Source to JPost: Egypt 'caves' to Israeli pressure, pulling UN resolution

[Coyote]

Let me ask this then. How is that different than the message from the settlements that Palestinians aren't welcome? It seems to me if they were more integrated to begin with each side would realize that the other are not that much different.

Israel has already clearly and loudly said that Arab Muslims and Arab Christians are welcome. (Yes, I realize that discrimination exists and needs to be corrected. The whole world is like that. Even Canada struggles with it, and we are pretty awesome. Grin.)

"Palestine" is clearly and loudly saying, "We will not even talk to you until the Jews are gone off our land."

There can be no peace with that ideology.

I think that is not so clear. For one - settlements, in particular Jewish ONLY settlements in land that the Palestinians are not allowed to create "settlements" create a difficult situation. I don't think they are asking for all settlements to be dismantled ahead of talking. They're asking for a freeze on further building becuase it decreases the potential for a second state.

Now I know you say it shouldn't matter but it does. Should Jewish settlements become a part of a new Palestinian state with all the rights and protections of any other Palestinian settlement? Yes.

BUT.

How?

How will the following be resolved?

would the residents be willing to accept another nationality
would the Palestinians be able to make them feel both safe and enfranchised
would they be willing to open their settlements to non Jews
how would land disputes be resolved? This is a huge issue in Israel - and the fairness of it is under considerable dispute. I would expect the same from the Palestinian side

In an ideal situation - I would agree that it should not matter, but we're not talking about ideals, where talking about emotional and fallible human beings involved in a very long conflict. A freeze on settlements would do two things: indicate a willingness to negotiate and secondly, it would cease creating false optimism. Optimism that the settlements won't get dismantled. Optimism that this could become part of a Palestinian state.

 

[Coyote]

There is a similar refusal among certain Israeli demographics, to share land with Palestinians and certainly, the settlements are not integrated.

My issue is that people can't have it both ways.

Either we create two nations with an ethnically homogeneous population by transferring BOTH Jews and Arabs to their respective new nations.

OR we create two nations with diverse ethnic populations.

Everyone seems to agree that door #1 is problematic. But they have no problem with discussing the transfer of Jews or the prevention of Jews from living in a certain place. Its hypocrisy. You want an ethnically homogeneous nation? Fine. But you MUST apply it to both sides.

I both agree and disagree.

First, I see a certain number of people perfectly happy to discuss transfering Palestinians out of the area and into Jordan. Also, Palestinians are severely restricted in "Area C". How many new Palestinian "settlements" are there?

IF the solution is homegeneous nations, yes it needs to be applied to both sides.

But forcing that is a crime against humanity. I think mixed communities is best. But you have to start the mixing NOW.

 

[Coyote]

I agree that Palestine needs to accept a plurilistic nation.

But, realistically Shusha - do you believe that is behind the Israeli push for settlement building and do you believe THEYwill accept living in a Palestinian state?

Well, I believe the push for "settlements" is more complicated than that. I don't think it is actually being driven entirely by Israel's political requirements, though I'm quite certain it is being exploited in that cause. (And fairly, correctly exploited). I think it is driven more by the practical needs of Israeli citizens, which the government of Israel responds to or copes with (depending on whether we are talking illegal outposts or just building more homes for people to live in).

Do I think Jewish people will accept living in a Palestinian State? It depends entirely upon how they are treated in that Palestinian State. Things don't look so good right now. If I were them, I'd be fearful for their lives. This is where the Palestinian government has to step and decide what it wants to promote. I'm sure not seeing a whole lot to the positive on that.

But again, the foundational problem is not the settlements themselves, its the Palestinian insistence that Jews aren't welcome.

Let me ask this then. How is that different than the message from the settlements that Palestinians aren't welcome? It seems to me if they were more integrated to begin with each side would realize that the other are not that much different.

Where are the Palestinians not welcome?

Area C. Most of the settlements.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

It is dangerous to refuse to acknowledge anti semitism when it is right in front of you.

How is opposing settlement building in contested territory until the dispute is settled - anti-semitic?

Think about what you are saying, there is no plausible scenario in which this dispute will be settled. The refusal of he Arabs to share the land with Jews is entirely anti semtic and since there can be no final status agreement because because there is no Palestinian government that can make peace with Israel, the resolution is an endorsement of Arab anti semitism.

There is a similar refusal among certain Israeli demographics, to share land with Palestinians and certainly, the settlements are not integrated.

If you are talking about Judea and Samaria, Israel is sharing the land, and the Arabs are objection to it. Arab Israelis are free to move to the Israeli communities if they want to, but citizens of the Palestinian Authority are not, just as they are not free to move to any other country without applying for permission.

How many new Palestinian settlements have there been in Area C?

 

[Shusha]

Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

It is when people only oppose Jewish settlement building.

 

[Coyote]

Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

It is when people only oppose Jewish settlement building.

How many new Palistinian settlements have been built in that disputed area?

 

[Shusha]

How many new Palestinian settlements have there been in Area C?

Well, by definition, none. Because Israel has civilian control over Area C. So, by definition, all "settlements" are Israeli, whether Jews live there or Arabs live there.

 

[Coyote]

How many new Palestinian settlements have there been in Area C?

Well, by definition, none. Because Israel has civilian control over Area C. So, by definition, all "settlements" are Israeli, whether Jews live there or Arabs live there.

