Palestine Today

[Coyote]

If it were not political, why are Arabs not granted permits to settle in Area C?

You would have to first prove your claim that Arabs are not granted permits to settle in Area C.

I've done so in another post - majority - VAST majority - are denied.

I am not finding that link.

Post
#13566

 

[Shusha]

A "settlement" is simply a place where people live. The twisting of the term into a "bad thing that Jews do" should be corrected.

 

[Rigby5]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen this before.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a conjuring of the theory that IF the arrangement of words and phrases to create the impression of validity is repeated often enough, THEN it will miraculously become true.

The term "refugee," in the case of the Arab Palestinians, is an approximation towards the truth, but not the truth. In mathematics we call this "bad notation" or improper "syntax." But when you know better, and still do it, you are encouraging disinformation. In the realm of honesty, it should be avoided in general.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is close. Actually, by international law, the status of "occupation" is defined in Article 42, of the 1907 Hague Regulation.

View attachment 294056​

Yes, there is some room to argue about this...

◈ Since the Arab Palestinians never established sovereignty over any territory except Area "A" was any of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied Territory in the aftermath of the Six-Day War?

◈ Since the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1988, while it was under Israeli control, was that territory ever occupied by a hostile Army?

◈ Since Israel cannot effectively control the Gaza Strip, and cannot maintain authority, it never had, and cannot exercise authority (effective control), is it legally occupied territory?​

(COMMENT)

Well, that is based on how you interpret the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954).

For the purpose of this Convention, the try in which he finds himself, which require term "stateless person" means a person who is in particular that he conform to its laws and not considered as a national by any State under regulations as well as to measures taken for the operation of its law.
​

Now there are a couple of notable exceptions to the convention and the two that stand out the most relative to Arab Palestinians are:

◈ The definition doesn't apply to those persons under UNHCR support. But does apply to those receiving UNRWA Services.

◈ It does not apply to those that have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, which would leave out favorable consideration (but not limited) to:

✦ Arab Palestinians who were members of organizations that were financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;

✦ Those involved or proving support to the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Those involved in the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party.

✦ The unlawful use of an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​

That would leave out a large segment of Arab Palestinians, especially those thousand and thousands of demonstrators that were involved in the fire kits and balloons from the Gaza Strip.

DID I miss anything?


Most Respectfully,
R

As with the Geneva Conventions, it is only an occupation if the territory of a hostile state is taken, but since no one but Pakistan and the UK considered Judea and Samaria to be Jordanian territory, Israel's capture of the land cannot be considered an occupation. Furthermore, since there is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling the territory Palestinian territory, the term, occupied Palestinian territory, has no substantial meaning other than that the person who states it wants it to be Palestinians territory, in other words, it is purely a propaganda term. People who use these terms are the enemies of peace and progress in the ME.

Totally wrong.
Palestine was established by the Allies according to their promise during WWI.
The Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, etc., established Palestine as a defined and legal political entity.

Israel on the other hand, is just a whim of the UN, as a gesture to a bunch of European refugee immigrants.
There is no legal, historical, or religious basis for Israel.

The same documents also recognized a Jewish homeland.

Israel exists, and has for coming on 75 years as a nation. That is older than a number of other nations today. Get over it.

These documents do NOT recognize a Jewish home land as having sovereignty.
They recognize a Jewish home land within an free Arab, Muslim, Palestine.
If you do not believe me, then read the 1922 Churchill Whitepaper that explains it in great detail.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment. Hitherto the immigration has fulfilled these conditions. The number of immigrants since the British occupation has been about 25,000.
...}

When it comes to those documents and period of history, I usually defer to people like RoccoR who have a more extensive knowledge than I.

But regardless...it's really irrelevant today. It does not matter at all except to those who are trying to make arguments justifying the rights to and control of one side or the other to larger or smaller areas of territory.

It's not going to alter the fact of the existence of a sovereign nation that is established has itself as a nation for almost 75 years now.

That makes no sense because first of all, Israel exists by virtue of the latest US weapons, like bombers, tanks, fighter planes, etc., as well as over $5 billion a year in foreign aid. And second it makes no sense because a well armed and vicious minority that takes over by force is evil and not to be allowed. A sovereign nation has to support the right of the indigenous natives, not recent invaders.

 

[Shusha]

If it were not political, why are Arabs not granted permits to settle in Area C?

You would have to first prove your claim that Arabs are not granted permits to settle in Area C.

I've done so in another post - majority - VAST majority - are denied.

I am not finding that link.

Post
#13566

This

2007
Palestine Today
A UN agency said that Israel has denied 94 percent of Palestinian requests for building permits in West Bank areas under its full control.

Leads to another page on this thread....?

 

[Rigby5]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "toomuchtime_,

I don't believe that "Coyote" is racist.

(COMMENT)

Having an honest opinion to the contrary is NOT the same as being "racist."

The Israelis are many more times diverse (in terms of race) than any of the adjacent Arab League States. I don't beleive "Coyote" forms or holds her opinion on the basis of some racist foundation. I don't see any evidence to support that.


Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you R, and I agree (and have many times said) that Israel is very diverse and a pluralistic nation of people from all over the world which gives it a unique perspective in that part of the world.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.
If one is hereditarily Jewish, then one is Arab by race.
The word "Semitic" actually means one who speaks a native Arab language.
Israel is about the single most restrictive and unpluralistic nation in the world, where 6 million immigrant Jews rule over the 12 million Arab Muslim natives.
Even the Christians consider Israeli Zionists to be incredibly bigoted and discriminatory.

Have you ever heard of Saudi Arabia?

The rest is just standard antisemitic gobbledygook.

What does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything?
Saudi Arabia is Arab and Moslem, but the fact the Hebrew tribes went to Medina in Saudi Arabia after the Romans kicked them out of Palestine, has little to do with modern Jews or Palestine?

...the single most restrictive and unpluralistic nation in the world,

What other country would have the gall to call itself a nation of a religion that is only loosely held by a recent immigrant minority?
There is no other nation in the world except the vatican, that claims to be dedicated to a single religion.
And clearly no nation claiming one religion should ever be allowed, much less one where the religion is not even the majority.

 

[Rigby5]

A "settlement" is simply a place where people live. The twisting of the term into a "bad thing that Jews do" should be corrected.

A settlement is a very bad thing when it is built on land stolen from indigenous natives, and the indigenous natives are excluded from the land they legally owned and had paid for.

 

[Coyote]

A "settlement" is simply a place where people live. The twisting of the term into a "bad thing that Jews do" should be corrected.

No, this is not a matter of "correcting" - it's a matter of "redefining" something to alter its meaning.

Whether an Israeli settlement is a good thing or bad thing depends on your point of view. In and of itself - it's neither.

It's Jewish people spreading out into a land their ancestors had occupied thousands of years ago and creating new communities.

It's a political program subsidized by the government, designed to alter the ethnic demographics of an area, that is in dispute, in order to leverage that nation's control of it should the dispute ever be resolved.

It is a program that de-facto gives preferential treatment to one ethnic group in establishing these communities through it's permitting process.


All are accurate. Trying to redefine it as the generic term "settlement is a place where people lives" ignores the complexity of what it really is and means to the different people involved.

 

[Shusha]

You yourself said you one of your criticisms of Israel is that it should issue more permits to Arabs. Have you changed your mind about that and now label it "demonizing Jews and Israel"?

Yes. But you neglected to remember and post WHY. I said that Israel should just annex all the parts of Area C she intends to keep. All the Palestinians willing to would become Israeli citizens and would get ALL THE GOODIES.

 

[Coyote]

If it were not political, why are Arabs not granted permits to settle in Area C?

You would have to first prove your claim that Arabs are not granted permits to settle in Area C.

I've done so in another post - majority - VAST majority - are denied.

I am not finding that link.

Post
#13566

This

2007
Palestine Today
A UN agency said that Israel has denied 94 percent of Palestinian requests for building permits in West Bank areas under its full control.

Leads to another page on this thread....?

hmm...weird...wrong link. Not sure how I got that one!

Here: UN: Israel has denied 94% of requests for West Bank building permits

 

[Shusha]

You would have to first prove your claim that Arabs are not granted permits to settle in Area C.

I've done so in another post - majority - VAST majority - are denied.

I am not finding that link.

Post
#13566

This

2007
Palestine Today
A UN agency said that Israel has denied 94 percent of Palestinian requests for building permits in West Bank areas under its full control.

Leads to another page on this thread....?

hmm...weird...wrong link. Not sure how I got that one!

Here: UN: Israel has denied 94% of requests for West Bank building permits

Seriously? That's a three paragraph article from more than ten years ago. Did you do any looking into what the report actually says? Or what is happening now?

Or did you just google something that you think must be true because it seems to support your pre-conceived notions?

 

[Coyote]

I've done so in another post - majority - VAST majority - are denied.

I am not finding that link.

Post
#13566

This

2007
Palestine Today
A UN agency said that Israel has denied 94 percent of Palestinian requests for building permits in West Bank areas under its full control.

Leads to another page on this thread....?

hmm...weird...wrong link. Not sure how I got that one!

Here: UN: Israel has denied 94% of requests for West Bank building permits

Seriously? That's a three paragraph article from more than ten years ago. Did you do any looking into what the report actually says? Or what is happening now?

Or did you just google something that you think must be true because it seems to support your pre-conceived notions?

Seriously yes.

I quoted that one from 2007 (and the date was NOTED above it) and then one from 2019 that said essentially the same thing. IE not a lot had changed. But I guess you ignored that in your haste to claim it wrong.

If you dispute what it says - then provide evidence that it is wrong.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A "settlement" is simply a place where people live. The twisting of the term into a "bad thing that Jews do" should be corrected.

No, this is not a matter of "correcting" - it's a matter of "redefining" something to alter its meaning.

Whether an Israeli settlement is a good thing or bad thing depends on your point of view. In and of itself - it's neither.

It's Jewish people spreading out into a land their ancestors had occupied thousands of years ago and creating new communities.

It's a political program subsidized by the government, designed to alter the ethnic demographics of an area, that is in dispute, in order to leverage that nation's control of it should the dispute ever be resolved.

It is a program that de-facto gives preferential treatment to one ethnic group in establishing these communities through it's permitting process.


All are accurate. Trying to redefine it as the generic term "settlement is a place where people lives" ignores the complexity of what it really is and means to the different people involved.

"It's a political program subsidized by the government, designed to alter the ethnic demographics of an area, that is in dispute, in order to leverage that nation's control of it should the dispute ever be resolved."

You've been talking to the Tooth Fairy again, haven't you? Resolved how? There is no rational basis for believing any agreement will be found that will give area C to the PA or Hamas so there is no rational basis for you to complain about Israeli settlements in area C. The issue has been settled and since that is the case, there is rational basis for you to complain about Israel asserting sovereignty over its communities in are C.

 

[Shusha]

I am not finding that link.

Post
#13566

This

2007
Palestine Today
A UN agency said that Israel has denied 94 percent of Palestinian requests for building permits in West Bank areas under its full control.

Leads to another page on this thread....?

hmm...weird...wrong link. Not sure how I got that one!

Here: UN: Israel has denied 94% of requests for West Bank building permits

Seriously? That's a three paragraph article from more than ten years ago. Did you do any looking into what the report actually says? Or what is happening now?

Or did you just google something that you think must be true because it seems to support your pre-conceived notions?

Seriously yes.

I quoted that one from 2007 (and the date was NOTED above it) and then one from 2019 that said essentially the same thing. IE not a lot had changed. But I guess you ignored that in your haste to claim it wrong.

If you dispute what it says - then provide evidence that it is wrong.

The news article from 2019 makes the same claim that you do, but again provides nothing to back it up. It does seem like you are looking for articles which match your pre-conceived notions, rather than actually exploring the topic.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This is her goal which will never happen according to the "INTERNATIONAL LAW" we hear so much about

Ms. Tlaib, a lawyer and former state legislator, said during her campaign that she would “absolutely” vote against military aid to Israel. She also said she would be open to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would create a single state that would include Israel within its 1948 borders, the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip under one democratic government, a position some fear would erode Israel as a Jewish homeland.

Dr. Shibley Telhami, who conducted the University of Maryland poll, wrote Wednesday that rising support for a one-state solution is likely a result of despair from the possibility of implementing a two-state solution. “When one considers that many Israelis and Palestinians, as well as many Middle East experts, already believe that a two-state solution is no longer possible, especially given the large expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, it’s not hard to see why more people would be drawn to a one-state solution,” he wrote.

 

[Rigby5]

A "settlement" is simply a place where people live. The twisting of the term into a "bad thing that Jews do" should be corrected.

No, this is not a matter of "correcting" - it's a matter of "redefining" something to alter its meaning.

Whether an Israeli settlement is a good thing or bad thing depends on your point of view. In and of itself - it's neither.

It's Jewish people spreading out into a land their ancestors had occupied thousands of years ago and creating new communities.

It's a political program subsidized by the government, designed to alter the ethnic demographics of an area, that is in dispute, in order to leverage that nation's control of it should the dispute ever be resolved.

It is a program that de-facto gives preferential treatment to one ethnic group in establishing these communities through it's permitting process.


All are accurate. Trying to redefine it as the generic term "settlement is a place where people lives" ignores the complexity of what it really is and means to the different people involved.

No, Israel is not the lands of the ancestors of modern Jews.
The Hebrew tribes did not invade until around 1000 BC, were never the majority, and were defeated and made to leave constantly.
The Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, etc. kicked them back out.
And Jews are so divorced from the Mideast, that they do not at all belong there.

 

[Coyote]

Settlement Report: August 2, 2019 - Foundation for Middle East Peace

715 permits for Palestinian units.

and...in addition to the 6,000 units approved this week, during a campaign stop at the Efrat settlement on July 31st, Netanyahu promised to advance plans for 8,250 new housing units in Efrat. Netanyahu also reiterated his (now common) refrain that he will not allow a single settler to be removed.

Another source for same: PM said to float plan for Palestinian building permits in West Bank’s Area C


Part of the problem for the Palestinians needing these permits is that they can not expand legally, and are becoming too densely populated.

 

[Coyote]

A "settlement" is simply a place where people live. The twisting of the term into a "bad thing that Jews do" should be corrected.

No, this is not a matter of "correcting" - it's a matter of "redefining" something to alter its meaning.

Whether an Israeli settlement is a good thing or bad thing depends on your point of view. In and of itself - it's neither.

It's Jewish people spreading out into a land their ancestors had occupied thousands of years ago and creating new communities.

It's a political program subsidized by the government, designed to alter the ethnic demographics of an area, that is in dispute, in order to leverage that nation's control of it should the dispute ever be resolved.

It is a program that de-facto gives preferential treatment to one ethnic group in establishing these communities through it's permitting process.


All are accurate. Trying to redefine it as the generic term "settlement is a place where people lives" ignores the complexity of what it really is and means to the different people involved.

No, Israel is not the lands of the ancestors of modern Jews.
The Hebrew tribes did not invade until around 1000 BC, were never the majority, and were defeated and made to leave constantly.
The Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, etc. kicked them back out.
And Jews are so divorced from the Mideast, that they do not at all belong there.

You are not too familiar with the archaeological record are you?

 

[Rigby5]

You yourself said you one of your criticisms of Israel is that it should issue more permits to Arabs. Have you changed your mind about that and now label it "demonizing Jews and Israel"?

Yes. But you neglected to remember and post WHY. I said that Israel should just annex all the parts of Area C she intends to keep. All the Palestinians willing to would become Israeli citizens and would get ALL THE GOODIES.

That is a lie.
Israeli Arabs still get nothing, and can have everything taken away.
They can not even use the same schools, hospitals, or roads even.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli bullshit, of course. The PA only (almost) controls only 18% of the Bethlehem governorate. The rest of it is Israel ******* over the Christians.

The PA controls 18% of the territory, but 88% of the Arab population of Bethlehem reside in Areas A and B, under PA control.

Indeed, Israel is moving all Palestinians into bantustans.

 

[Rigby5]

A "settlement" is simply a place where people live. The twisting of the term into a "bad thing that Jews do" should be corrected.

No, this is not a matter of "correcting" - it's a matter of "redefining" something to alter its meaning.

Whether an Israeli settlement is a good thing or bad thing depends on your point of view. In and of itself - it's neither.

It's Jewish people spreading out into a land their ancestors had occupied thousands of years ago and creating new communities.

It's a political program subsidized by the government, designed to alter the ethnic demographics of an area, that is in dispute, in order to leverage that nation's control of it should the dispute ever be resolved.

It is a program that de-facto gives preferential treatment to one ethnic group in establishing these communities through it's permitting process.


All are accurate. Trying to redefine it as the generic term "settlement is a place where people lives" ignores the complexity of what it really is and means to the different people involved.

No, Israel is not the lands of the ancestors of modern Jews.
The Hebrew tribes did not invade until around 1000 BC, were never the majority, and were defeated and made to leave constantly.
The Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, etc. kicked them back out.
And Jews are so divorced from the Mideast, that they do not at all belong there.

You are not too familiar with the archaeological record are you?

There is absolutely no historical record of Jews in Palestine before 1000 BC.
before the 400 years in Egypt, they did not come from or live in the Land of Canaan.
The Canaanites did.