Document confirms World Zionist Organization allocates land to settlers in Jordan val

[docmauser1]

Perhaps people (not necessarily you) should take an honest and unbiased look at this particular case - without trying to pile on all the typical crap to distract from this specific situation - and ask themselves, would this be considered land theft in any other situation?

Palistanian settlers should stop thinking they have an exclusive right to what is Judea and Samaria and not some goddamn -stan. Basically, the international community should do itself a favor and dispense with being an example to the einsteinian definition of insanity with its peace-state-palistan drivel and undertake an international program of humanitarian resettlement of palistanians and integration of their brethren residing in other states. That'll be cool, of course.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

I think it is pretty clear that, while the Palestinians have trouble forming a coherent government (even after more than a quarter century), Israel cannot have the West Bank or Gaza Strip under any conditions.

I do not know the grand strategy behind the settlement program. But I suspect that the settlements are a way for the Israelis to bring pressure on the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that pressure is part of it - but there are two pressures involved here:

- putting pressure on the Palestinians in the form of "punishment" for "transgressions"
- relieving political pressure from settlers who feel they have a right to that land

Given that the article said: “in light of the shortage of farmland in the Jordan Valley, a shortage that is preventing the expansion of existing communities and the establishment of new ones.”

Which pressure do you think is at play here? Perhaps people (not necessarily you) should take an honest and unbiased look at this particular case - without trying to pile on all the typical crap to distract from this specific situation - and ask themselves, would this be considered land theft in any other situation?

(COMMENT)

It is fairly obvious that, if the negotiations are fruitful, Israel is going to have to withdraw from the vast majority of its Area "C" settlements. There maybe some give and take along the fringes of the Armistice Line, in the end, the settlements (completely intact) will have to be given back to the State of Palestine (whoever/whatever that finally turns out to be). The new settlements probably workout in favor of the State of Palestine, because they will be urban improvements at Israel's expense.

However, as long as the State of Palestine obstructs or retards the development of a negotiated peace settlement, Israel is going to keep expanding, shrinking the control the government of Palestine has (applying political pressure). But I believe this is one of the easier aspects of the peace agreement arrangements.

There are several other aspects that are much more complicated; to include the cooperation of the Government of Gaza and the neutralization of the threats presented by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Qassam Brigade (and associates).

Another aspect of the negotiations will be the fair guarantor. There is virtually no one in the Middle East that trust the US to be a fair arbitrator of disputes as they unfold during the implementation of the Peace Arrangements. Who (third party) would be willing to accept the role of guarantor --- that is acceptable to both parties?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Perhaps people (not necessarily you) should take an honest and unbiased look at this particular case - without trying to pile on all the typical crap to distract from this specific situation - and ask themselves, would this be considered land theft in any other situation?

Palistanian settlers should stop thinking they have an exclusive right to what is Judea and Samaria and not some goddamn -stan.

These particular Palestinians are not settlers and they are the legal owners of that farmland that is in dispute. Even Israel seems to recognize that.

Basically, the international community should do itself a favor and dispense with being an example to the einsteinian definition of insanity with its peace-state-palistan drivel and undertake an international program of humanitarian resettlement of palistanians and integration of their brethren residing in other states. That'll be cool, of course.

A "humane" resettlement of the Palestinians isn't, though I'm sure it's convenient for some. There are those who think the best solution is remove all the Jews. There are those who think the best solution is to remove the Palestinians. And they justify their fanaticism by calling it humane.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

I think it is pretty clear that, while the Palestinians have trouble forming a coherent government (even after more than a quarter century), Israel cannot have the West Bank or Gaza Strip under any conditions.

I do not know the grand strategy behind the settlement program. But I suspect that the settlements are a way for the Israelis to bring pressure on the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that pressure is part of it - but there are two pressures involved here:

- putting pressure on the Palestinians in the form of "punishment" for "transgressions"
- relieving political pressure from settlers who feel they have a right to that land

Given that the article said: “in light of the shortage of farmland in the Jordan Valley, a shortage that is preventing the expansion of existing communities and the establishment of new ones.”

Which pressure do you think is at play here? Perhaps people (not necessarily you) should take an honest and unbiased look at this particular case - without trying to pile on all the typical crap to distract from this specific situation - and ask themselves, would this be considered land theft in any other situation?

(COMMENT)

It is fairly obvious that, if the negotiations are fruitful, Israel is going to have to withdraw from the vast majority of its Area "C" settlements. There maybe some give and take along the fringes of the Armistice Line, in the end, the settlements (completely intact) will have to be given back to the State of Palestine (whoever/whatever that finally turns out to be). The new settlements probably workout in favor of the State of Palestine, because they will be urban improvements at Israel's expense.

However, as long as the State of Palestine obstructs or retards the development of a negotiated peace settlement, Israel is going to keep expanding, shrinking the control the government of Palestine has (applying political pressure). But I believe this is one of the easier aspects of the peace agreement arrangements.

There are several other aspects that are much more complicated; to include the cooperation of the Government of Gaza and the neutralization of the threats presented by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Qassam Brigade (and associates).

Another aspect of the negotiations will be the fair guarantor. There is virtually no one in the Middle East that trust the US to be a fair arbitrator of disputes as they unfold during the implementation of the Peace Arrangements. Who (third party) would be willing to accept the role of guarantor --- that is acceptable to both parties?

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that's the million dollar question...

 

[docmauser1]

Palistanian settlers should stop thinking they have an exclusive right to what is Judea and Samaria and not some goddamn -stan.

These particular Palestinians are not settlers and they are the legal owners of that farmland that is in dispute. Even Israel seems to recognize that.

Yeah, all palistan is one privately-owned sovietski collective farm of a land. Funny.

Basically, the international community should do itself a favor and dispense with being an example to the einsteinian definition of insanity with its peace-state-palistan drivel and undertake an international program of humanitarian resettlement of palistanians and integration of their brethren residing in other states. That'll be cool, of course.

A "humane" resettlement of the Palestinians isn't, though I'm sure it's convenient for some. There are those who think the best solution is remove all the Jews. There are those who think the best solution is to remove the Palestinians. And they justify their fanaticism by calling it humane.

So, what's the pipe-dream of the day about the "prosperous" palistanian state then?

 

[docmauser1]

It is fairly obvious that, if the negotiations are fruitful, Israel is going to have to withdraw from the vast majority of its Area "C" settlements. There maybe some give and take along the fringes of the Armistice Line, in the end, the settlements (completely intact) will have to be given back to the State of Palestine (whoever/whatever that finally turns out to be). The new settlements probably workout in favor of the State of Palestine, because they will be urban improvements at Israel's expense.
However, as long as the State of Palestine obstructs or retards the development of a negotiated peace settlement, Israel is going to keep expanding, shrinking the control the government of Palestine has (applying political pressure). But I believe this is one of the easier aspects of the peace agreement arrangements.
There are several other aspects that are much more complicated; to include the cooperation of the Government of Gaza and the neutralization of the threats presented by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Qassam Brigade (and associates).
Another aspect of the negotiations will be the fair guarantor. There is virtually no one in the Middle East that trust the US to be a fair arbitrator of disputes as they unfold during the implementation of the Peace Arrangements. Who (third party) would be willing to accept the role of guarantor --- that is acceptable to both parties?

I think that's the million dollar question...

Oh! Now we have a problem! A state of palistan is supposed to be the solution to all problems, no? So, what will a guarantor guarantee?

 

[Coyote]

It is fairly obvious that, if the negotiations are fruitful, Israel is going to have to withdraw from the vast majority of its Area "C" settlements. There maybe some give and take along the fringes of the Armistice Line, in the end, the settlements (completely intact) will have to be given back to the State of Palestine (whoever/whatever that finally turns out to be). The new settlements probably workout in favor of the State of Palestine, because they will be urban improvements at Israel's expense.
However, as long as the State of Palestine obstructs or retards the development of a negotiated peace settlement, Israel is going to keep expanding, shrinking the control the government of Palestine has (applying political pressure). But I believe this is one of the easier aspects of the peace agreement arrangements.
There are several other aspects that are much more complicated; to include the cooperation of the Government of Gaza and the neutralization of the threats presented by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Qassam Brigade (and associates).
Another aspect of the negotiations will be the fair guarantor. There is virtually no one in the Middle East that trust the US to be a fair arbitrator of disputes as they unfold during the implementation of the Peace Arrangements. Who (third party) would be willing to accept the role of guarantor --- that is acceptable to both parties?

I think that's the million dollar question...

Oh! Now we have a problem! A state of palistan is supposed to be the solution to all problems, no? So, what will a guarantor guarantee?

What are you talking about?

 

[Coyote]

These particular Palestinians are not settlers and they are the legal owners of that farmland that is in dispute. Even Israel seems to recognize that.

Yeah, all palistan is one privately-owned sovietski collective farm of a land. Funny.

A "humane" resettlement of the Palestinians isn't, though I'm sure it's convenient for some. There are those who think the best solution is remove all the Jews. There are those who think the best solution is to remove the Palestinians. And they justify their fanaticism by calling it humane.

So, what's the pipe-dream of the day about the "prosperous" palistanian state then?

What are you talking about?

 

[docmauser1]

I think that's the million dollar question...

Oh! Now we have a problem! A state of palistan is supposed to be the solution to all problems, no? So, what will a guarantor guarantee?

What are you talking about?

Problems, of course. So, what our palistanian state theorists here propose for their solution? That guarantor, for example.

 

[Coyote]

Oh! Now we have a problem! A state of palistan is supposed to be the solution to all problems, no? So, what will a guarantor guarantee?

What are you talking about?

Problems, of course. So, what our palistanian state theorists here propose for their solution? That guarantor, for example.

No idea. That's why I said that is the big question - and it's not just the Palistinians, it's who both parties will trust. I am in agreement with Rocco on that one.

 

[RoccoR]

docmauser1, Coyote, et al,

There is a State of Palestine (SoP), but it remains a question as to whether or not there is a true Government of Palestine (GoP).

As you can see by P F Tinmore's commentary (example: Post #961 of the "Is Israel the Same as South Africa? thread) that there are factions that make the case that neither Yassar Arafat nor Abu Mazen had the representative authority to Declare Independence or request membership, or negotiate for peace.

This GoP is contesting itself. While HAMAS seemed to have won an election, it never developed the capacity to establish international relations. While FATAH has the capacity to enter into international relations, has won observer status, and can establish a dialog for peace, it has not won an election.

It is fairly obvious that, if the negotiations are fruitful, Israel is going to have to withdraw from the vast majority of its Area "C" settlements. There maybe some give and take along the fringes of the Armistice Line, in the end, the settlements (completely intact) will have to be given back to the State of Palestine (whoever/whatever that finally turns out to be). The new settlements probably workout in favor of the State of Palestine, because they will be urban improvements at Israel's expense.
However, as long as the State of Palestine obstructs or retards the development of a negotiated peace settlement, Israel is going to keep expanding, shrinking the control the government of Palestine has (applying political pressure). But I believe this is one of the easier aspects of the peace agreement arrangements.
There are several other aspects that are much more complicated; to include the cooperation of the Government of Gaza and the neutralization of the threats presented by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Qassam Brigade (and associates).
Another aspect of the negotiations will be the fair guarantor. There is virtually no one in the Middle East that trust the US to be a fair arbitrator of disputes as they unfold during the implementation of the Peace Arrangements. Who (third party) would be willing to accept the role of guarantor --- that is acceptable to both parties?

I think that's the million dollar question...

Oh! Now we have a problem! A state of palistan is supposed to be the solution to all problems, no? So, what will a guarantor guarantee?

(COMMENT)

The SoP does not (necessarily) have a GoP.

If Abu Mazen agrees to some arrangement, and HAMAS objects and declares it invalid, what happens?

• If there is a "civil war" between Palestinians?
  • If a "civil war" erupts between HAMAS controlled Gaza and the Israeli Occupied West Bank, is it then Israel's obligation to defend the West Bank against Gaza?
• Is any concord or agreement made between Israel and SoP/Abu Mazen:
  • Valid
  • Invalid
  • Abrogated
  • Dissolved
• If the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or the al-Qaasam Brigade, or any of the associated radical groups, opens hostilities (alla 1948) on the declaration of peace, who defends whom?

These are just but a few questions. The Palestinians know very little about running a country. They are not self-sustaining either politically or monetarily. It remains to be seen --- what happens.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

... These are just but a few questions. The Palestinians know very little about running a country. They are not self-sustaining either politically or monetarily. It remains to be seen --- what happens.

Aahhhh. Cool. As though 19 years of insane palistanian state experimentations haven't been enough, more insanity perpetuation is to be seen, of course. hehe

 

[Coyote]

They've never had complete sovereignty - little to no control over borders, water, resources, or the ability to make treaties or free trade and subject to blockades and demolation of infrastructure. The state may be run insanely but it's also never really been an independent state - it's hard to see how it could be truly self-sustaining under those conditions nor do I think it is really fair to compare it to truly self-governing states.

 

[Intense]

Hoffstra, et al,

Did you actually read the story? This is not about "racism."

Israel forbids Arabs from farming their own land but allows settlers to farm these lands.

this is why Arabs hate Israelis.

this is why many in the world, hate Israel and their supporters.

Document confirms World Zionist Organization allocates land to settlers in Jordan valley - Diplomacy and Defense Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), were not forbidden to farm based on "race."

The documents that have come into the possession of Haaretz indicate that following the June 1967 Six-Day War and after the border fence was completed, Palestinians continued to farm their lands located close to the border. But following a number of incidents in which Palestinian farmers in this area helped infiltrators to cross the border into Israeli-controlled territory, the entire area was declared a military zone. Several Palestinians who owned plots in the area submitted applications requesting permission to farm their lands; however, their requests were denied.

SOURCE: Document confirms World Zionist Organization allocates land to settlers in Jordan valley

The HoAP lost there farming rights near the border because they were found untrustworthy, and assisting infiltrators. Any other country would have done the same thing.

This was done based on military security interests; not racism.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is a Militarized Zone, granted. I would not want to be there when the shit hits the fan. Seems like an Instant Karma thing from where I sit. The land was taken by the Government without consent, payment, or compensation, or due process. It is being currently used by private individuals without the permission of the legal owners. I would not look at is a borrowed land. Show me where Righteousness has a place in this equation. I don't see it. Show the due process.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

To be sure, there is a certain amount of truth to this. BUT, it is not entirely Israel's fault. Nearly at any time during the last sixty, if not before, the Arab Palestinian could have sued for peace; in a number of different ways.

• Cessation of Hostilities or Ceasefire Agreements
• Pre-Negotiation Agreements
• Interim or Preliminary Agreements
• Comprehensive and Framework Agreements
• Implementation Agreements

Any one of these could have lifted the Occupation and begun a new relationship between the Israelis and Palestinians; assuming good faith.

They've never had complete sovereignty - little to no control over borders, water, resources, or the ability to make treaties or free trade and subject to blockades and demolation of infrastructure. The state may be run insanely but it's also never really been an independent state - it's hard to see how it could be truly self-sustaining under those conditions nor do I think it is really fair to compare it to truly self-governing states.

(COMMENT)

With minor exceptions, the Palestinians can recover all these.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

It is good to see that you understand the thousands of acres of privately-owned land in Arab League nations should never have been taken away from its Jewish owners without ay compensation, and that it has benefitted no one for the AL nations to have committed such theft.

I'm sure Sunni will join you in calling upon the AL nations to provide full compensation to the 950,000 or so citizens whose property and lands were seized by government decree simply because those citizens were Jews........

all Jews who fled the Arab/Muslim world after the Arab-Israel War should be able to return to their former lands immediately.

they should of course be able to sell those lands if they prefer to live in Israel, France, the USA, etc.

But yes, the Jews have a right to their lands back.

all Jews who fled the Arab/Muslim world after the Arab-Israel War should be able to return to their former lands immediately. .

As if your saying it makes an ounce of difference in the matter over 70 years later, or that should the displaced Jews go back, they will last alive more than 24 hours.

they should of course be able to sell those lands if they prefer to live in Israel, France, the USA, etc.

Shall they say they got a permission slip from you as they get lined up for execution?

But yes, the Jews have a right to their lands back.

Thanks again. This generous announcement of concern will be passed along to the approximately 3.5 million Jews and their descendants that fled the Arab Muslim pogroms.

 

[Roudy]

Rocco, you're clearly a rational and thoughtful guy.

How can you accept this?

The truth.

 

[Roudy]

Hoffstra, et al,

Did you actually read the story? This is not about "racism."

Israel forbids Arabs from farming their own land but allows settlers to farm these lands.

this is why Arabs hate Israelis.

this is why many in the world, hate Israel and their supporters.

Document confirms World Zionist Organization allocates land to settlers in Jordan valley - Diplomacy and Defense Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), were not forbidden to farm based on "race."

The documents that have come into the possession of Haaretz indicate that following the June 1967 Six-Day War and after the border fence was completed, Palestinians continued to farm their lands located close to the border. But following a number of incidents in which Palestinian farmers in this area helped infiltrators to cross the border into Israeli-controlled territory, the entire area was declared a military zone. Several Palestinians who owned plots in the area submitted applications requesting permission to farm their lands; however, their requests were denied.

SOURCE: Document confirms World Zionist Organization allocates land to settlers in Jordan valley

The HoAP lost there farming rights near the border because they were found untrustworthy, and assisting infiltrators. Any other country would have done the same thing.

This was done based on military security interests; not racism.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is a Militarized Zone, granted. I would not want to be there when the shit hits the fan. Seems like an Instant Karma thing from where I sit. The land was taken by the Government without consent, payment, or compensation, or due process. It is being currently used by private individuals without the permission of the legal owners. I would not look at is a borrowed land. Show me where Righteousness has a place in this equation. I don't see it. Show the due process.

The land was not "taken", nor was it part of any Arab state. It was used to attack Israel by four Arab nations (with the assistance of their Palestinian brethren), in order to destroy Israel. Israel then occupied the area after the Arabs suffered a humiliating defeat. What would the Arabs have had Israel suffered a defeat? Surely there wouldn't be talk of anything other than slaughtering the remaining Jews that are alive.

IF there is any returning of land to the defeated aggressors, it should be based on a negotiated and acceptable settlement to both sides, under conditions where a peaceful resolution can be reached. Those conditions as of the last 40 years just haven't been provided by the Palestinians.

 

[Connery]

Now that this matter has been brought to light, those farmers who have been displaced, who cannot farm there and who had owned the land should be compensated for the land. Politics or national cause has no place in the equities regarding this issue.

If a doctrine similar to "Eminent Domain" has been invoked then the land should not go to people that the government has chosen, to no one or revert back to those who owned it prior to the "taking".

As it stands this matter has yet to be seen through conclusion and I hope Israel does the right thing.

 

[Hoffstra]

Its interesting how the same people who want the world to feel sympathy for the Israelis and even the Israeli settlers when they are victims of political violence, refuse to bat an eye or feel any sympathy for Arabs who have had their land stolen and farmed by thieves.

Sorry folks, but when YOU can feel no sympathy when Arabs have their land stolen and farmed by thieves, then I can feel no sympathy when settlers and soldiers are victims of political violence.

If YOUR heart is hard and cold, then so shall be mine!!