US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements

[rylah]

Coyote

Did you want to address the elephant in the room as how to tell exactly where the place where Jews are permitted to live ends and the place where Jews are not permitted to live begins.

Sure.

Jews who are Israeli nationals should be able to live anywhere Israel holds national soveriegnty.

How about the other ignored elephant?

Where are non Jews permitted to live?

Everywhere they recognize Israeli sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it. In 14 months we could well have a different administration in office.
.

I don't know how you come up with that none sense, but it's full of self contradictions.

First you claim the US admin doesn't write international law, then in the same breath mention a change of admin as if having an effect. For that to have any logical basis have to rely on 2 biases:

1.US admin is allowed only one opinion, and a US admin differing that opinion has no legitimate authority on international law, while one that supports the notion has both legitimacy and effect.
2. 'International Law' is a subject of a popular opinion, and the only way it is legitimate is if that law
bans Jews from settling Judea.

Each one to his opinion, but this shows that you associate legitimacy with a certain opinion regardless of actual law.

For that matter, as a sovereign country, the US actually does write international law - that's called treaties, 2 of them are of key importance and are binding both under international law and US Constitution:

1. The Lodge-Fish Resolution - confirms the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine -

• "Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United states of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national Home for the Jewish people..."

2. The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.
The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine:​

• "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine." Both the Anglo-American Convention (1924) and The Lodge-Fish Resolution (1922) confirm the irrevocable historic right of the Jewish nation to Palestine - under the constitution making it into US law.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine - Eretz Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

This is binding International Law, ratified under the US constitution.

Legal recognition of West Bank settlements could 'kill off' hope of two-state solution, says former US ambassador

Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro spoke to The World's Marco Werman about what the decision means the region.


Marco Werman: Ambassador, what makes this shift in policy so important?


Dan Shapiro: The truth is, is that it's more symbolic than actual. Every administration since the Carter administration voiced their opposition to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, without making reference to the legal question. It was on policy grounds.


What's important about it, however, is that it seems to give a green light, and that's quite different from any previous administration, to significant expansion of Israeli settlement and at a time when advocates for Israeli settlement expansion are also talking about unilateral annexation of the West Bank or portions of the West Bank.


Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution. And since President [Donald] Trump has never endorsed a two-state solution, it appears to be a continuation of an effort essentially to move us away from that track and kill off that option.

Q. How many Arab states can you count in that territory now?

Domestic law has nothing to do with international law.

 

[Mindful]

The issue of Israel’s rights in the West Bank under international law, as simple as it sounds, conceals a complex and extensive web of historic, legal, military and political issues that, for many years, have engaged and continue to engage the parties to the conflict, as well as the international community as a whole.

This article will briefly analyze the three major elements defining Israel’s rights in the West Bank.

Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law

 

[Mindful]

^Firstly, and underscoring all other considerations, are the international legal rights emanating from the indigenous and historic claims of the Jewish people in the area as a whole, virtually from time immemorial. These rights were acknowledged in 1917 by the Balfour Declaration’s promise of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, and subsequently recognized internationally and encapsulated into international law through a series of international instruments.

Secondly, Israel’s legal rights following the 1967 Six-Day War, as the power administering the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria (so described in the U.N. 1947 Partition Resolution 181), and the concomitant, unique sui genesis status of the area.

Thirdly, Israel’s rights under international law following the 1993-1995 Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, and especially the 1995 Interim Agreement, (commonly known as Oslo 2) which established a unique territorial arrangement as a form of lex specialis, that divided the control and governance of the West Bank areas between a Palestinian Authority established for that purpose, and Israel.

***

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

Did you want to address the elephant in the room as how to tell exactly where the place where Jews are permitted to live ends and the place where Jews are not permitted to live begins.

Sure.

Jews who are Israeli nationals should be able to live anywhere Israel holds national soveriegnty.

Yes, but here's the trick. Where does Israel hold national sovereignty? And who gets to decide that?

How about the other ignored elephant?

Where are non Jews permitted to live?

There is no place under Israeli sovereignty or Israeli legal control which prohibits people of any ethnic, religious or national background from living there. Nor is there any international uproar about Arab settlements being illegal, or being an obstacle to peace. Nor is there any international uproar about absolute Arab exclusivity and control in certain *highly volatile and contested* areas. Why is that, do you think?

 

[Mindful]

***

Israel’s rights in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War.

Long before, the Balfour Declaration issued by the British government in 1917 acknowledged the indigenous presence and historic aspirations of the Jewish people to reestablish their historic national home in Palestine. While legally the Balfour Declaration, in and of itself, was a unilateral governmental declaration, it received international legal acknowledgement and validity in a series of instruments, commencing with the 1920 San Remo Conference and Declaration by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. San Remo encapsulated the content of the Balfour Declaration into the post-World War I arrangements dividing the former Ottoman Empire. In this way, the Principal Allied Powers finalized the territorial dispositions regarding the Jewish people in respect to Palestine and the Arabs in respect to Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Lebanon.

The San Remo Declaration stated inter alia that:

“The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] of November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people …”

This was incorporated into Article 95 of the (unratified) Treaty of Sèvres of Aug. 10, 1920, and subsequently in the Preamble and Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestineapproved by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922:

 

[Shusha]

^Firstly, and underscoring all other considerations, are the international legal rights emanating from the indigenous and historic claims of the Jewish people in the area as a whole, virtually from time immemorial. These rights were acknowledged in 1917 by the Balfour Declaration’s promise of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, and subsequently recognized internationally and encapsulated into international law through a series of international instruments.

Secondly, Israel’s legal rights following the 1967 Six-Day War, as the power administering the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria (so described in the U.N. 1947 Partition Resolution 181), and the concomitant, unique sui genesis status of the area.

Thirdly, Israel’s rights under international law following the 1993-1995 Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, and especially the 1995 Interim Agreement, (commonly known as Oslo 2) which established a unique territorial arrangement as a form of lex specialis, that divided the control and governance of the West Bank areas between a Palestinian Authority established for that purpose, and Israel.

***

I don't think this article goes far enough in asserting Israel's sovereign claim to ALL of Palestine (sans Jordan). Neither the 1948 nor the 1967 belligerent aggression against Israel created any legal "special status" in any area of the territory of Palestine. Oslo DID, but only in terms of an expected outcome, in principle. Only a final agreement (treaty) between Israel and an eventual effective government of Palestine will change the legal status of any part of the territory.

I like this analysis better. Its long. But the executive summary is detailed enough to get the points without having to read the whole thing.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ Mindful, et al,

Every single point in the Alan Baker Magazine Article (Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law ) has been discussed at some length in this forum, at one time or another. There is nothing new in the Baker Article at all. The Article could even be aptly described as a Summation of Selected Excerpts of this forum. It is merely truncated to a very condensed version.

The issue of Israel’s rights in the West Bank under international law, as simple as it sounds, conceals a complex and extensive web of historic, legal, military and political issues that, for many years, have engaged and continue to engage the parties to the conflict, as well as the international community as a whole.

This article will briefly analyze the three major elements defining Israel’s rights in the West Bank.

Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law

(COMMENT)

The actual problem with many of these discussions, rests in that, the discussion tables → talk about the theoretical, the political and twin aspects of humanitarian/human rights and try to encapsulate it to fit in one of the many twisted legal options and opinions that swirl area the "Question of Palestine" since the establishment of the Jewish National Home (a descriptive phrase for) known as the State of Israel (a recommended entity by name as the Jewish State).

All sorts of justifications have been levied, some in favor of the Arab Palestinians and some in favor of the Israels. But very few just look at the reality. Whether you agree or not → Israel has had realistic control over the situation and the accompanying territory for a half a century; with an indifferent to any enforcement of any international consensus for all that time.

And, from a practical standpoint, concerning the territorial lands known as the West Bank, and selected portions of Jerusalem, there is a Treaty in place between Jordan (the nation in control from 1949 to 1967) and Israel (the nation in control since the end of the Six-Day War). And whether or not the outside observers choose to see it that way, that is the reality. You cannot operate in any of that territory for very long without coming to that conclusion. Israel is in control and has been in control - undeniably - since the end of the Six-Day War.

(EPILOG)

You can throw every other argument, declarations, justification, promises, covens, charters, conventions, treaties, and laws, out into the trash and set it all ablaze. I have just described the reality everyone will face when they get up in the morning. And no matter how you look at it, there will be a conflict between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians until they decide in agreement and together to change that reality through some mutual understanding.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ Mindful, et al,

Every single point in the Alan Baker Magazine Article (Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law ) has been discussed at some length in this forum, at one time or another. There is nothing new in the Baker Article at all. The Article could even be aptly described as a Summation of Selected Excerpts of this forum. It is merely truncated to a very condensed version.

The issue of Israel’s rights in the West Bank under international law, as simple as it sounds, conceals a complex and extensive web of historic, legal, military and political issues that, for many years, have engaged and continue to engage the parties to the conflict, as well as the international community as a whole.

This article will briefly analyze the three major elements defining Israel’s rights in the West Bank.

Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law

(COMMENT)

The actual problem with many of these discussions, rests in that, the discussion tables → talk about the theoretical, the political and twin aspects of humanitarian/human rights and try to encapsulate it to fit in one of the many twisted legal options and opinions that swirl area the "Question of Palestine" since the establishment of the Jewish National Home (a descriptive phrase for) known as the State of Israel (a recommended entity by name as the Jewish State).

All sorts of justifications have been levied, some in favor of the Arab Palestinians and some in favor of the Israels. But very few just look at the reality. Whether you agree or not → Israel has had realistic control over the situation and the accompanying territory for a half a century; with an indifferent to any enforcement of any international consensus for all that time.

And, from a practical standpoint, concerning the territorial lands known as the West Bank, and selected portions of Jerusalem, there is a Treaty in place between Jordan (the nation in control from 1949 to 1967) and Israel (the nation in control since the end of the Six-Day War). And whether or not the outside observers choose to see it that way, that is the reality. You cannot operate in any of that territory for very long without coming to that conclusion. Israel is in control and has been in control - undeniably - since the end of the Six-Day War.

(EPILOG)

You can throw every other argument, declarations, justification, promises, covens, charters, conventions, treaties, and laws, out into the trash and set it all ablaze. I have just described the reality everyone will face when they get up in the morning. And no matter how you look at it, there will be a conflict between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians until they decide in agreement and together to change that reality through some mutual understanding.


Most Respectfully,
R

While I don't disagree with the practicality of looking at the conflict in this light, it carries with it the distasteful idea that "might makes right" and undermines Israel's moral and legal right to their homeland.

 

[rylah]

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it.

Well, the US, in this case, is not writing international law, but interpreting it. The interpretation (opinion) that Israeli settlements (places where Jews live) in the "West Bank" are illegal depends on a legal definition of exactly what territory is the "West Bank" and what territory is not the "West Bank".

The legal problem is that there is no such demarcation line, thus no way to tell where, or where not, Israelis (Jews) are permitted to live.

Unless one accepts Oslo, in which case there are no Israeli settlements (Jews) in Arab territories.

Israeli’s and Jews are not necessarily synonymous.

Shrug. Sure. Technically. But when discussing this topic, they are the same for all intents and purposes.

I can think of no instance within this topic where we are discussing Israelis without also meaning Jews.

I disagree. I think the constant conflating of the two creates a situation where one can not criticize Israel without being seen as attacking all Jews. The two are different and Jews around differ in opinion and support Israeli actions and policies. In addition it further separates non Jewish Israeli nationals who are just as harmed by attacks on Israeli sovereignty as Jewish nationals and who lack the rights and permissions to create settlements in disputed/occupied territory. I DO agree that there are those who conflate the two but they are pretty easy to figure out.

Well if you have to go all the way to rationalize they're different, then it already means there's a direct link in the claim itself.

The State of Israel is the highest official representative of the only Jewish country and biggest community in the world.

Criticism of any state is a natural thing, criticism is a key word.
Yet what is evident is that as you said "criticism conflated with attacking",
bigotry disguised (if at all) with fancy terms, and a disproportionate attention, overwhelmingly negative, and an obsessive need to pick at anything Israel - is not criticism.

You don't see Israeli admins issue their legal opinions and "solutions" on domestic policies of other nations for every monday and wendsdey.

The US admin merely acknowledged an already existing fact - the highest authority of a nation that can issue legal verdicts over personal cases and state policy, is in the judiciary branch of the nation state. Or otherwise - no authority is higher than the one vested by the nation to judge its govt according to laws it ratified.

Moroccan policy is not in the scope of Israeli judiciary,
as Israeli of American.

 

[Shusha]

Also, we don't discuss Oslo enough on this board. (Partly because Tinmore invariably comes by and states, "Oslo is dead".)

But the language of Oslo is, without doubt, one of Israeli concession and gradual ceding very specific powers to the Palestine Council. Yes, this is done in explicit anticipation of Arab Palestinian self-determination, but the fact remains the document is one of voluntary Israeli reduction of powers. This suggests to me that Israel's sovereignty over the entire territory is understood by both parties, and that Israel's consent is required to release that sovereignty. (From a legal perspective).

 

[rylah]

The U.S. does not write international law nor can the proclamations of one president change it. In 14 months we could well have a different administration in office.
.

I don't know how you come up with that none sense, but it's full of self contradictions.

First you claim the US admin doesn't write international law, then in the same breath mention a change of admin as if having an effect. For that to have any logical basis have to rely on 2 biases:

1.US admin is allowed only one opinion, and a US admin differing that opinion has no legitimate authority on international law, while one that supports the notion has both legitimacy and effect.
2. 'International Law' is a subject of a popular opinion, and the only way it is legitimate is if that law
bans Jews from settling Judea.

Each one to his opinion, but this shows that you associate legitimacy with a certain opinion regardless of actual law.

For that matter, as a sovereign country, the US actually does write international law - that's called treaties, 2 of them are of key importance and are binding both under international law and US Constitution:

1. The Lodge-Fish Resolution - confirms the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine -

• "Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United states of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national Home for the Jewish people..."

2. The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.
The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine:​

• "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine." Both the Anglo-American Convention (1924) and The Lodge-Fish Resolution (1922) confirm the irrevocable historic right of the Jewish nation to Palestine - under the constitution making it into US law.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine - Eretz Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

This is binding International Law, ratified under the US constitution.

Legal recognition of West Bank settlements could 'kill off' hope of two-state solution, says former US ambassador

Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro spoke to The World's Marco Werman about what the decision means the region.


Marco Werman: Ambassador, what makes this shift in policy so important?


Dan Shapiro: The truth is, is that it's more symbolic than actual. Every administration since the Carter administration voiced their opposition to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, without making reference to the legal question. It was on policy grounds.


What's important about it, however, is that it seems to give a green light, and that's quite different from any previous administration, to significant expansion of Israeli settlement and at a time when advocates for Israeli settlement expansion are also talking about unilateral annexation of the West Bank or portions of the West Bank.


Clearly those steps would make it much, much harder to ever achieve a two-state solution. And since President [Donald] Trump has never endorsed a two-state solution, it appears to be a continuation of an effort essentially to move us away from that track and kill off that option.

Q. How many Arab states can you count in that territory now?

Domestic law has nothing to do with international law.

Treaty between sovereign states is international law.

Under American Law when a joint resolution is passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in an identical form and then signed by the President, it becomes the Law of the U.S.

Both the Lodge-Fish Resolution and the Anglo American Convention underwent the above noted process (see point 6). Therefore reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and recognizing their historical connection to the land became part of US LAW.

 

[Shusha]

I disagree. I think the constant conflating of the two creates a situation where one can not criticize Israel without being seen as attacking all Jews. The two are different and Jews around differ in opinion and support Israeli actions and policies. In addition it further separates non Jewish Israeli nationals who are just as harmed by attacks on Israeli sovereignty as Jewish nationals and who lack the rights and permissions to create settlements in disputed/occupied territory. I DO agree that there are those who conflate the two but they are pretty easy to figure out.

The conflict ultimately concerns the self-determination of two very different and distinct cultures, so erasing either ethnic culture as a principle of discussion is an offence. It is remarkably easy to criticize the policy of Israel and her government without attacking Jews. But in order to do so, one must also recognize when people mean "Jews" and not Israelis, and also when you mean Jews and not Israelis.

Speaking specifically about the issue of communities in Area C...

Are Arab communities in Area C or in Israel proper an "obstacle to peace"? The universal consensus is that they are not. And not only are they not an obstacle to peace, but that they must be recognized as a minority culture, with acknowledgement of their specific culture as part of the cultural fabric of Israel and that their exclusion would be a grave violation of human rights.

So why are Jewish communities in Area C or Palestine proper an "obstacle to peace"? Why is the exclusion of Jewish communities not a grave violation of human rights? Why is the international community not demanding Palestine recognize the Jewish people as a minority culture as a part of the cultural fabric of Gaza and Palestine?

It is EASY to turn Israelis into Palestinians. Its so easy, its the DEFAULT when sovereignty passes from one sovereign to another. If we are discussing Israeli citizens, rather than Jews, there is no obstacle to anything. All those resident in the territory which becomes a sovereign Palestine will become citizens of Palestine.

So when we discuss Jewish communities as being "illegal", what is really going on here?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I disagree. I think the constant conflating of the two creates a situation where one can not criticize Israel without being seen as attacking all Jews. The two are different and Jews around differ in opinion and support Israeli actions and policies. In addition it further separates non Jewish Israeli nationals who are just as harmed by attacks on Israeli sovereignty as Jewish nationals and who lack the rights and permissions to create settlements in disputed/occupied territory. I DO agree that there are those who conflate the two but they are pretty easy to figure out.

The conflict ultimately concerns the self-determination of two very different and distinct cultures, so erasing either ethnic culture as a principle of discussion is an offence. It is remarkably easy to criticize the policy of Israel and her government without attacking Jews. But in order to do so, one must also recognize when people mean "Jews" and not Israelis, and also when you mean Jews and not Israelis.

Speaking specifically about the issue of communities in Area C...

Are Arab communities in Area C or in Israel proper an "obstacle to peace"? The universal consensus is that they are not. And not only are they not an obstacle to peace, but that they must be recognized as a minority culture, with acknowledgement of their specific culture as part of the cultural fabric of Israel and that their exclusion would be a grave violation of human rights.

So why are Jewish communities in Area C or Palestine proper an "obstacle to peace"? Why is the exclusion of Jewish communities not a grave violation of human rights? Why is the international community not demanding Palestine recognize the Jewish people as a minority culture as a part of the cultural fabric of Gaza and Palestine?

It is EASY to turn Israelis into Palestinians. Its so easy, its the DEFAULT when sovereignty passes from one sovereign to another. If we are discussing Israeli citizens, rather than Jews, there is no obstacle to anything. All those resident in the territory which becomes a sovereign Palestine will become citizens of Palestine.

So when we discuss Jewish communities as being "illegal", what is really going on here?

So I will play Devil's advocate here. I saw a video on YouTube, where a Jewish resident of Hebron was interviewed. When he was asked if he would oppose Hebron being made a part of Palestine, he said, "Sure, I would oppose it. I didn't leave the U.S. and come to Israel so that I could become a citizen of Palestine." That's what is going on here.

 

[Shusha]

So I will play Devil's advocate here. I saw a video on YouTube, where a Jewish resident of Hebron was interviewed. When he was asked if he would oppose Hebron being made a part of Palestine, he said, "Sure, I would oppose it. I didn't leave the U.S. and come to Israel so that I could become a citizen of Palestine." That's what is going on here.

Please do play devil's advocate. Its far more interesting than Tinmore's one-liners.

Sure. Every Jew living in what is negotiated to become Palestine, and every Arab living in what is negotiated to be confirmed as Israel will have to make a decision as to whether they maintain their residency or move. (In my opinion, Israel absolutely must hold the Jewish community of Hebron and the holy places there.) That seems entirely reasonable to me.

The idea that every place where Jews live in Area C will become part of Israel in a final agreement is not reasonable.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree. I think the constant conflating of the two creates a situation where one can not criticize Israel without being seen as attacking all Jews. The two are different and Jews around differ in opinion and support Israeli actions and policies. In addition it further separates non Jewish Israeli nationals who are just as harmed by attacks on Israeli sovereignty as Jewish nationals and who lack the rights and permissions to create settlements in disputed/occupied territory. I DO agree that there are those who conflate the two but they are pretty easy to figure out.

The conflict ultimately concerns the self-determination of two very different and distinct cultures, so erasing either ethnic culture as a principle of discussion is an offence. It is remarkably easy to criticize the policy of Israel and her government without attacking Jews. But in order to do so, one must also recognize when people mean "Jews" and not Israelis, and also when you mean Jews and not Israelis.

Speaking specifically about the issue of communities in Area C...

