.

"people who will not fight do not just die - they die degraded, humilated and shamed. ... Better to die in battle (if defeat comes one day) than to die disarmed and helpless - like cattle."

Were it not for the rest of your post, one might have thought that you were a member of Hamas. Do you see the resemblance?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Mar 2013 17:31:16 GMT
You broke into the conversation about what was "nasty". That was the term that i used; i didn't use it in quotations. Since the topic of the conversation was what i thought was nasty, i thought you were giving examples of what you thought was nasty. It's a very reasonable conclusion. This is an open forum, and you can certainly enter into any conversation that you like. But if you are going to do so, and then afterward redefine the terms as well as state that you weren't talking to me, then you IMO have no right - or don't make any sense - to tell me how to react. If you want to define the terms of a conversation, then start one.

Or, why don't you start - or direct me to - a thread that you started, in a serious tone, not a joke, and then i'll give you some personal ideas of what i think is nasty. Let's see if you can take it as well as you dish it out. Mabye you can; or maybe you don't give a crap about anything.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  8
Total posts:  63
Initial post:  13 Mar 2013
Latest post:  18 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions