Settlements

[Coyote]

You should be embarrassed that you don't know the definition of the settlements.

The definition of "settlements" is problematic, of itself, let alone discussing them. I believe I mentioned that in the OP.

Why is Arab Jerusalem not considered a settlement?

Is it new communities being built for Palestinians in territory negotiated as part of Israel?

 

[Indeependent]

Actually what is wrong with the source Teddy?

It doesn't say what he wants. Note, he disputed none of the facts.

To Israel’s credit they HAVE finally started cracking down on these homegrown terrorists, something we haven’t yet seen from the Palestinian leadership.

The settlements and the brutality that goes along are expanding and give examples of what we haven’t yet seen from the Palestinian leadership.

Are they still rewarding terrorist acts?

Depends on whose name calling you prescribe to.

Israelis get college scholarships when they bomb the crap out of civilians in Gaza.

Good.
Bombing armed civilians in Gaza is a must.

 

[Shusha]

What I meant was Israel has steadily been building settlements in East Jerusalem for years. East Jerusalem was supposed to belong to Palestine as you noted. That status did not change with Olmert. So no, Israel has not been restricting her settlements to territory negotiated as hers

There has been no negotiation. There has long been an expected "status quo" with regards to certain likelihoods in a negotiated agreement:

Green Line with land swaps
East Jerusalem as part of Palestine
Hebron as part of Palestine
etc

We know this to be true because Olmert offered all of this. That plan -- that "status quo" -- was rejected by the Arab Palestinians. They actively demonstrated that they are not going to accept a negotiated deal based on the accepted "status quo". And that DID change things. Israel fully expected to give up land and control over holy places and some measure of security in exchange for peace. But knowing, as of 2008, that the Arabs refuse accept the expected deal, Israel is making unilateral decisions. There is no point in giving up land and holy places and security for a continued war. So Israel is taking what she feels she needs to protect herself. Does it suck for the Palestinians, shrug, maybe? But if they won't negotiate -- what is Israel to do?

 

[Coyote]

Actually what is wrong with the source Teddy?

It doesn't say what he wants. Note, he disputed none of the facts.

To Israel’s credit they HAVE finally started cracking down on these homegrown terrorists, something we haven’t yet seen from the Palestinian leadership.

The settlements and the brutality that goes along are expanding and give examples of what we haven’t yet seen from the Palestinian leadership.

Are they still rewarding terrorist acts?

Depends on whose name calling you prescribe to.

Israelis get college scholarships when they bomb the crap out of civilians in Gaza.

I was thinking of the fellows who slit the throats of the Fogelsville family right down to the children. You can legitimately argue that Israel’s actions in Gaza are defense against frequent rockets fired into civilian areas. You can also make the argument that it was disproportionate response But there is absolutely no way you can say that murdering children is anything but murder. So why do acts like that perpetrated on civilians get rewarded?

 

[Shusha]

You should be embarrassed that you don't know the definition of the settlements.

The definition of "settlements" is problematic, of itself, let alone discussing them. I believe I mentioned that in the OP.

Why is Arab Jerusalem not considered a settlement?

Is it new communities being built for Palestinians in territory negotiated as part of Israel?

Is that how you define a "settlement"? New communities built on land that the other peoples want? Is expansion of existing communities legit?

 

[Coyote]

What I meant was Israel has steadily been building settlements in East Jerusalem for years. East Jerusalem was supposed to belong to Palestine as you noted. That status did not change with Olmert. So no, Israel has not been restricting her settlements to territory negotiated as hers

There has been no negotiation. There has long been an expected "status quo" with regards to certain likelihoods in a negotiated agreement:

Green Line with land swaps
East Jerusalem as part of Palestine
Hebron as part of Palestine
etc

We know this to be true because Olmert offered all of this. That plan -- that "status quo" -- was rejected by the Arab Palestinians. They actively demonstrated that they are not going to accept a negotiated deal based on the accepted "status quo". And that DID change things. Israel fully expected to give up land and control over holy places and some measure of security in exchange for peace. But knowing, as of 2008, that the Arabs refuse accept the expected deal, Israel is making unilateral decisions. There is no point in giving up land and holy places and security for a continued war. So Israel is taking what she feels she needs to protect herself. Does it suck for the Palestinians, shrug, maybe? But if they won't negotiate -- what is Israel to do?

I disagree with that. Rejecting Olmert’s deal does not render prior agreements null and void. And that doesn’t even bring into consideration that Olmert was so politically weak he likely couldn’t have followed through on the deal and the Palestinians knew it.

Effectively you are saying Israel can do whatever she wants and that includes building settlements in territory that absolutely was not hers as you defined it initially.

So settlements aren’t an impediment to peace?

 

[Coyote]

You should be embarrassed that you don't know the definition of the settlements.

The definition of "settlements" is problematic, of itself, let alone discussing them. I believe I mentioned that in the OP.

Why is Arab Jerusalem not considered a settlement?

Is it new communities being built for Palestinians in territory negotiated as part of Israel?

Is that how you define a "settlement"? New communities built on land that the other peoples want? Is expansion of existing communities legit?

It is questionable.

 

[Lastamender]

What I meant was Israel has steadily been building settlements in East Jerusalem for years. East Jerusalem was supposed to belong to Palestine as you noted. That status did not change with Olmert. So no, Israel has not been restricting her settlements to territory negotiated as hers

There has been no negotiation. There has long been an expected "status quo" with regards to certain likelihoods in a negotiated agreement:

Green Line with land swaps
East Jerusalem as part of Palestine
Hebron as part of Palestine
etc

We know this to be true because Olmert offered all of this. That plan -- that "status quo" -- was rejected by the Arab Palestinians. They actively demonstrated that they are not going to accept a negotiated deal based on the accepted "status quo". And that DID change things. Israel fully expected to give up land and control over holy places and some measure of security in exchange for peace. But knowing, as of 2008, that the Arabs refuse accept the expected deal, Israel is making unilateral decisions. There is no point in giving up land and holy places and security for a continued war. So Israel is taking what she feels she needs to protect herself. Does it suck for the Palestinians, shrug, maybe? But if they won't negotiate -- what is Israel to do?

I disagree with that. Rejecting Olmert’s deal does not render prior agreements null and void. And that doesn’t even bring into consideration that Olmert was so politically weak he likely couldn’t have followed through on the deal and the Palestinians knew it.

Effectively you are saying Israel can do whatever she wants and that includes building settlements in territory that absolutely was not hers as you defined it initially.

So settlements aren’t an impediment to peace?

Once again you ignore the real threat to peace. Islam. There will be no peace as long as Islam exists, period.

 

[Indeependent]

What I meant was Israel has steadily been building settlements in East Jerusalem for years. East Jerusalem was supposed to belong to Palestine as you noted. That status did not change with Olmert. So no, Israel has not been restricting her settlements to territory negotiated as hers

There has been no negotiation. There has long been an expected "status quo" with regards to certain likelihoods in a negotiated agreement:

Green Line with land swaps
East Jerusalem as part of Palestine
Hebron as part of Palestine
etc

We know this to be true because Olmert offered all of this. That plan -- that "status quo" -- was rejected by the Arab Palestinians. They actively demonstrated that they are not going to accept a negotiated deal based on the accepted "status quo". And that DID change things. Israel fully expected to give up land and control over holy places and some measure of security in exchange for peace. But knowing, as of 2008, that the Arabs refuse accept the expected deal, Israel is making unilateral decisions. There is no point in giving up land and holy places and security for a continued war. So Israel is taking what she feels she needs to protect herself. Does it suck for the Palestinians, shrug, maybe? But if they won't negotiate -- what is Israel to do?

I disagree with that. Rejecting Olmert’s deal does not render prior agreements null and void. And that doesn’t even bring into consideration that Olmert was so politically weak he likely couldn’t have followed through on the deal and the Palestinians knew it.

Effectively you are saying Israel can do whatever she wants and that includes building settlements in territory that absolutely was not hers as you defined it initially.

So settlements aren’t an impediment to peace?

Which, of course, means that the West Bank Jordanians can do whatever they want, including stabbing Jews and collecting welfare from Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually what is wrong with the source Teddy?

It doesn't say what he wants. Note, he disputed none of the facts.

To Israel’s credit they HAVE finally started cracking down on these homegrown terrorists, something we haven’t yet seen from the Palestinian leadership.

The settlements and the brutality that goes along are expanding and give examples of what we haven’t yet seen from the Palestinian leadership.

Are they still rewarding terrorist acts?

Depends on whose name calling you prescribe to.

Israelis get college scholarships when they bomb the crap out of civilians in Gaza.

I was thinking of the fellows who slit the throats of the Fogelsville family right down to the children. You can legitimately argue that Israel’s actions in Gaza are defense against frequent rockets fired into civilian areas. You can also make the argument that it was disproportionate response But there is absolutely no way you can say that murdering children is anything but murder. So why do acts like that perpetrated on civilians get rewarded?

The Fogel family was a crime but I don't think it could be classified as terrorism.

The blockade on Gaza is a daily act of war against the Palestinians. Are they not allowed to respond by whatever meager means they have?

BTW, is it terrorism to send rockets into illegal settlements?

 

[Indeependent]

Actually what is wrong with the source Teddy?

It doesn't say what he wants. Note, he disputed none of the facts.

To Israel’s credit they HAVE finally started cracking down on these homegrown terrorists, something we haven’t yet seen from the Palestinian leadership.

The settlements and the brutality that goes along are expanding and give examples of what we haven’t yet seen from the Palestinian leadership.

Are they still rewarding terrorist acts?

Depends on whose name calling you prescribe to.

Israelis get college scholarships when they bomb the crap out of civilians in Gaza.

I was thinking of the fellows who slit the throats of the Fogelsville family right down to the children. You can legitimately argue that Israel’s actions in Gaza are defense against frequent rockets fired into civilian areas. You can also make the argument that it was disproportionate response But there is absolutely no way you can say that murdering children is anything but murder. So why do acts like that perpetrated on civilians get rewarded?

The Fogel family was a crime but I don't think it could be classified as terrorism.

The blockade on Gaza is a daily act of war against the Palestinians. Are they not allowed to respond by whatever meager means they have?

BTW, is it terrorism to send rockets into illegal settlements?

Yes, keeping Jew killing weapons out of the hands of Hamas is an act of war...against wanna be Jew murderers.
It bothers you? Good.

 

[Lastamender]

Actually what is wrong with the source Teddy?

It doesn't say what he wants. Note, he disputed none of the facts.

To Israel’s credit they HAVE finally started cracking down on these homegrown terrorists, something we haven’t yet seen from the Palestinian leadership.

The settlements and the brutality that goes along are expanding and give examples of what we haven’t yet seen from the Palestinian leadership.

Are they still rewarding terrorist acts?

Depends on whose name calling you prescribe to.

Israelis get college scholarships when they bomb the crap out of civilians in Gaza.

I was thinking of the fellows who slit the throats of the Fogelsville family right down to the children. You can legitimately argue that Israel’s actions in Gaza are defense against frequent rockets fired into civilian areas. You can also make the argument that it was disproportionate response But there is absolutely no way you can say that murdering children is anything but murder. So why do acts like that perpetrated on civilians get rewarded?

The Fogel family was a crime but I don't think it could be classified as terrorism.

The blockade on Gaza is a daily act of war against the Palestinians. Are they not allowed to respond by whatever meager means they have?

BTW, is it terrorism to send rockets into illegal settlements?

Killing a baby is not terror? What do you consider worse?

 

[Shusha]

I disagree with that. Rejecting Olmert’s deal does not render prior agreements null and void. And that doesn’t even bring into consideration that Olmert was so politically weak he likely couldn’t have followed through on the deal and the Palestinians knew it.

Effectively you are saying Israel can do whatever she wants and that includes building settlements in territory that absolutely was not hers as you defined it initially.

So settlements aren’t an impediment to peace?

What prior agreements? The only "prior agreement" is the Oslo Accords which gives Israel custodianship over all of Area C. Full civil and military control. So where is Israel rendering prior agreements "null and void"?

No, what happened, AGAIN, is that Arab Palestine refused the deal which gave them everything they supposedly asked for.

I am most certainly saying that Israel CAN do whatever she wants. She is most certainly powerful enough to do whatever she wants. She has restrained herself admirably, imo. She is actively choosing NOT to do whatever she wants.

I think you must mistake my position. My entire point in these threads is that the territory is (at best) disputed. There is NO territory which is definitively NOT belonging to one or the other. There was only an expected "status quo" for lack of a better term. (And my foundation argument is that it is ALL legally Israel but she doesn't want a majority Arab population for obvious reasons and she refuses to ethnically cleanse them on moral grounds).

No, I don't think settlements are an obstacle to peace. I DO think that Arab Palestinians claim them as an obstacle as an excuse and because they desire a Jew-free State. (Which I find morally unsavoury).

But, ask:

1. Why did Arab Palestine reject a negotiated peace deal which gave them everything they said they wanted?
2. Why, after decades of careful restraint, has Israel suddenly decided to make some unilateral decisions and assert her authority over territory?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Settlements
※→ Shusha, Coyote, et al,

I'm not absolutely sure (problem on my part) what is being talked about here.

