Settlements

[Shusha]

This came up on another thread, and I want to explore it because I think the concept of 'settlements' is largely misunderstood and has become a soundbite with people not really understanding or exploring what the term means, other than its bad and Jews are doing it.

Let's start by defining it.

Coyote defined it this way:

Housing built on occupied/disputed territory taken in war by the occuping/opposong force and deemed illegal under international law.

I would define its common usage this way:

Housing with Jewish residents on land on the "wrong side" of the Green Line.


I think both these definitions require a re-thinking from a legal perspective, a moral perspective and a solutions perspective.

The problem, in my mind, is with the assumptions made:

1. The Green Line is significant legally, as opposed to the Oslo lines.
2. The presence of Jews is problematic in certain areas (while the presence of Arabs is assumed).
3. The presence of Jews is incompatible with peace (while the presence of Arabs is assumed).
3. "Illegal" building by Arabs is to be forgiven, or justified, or actively supported while "illegal" building by Jews is condemned (double standard).
4. That the demographics from [insert random point in time] must not be changed, even with natural growth.

There's probably more, but I'll let them come up in conversation.

Perhaps we can start with Coyote's simplest definition: Housing built on disputed land.

Should no housing be built on disputed land? Even considering natural growth? How do we know which land falls into the disputed category (both legally and morally). Is there land which indisputably belongs to one side or the other? Does a housing freeze apply to both sides, or only to one?

Lots of questions. I'm sure more will come up.

 

[abi]

I would define its common usage this way:

Housing with Jewish residents on land on the "wrong side" of the Green Line.

That is your problem. You can't steal land in war even if you draw a line on a map.

 

[abi]

Perhaps we can start with Coyote's simplest definition: Housing built on disputed land.

If he said "disputed land" he is by definition a zionist.

 

[Shusha]

Thank you for proving my point about the soundbite.

 

[abi]

Lots of questions. I'm sure more will come up.

Only from zionists. The rest of the world calls them "A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW."

Now go study!

 

[abi]

14-0!​

Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms

14 Delegations in Favour of Resolution 2334 (2016) as United States Abstains

The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders.

Adopting resolution 2334 (2016) by 14 votes, with the United States abstaining...
Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

 

[Shusha]

abi, the point of this thread is to have a thoughtful, considered conversation about the conflict, and not to carry on with the same old re-hashing of soundbites.

Let's see if you can keep up.

From a legal perspective: In which territory are Jewish people prohibited from living? Which legal instrument provides this prohibition? What are the boundaries of this prohibition?

In which territories are Arab people prohibited from living?

From a moral/solutions perspective: where should Jews be prohibited from living? Where should Arabs be prohibited from living?

 

[abi]

If you believe that men can give other men from the same continent, the land where others live on another continent, then I suppose you would go by the partition plan. If you believe that the Nuremberg principles don't apply to zionists, then I suppose you would go with the '67 map.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

If you believe that men can give other men from the same continent, the land where others live on another continent, then I suppose you would go by the partition plan. If you believe that the Nuremberg principles don't apply to zionists, then I suppose you would go with the '67 map.

Your interpretations of the conflict are way too simplistic. Do you mind if I ask how old you are?

 

[abi]

Your interpretations of the conflict are way too simplistic. Do you mind if I ask how old you are?

The Racial Colonies (settlements) are so simple and obvious. That is why Shusha goes through so much trouble to make the issue appear debatable.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Your interpretations of the conflict are way too simplistic. Do you mind if I ask how old you are?

The Racial Colonies (settlements) are so simple and obvious. That is why Shusha goes through so much trouble to make the issue appear debatable.

Then you should see the racial colonies the Arabs have all over the Middle East and North Africa. They are all a site to behold and have been for the past 1400 years, passing from Arabs, to Ottomans, to Arabs and Turks and Iranians (non Arabs ).

How many Muslims would you say are racists out of the 2 Billion around?

 

[abi]

Then you should see the racial colonies the Arabs have all over the Middle East and North Africa. They are all a site to behold and have been for the past 1400 years, passing from Arabs, to Ottomans, to Arabs and Turks and Iranians (non Arabs ).

How many Muslims would you say are racists out of the 2 Billion around?

Thread title: Settlements

It has nothing at all to do with your attempt to derail.

 

[Indeependent]

I would define its common usage this way:

Housing with Jewish residents on land on the "wrong side" of the Green Line.

That is your problem. You can't steal land in war even if you draw a line on a map.

Yes, Babbly...use the Torah when you think it fits your agenda and then ignore it because it disproves your agenda.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would define its common usage this way:

Housing with Jewish residents on land on the "wrong side" of the Green Line.

That is your problem. You can't steal land in war even if you draw a line on a map.

You can't steal land in war even if you draw a line on a map.

I agree.
When are the Muslim invaders all returning to Saudi Arabia?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

14-0!​

Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms

14 Delegations in Favour of Resolution 2334 (2016) as United States Abstains

The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders.

Adopting resolution 2334 (2016) by 14 votes, with the United States abstaining...
Israel’s Settlements Have No Legal Validity, Constitute Flagrant Violation of International Law, Security Council Reaffirms | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

When is Germany going to get back to their 1912 borders?

 

[cnm]

I thought the Treaty of Versailles legally validated Germany's borders at that point in time.

 

[Sixties Fan]

I thought the Treaty of Versailles legally validated Germany's borders at that point in time.

Here we go....not your doing but.....getting off topic again....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought the Treaty of Versailles legally validated Germany's borders at that point in time.

A treaty can make it okay to "steal land in war"?

 

[cnm]

A treaty can make it okay to "steal land in war"?

It's a legal treaty, as will be the one the Israelis make when the occupation/war is over. Don't hold your breath. Settling on occupied land is not legal.

 

[Indeependent]

A treaty can make it okay to "steal land in war"?

It's legal, as will be the one the Israelis make when the occupation is over. Don't hold your breath.

Because land stolen by non-Jews always goes to the victors and fuck the Jews.