Are Arab communities in Area C or in Israel proper an "obstacle to peace"? The universal consensus is that they are not. And not only are they not an obstacle to peace, but that they must be recognized as a minority culture, with acknowledgement of their specific culture as part of the cultural fabric of Israel and that their exclusion would be a grave violation of human rights.

So why are Jewish communities in Area C or Palestine proper an "obstacle to peace"? Why is the exclusion of Jewish communities not a grave violation of human rights? Why is the international community not demanding Palestine recognize the Jewish people as a minority culture as a part of the cultural fabric of Gaza and Palestine?

It is EASY to turn Israelis into Palestinians. Its so easy, its the DEFAULT when sovereignty passes from one sovereign to another. If we are discussing Israeli citizens, rather than Jews, there is no obstacle to anything. All those resident in the territory which becomes a sovereign Palestine will become citizens of Palestine.

So when we discuss Jewish communities as being "illegal", what is really going on here?

So I will play Devil's advocate here. I saw a video on YouTube, where a Jewish resident of Hebron was interviewed. When he was asked if he would oppose Hebron being made a part of Palestine, he said, "Sure, I would oppose it. I didn't leave the U.S. and come to Israel so that I could become a citizen of Palestine." That's what is going on here.

He has a legitimate point of view and a legitimate concern. It is what complicates this.

 

[Ropey]

Always the leftists.

The ones who taught the Arabs to blow their children up...

...for political reasons.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Always the leftists.

The ones who taught the Arabs to blow their children up...

...for political reasons.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that Jewish leftists taught Arabs to blow up their kids? Link?

 

[Coyote]

I disagree. I think the constant conflating of the two creates a situation where one can not criticize Israel without being seen as attacking all Jews. The two are different and Jews around differ in opinion and support Israeli actions and policies. In addition it further separates non Jewish Israeli nationals who are just as harmed by attacks on Israeli sovereignty as Jewish nationals and who lack the rights and permissions to create settlements in disputed/occupied territory. I DO agree that there are those who conflate the two but they are pretty easy to figure out.

The conflict ultimately concerns the self-determination of two very different and distinct cultures, so erasing either ethnic culture as a principle of discussion is an offence. It is remarkably easy to criticize the policy of Israel and her government without attacking Jews. But in order to do so, one must also recognize when people mean "Jews" and not Israelis, and also when you mean Jews and not Israelis.

Speaking specifically about the issue of communities in Area C...

Are Arab communities in Area C or in Israel proper an "obstacle to peace"? The universal consensus is that they are not. And not only are they not an obstacle to peace, but that they must be recognized as a minority culture, with acknowledgement of their specific culture as part of the cultural fabric of Israel and that their exclusion would be a grave violation of human rights.

So why are Jewish communities in Area C or Palestine proper an "obstacle to peace"? Why is the exclusion of Jewish communities not a grave violation of human rights? Why is the international community not demanding Palestine recognize the Jewish people as a minority culture as a part of the cultural fabric of Gaza and Palestine?

It is EASY to turn Israelis into Palestinians. Its so easy, its the DEFAULT when sovereignty passes from one sovereign to another. If we are discussing Israeli citizens, rather than Jews, there is no obstacle to anything. All those resident in the territory which becomes a sovereign Palestine will become citizens of Palestine.

So when we discuss Jewish communities as being "illegal", what is really going on here?

Per your question in par. 2, are Arab communities in Area C an obstacle to peace? No. They are long standing communities, that grew organically. As far as I know there was no program from surrounding states to move citizens there and create settlements. As far as being recognitionized as a protected culture are they not a minority culture in the region controlled Israel?

Jewish people are not an obstacle to peace but creating new settlements in territory that is disputed, through means of land acquisition that is often disadvantageous to the residents is.

I agree though that to the Palestinians it IS the Jewish people, but recognizing that also means that it is only the Jewish people who are allowed to create new settlements.

Also, realistically, given current policies, there isn't likely to be a 2 state solution.

 

[Ropey]

Always the leftists.

The ones who taught the Arabs to blow their children up...

...for political reasons.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that Jewish leftists taught Arabs to blow up their kids? Link?

You think Arabs thought that up on their own?

imo

Leftist Jews are f'n Kapos who believe in government being greater than G-d.

Find your own links.

You're likely an idumean.