Usually there is a difference between "Pretrial detention" which is usually associated as an option on the matter of confinement between arrest and trial. "House/Home Arrest" is an alternative consideration on the matter of Incarceration after sentencing.

Because different venues and jurisdiction use different terminology, it is best to think of it as:

• Confinement between arrest and trial...
• Consideration on the matter of Incarceration after sentencing...​

I assume we are talking about alternatives to Incarceration after sentencing.

There is evidence to show a disparity in how they are penalized. For example house arrest vs jail. Palestinian youths are often pressured to plea bargain as well, not so with others.

Good points about looking at specific cases, not sure how to find that data in an unbiased form though.

Yeah. Finding good stats on this is nearly impossible.

(COMMENT)

In places like the Middle East (like the West Bank), in the areas where (much like larger metro areas in the US) the detainee transitions from the accused to the convicted, a number of considerations come into play (especially in cases of minors).

✪ Previous Criminal Record or Recidivism and Police Confrontation.
✪ The magnitude or seriousness of the offense.

• The nature of the personal injury.
• Loss or damage resulting from the offense.​

✪ The contrition demonstrated by the convicted shown for the offense through reparation.
✪ Mental Condition; Physical Disability or Cognitive Impairment​

These are just a few considerations; but the big one is whether or not the convicted has the confidence and ability to escape and evade the pursuit of law enforcement. And this single consideration is one of the biggest persuasive factors. Arab Palestinians that have attended Jihadi/Protagonist summer training may not actually know how how to defeat to electronic monitoring and surveillance, but in all probability knows how to contact an asset that can defeat such. This is a significantly different risk than that of a Area "C" convicted personality with Israeli citizenship.

All these potential characteristics and traits come into considered and evaluated.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

You should be embarrassed that you don't know the definition of the settlements.

The definition of "settlements" is problematic, of itself, let alone discussing them. I believe I mentioned that in the OP.

Why is Arab Jerusalem not considered a settlement?

Is it new communities being built for Palestinians in territory negotiated as part of Israel?

Is that how you define a "settlement"? New communities built on land that the other peoples want? Is expansion of existing communities legit?

It is questionable.

So, would you agree that any building by Arabs in East Jerusalem (expansion of existing communites) should be considered "settlement"?

 

[Coyote]

You should be embarrassed that you don't know the definition of the settlements.

The definition of "settlements" is problematic, of itself, let alone discussing them. I believe I mentioned that in the OP.

Why is Arab Jerusalem not considered a settlement?

Is it new communities being built for Palestinians in territory negotiated as part of Israel?

Is that how you define a "settlement"? New communities built on land that the other peoples want? Is expansion of existing communities legit?

It is questionable.

So, would you agree that any building by Arabs in East Jerusalem (expansion of existing communites) should be considered "settlement"?

No.

If we go by your definition - Palestinians (I'm not referring to them as Arabs because there are Arab Israeli citizens and they not in the same category) - have the right to build there sense per negotiation, it is theirs.

If we do not go by that...then, it's less clear.

As per expansion of "existing communities" that is really tricky. A group of Jewish settlers take over some territory, build a quasi legal outpost (I say quasi legal because it's technically illegal in Israeli law but they often look the other way) - and then want to expand on it.

Is that the same thing as communities that have existed for years expanding?

Are Arab communities in Israeli controlled areas given the same rights and freedoms of expansion?

 

[Shusha]

We are not discussing Israeli citizens. We are discussing Arab Palestinian citizens of "Palestine" who have permanent resident status in Jerusalem.

 

[Shusha]

A group of Jewish settlers take over some territory, build a quasi legal outpost ...

Sure. But how is that different from a group of Arab settlers who take over some territory and build an outpost?

Are those "illegal settlements"?

 

[abi]

Are they still rewarding terrorist acts?

I don't know. Are you insinuating they do? Link?

I was thinking of the fellows who slit the throats of the Fogelsville family right down to the children. You can legitimately argue that Israel’s actions in Gaza are defense against frequent rockets fired into civilian areas. You can also make the argument that it was disproportionate response But there is absolutely no way you can say that murdering children is anything but murder. So why do acts like that perpetrated on civilians get rewarded?

Link? And Israel rewards their child murderers as war heroes. You don't need a link as everyone knows this.

 

[Coyote]

A group of Jewish settlers take over some territory, build a quasi legal outpost ...

Sure. But how is that different from a group of Arab settlers who take over some territory and build an outpost?

Are those "illegal settlements"?

Yes they are.