Ok, how many new Arab settlements?

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is dangerous to refuse to acknowledge anti semitism when it is right in front of you.

How is opposing settlement building in contested territory until the dispute is settled - anti-semitic?

Think about what you are saying, there is no plausible scenario in which this dispute will be settled. The refusal of he Arabs to share the land with Jews is entirely anti semtic and since there can be no final status agreement because because there is no Palestinian government that can make peace with Israel, the resolution is an endorsement of Arab anti semitism.

There is a similar refusal among certain Israeli demographics, to share land with Palestinians and certainly, the settlements are not integrated.

If you are talking about Judea and Samaria, Israel is sharing the land, and the Arabs are objection to it. Arab Israelis are free to move to the Israeli communities if they want to, but citizens of the Palestinian Authority are not, just as they are not free to move to any other country without applying for permission.

How many new Palestinian settlements have there been in Area C?

Few I would imagine, but there are numerous Arab towns and villages in area C so Israeli is sharing the land.

 

[Coyote]

How is opposing settlement building in contested territory until the dispute is settled - anti-semitic?

Think about what you are saying, there is no plausible scenario in which this dispute will be settled. The refusal of he Arabs to share the land with Jews is entirely anti semtic and since there can be no final status agreement because because there is no Palestinian government that can make peace with Israel, the resolution is an endorsement of Arab anti semitism.

There is a similar refusal among certain Israeli demographics, to share land with Palestinians and certainly, the settlements are not integrated.

If you are talking about Judea and Samaria, Israel is sharing the land, and the Arabs are objection to it. Arab Israelis are free to move to the Israeli communities if they want to, but citizens of the Palestinian Authority are not, just as they are not free to move to any other country without applying for permission.

How many new Palestinian settlements have there been in Area C?

Few I would imagine, but there are numerous Arab towns and villages in area C so Israeli is sharing the land.

It's not really sharing if they are restricting expansion. It's tolerating. If there are no new Arab settlements...and Arabs are restricted from moving to Jewish settlements how is that really sharing?

 

[montelatici]

So, would Israel allow an equal number of Arab only settlements to be built within Israel's de facto borders?

 

[Shusha]

I think mixed communities is best. But you have to start the mixing NOW.

I think this is where you and I part ways. It is my belief that the Palestinians (and their government) need to make an ideological shift in thinking before this is possible. I believe that it is still their fundamental mindset that they can't be "ruled by Jews", or "give their land to Jews" or whatever.

To be fair, yes, I think the Israelis also need to make a mindshift in Area C. I've talked a little about this in other threads.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Think about what you are saying, there is no plausible scenario in which this dispute will be settled. The refusal of he Arabs to share the land with Jews is entirely anti semtic and since there can be no final status agreement because because there is no Palestinian government that can make peace with Israel, the resolution is an endorsement of Arab anti semitism.

There is a similar refusal among certain Israeli demographics, to share land with Palestinians and certainly, the settlements are not integrated.

If you are talking about Judea and Samaria, Israel is sharing the land, and the Arabs are objection to it. Arab Israelis are free to move to the Israeli communities if they want to, but citizens of the Palestinian Authority are not, just as they are not free to move to any other country without applying for permission.

How many new Palestinian settlements have there been in Area C?

Few I would imagine, but there are numerous Arab towns and villages in area C so Israeli is sharing the land.

It's not really sharing if they are restricting expansion. It's tolerating. If there are no new Arab settlements...and Arabs are restricted from moving to Jewish settlements how is that really sharing?

Arab Israelis are not restricted from moving into the communities, but citizens of the PA are foreigners so they would have to apply for residency from the Israeli government. There are Arab communities in area C and there are Israeli communities in area C so of course they are sharing the land.

 

[Shusha]

Ok, how many new Arab settlements?

I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to check. I know that there is growth in Palestinian settlements in Area B that spill into Area C. No one seems to define that as "settlements" though. The conversation centers around where Jews are buying and building homes. (And do you see that THIS is the problem?)

 

[Coyote]

Ok, how many new Arab settlements?

I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to check. I know that there is growth in Palestinian settlements in Area B that spill into Area C. No one seems to define that as "settlements" though. The conversation centers around where Jews are buying and building homes. (And do you see that THIS is the problem?)

I can see how that is a problem.

But - I also see the other side - Palestinians being prevented from buying into certain areas. And...as an adjunct, Palestinians preventing Palestinians from selling to Jews.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ok, how many new Arab settlements?

I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to check. I know that there is growth in Palestinian settlements in Area B that spill into Area C. No one seems to define that as "settlements" though. The conversation centers around where Jews are buying and building homes. (And do you see that THIS is the problem?)

I can see how that is a problem.

But - I also see the other side - Palestinians being prevented from buying into certain areas. And...as an adjunct, Palestinians preventing Palestinians from selling to Jews.

Israelis are also prevented from building in certain areas by the Israeli government.

 

[Lipush]

Israel's communties in Judea and Samaria collectively take up less that 2% of the land, so if there is peace, these are no obstacles to a Palestinians state, but if there is no peace, there will be no Palestinian state.

If you look at a map...it doesn't look like there are no obstacles - you can't create a viable and secure country that looks like swiss cheese. The more settlements there are, the harder it will be to create a coherent area. I think settlements are an obstacle to PEACE - one of many.

So before meaningful negotiations about a final status agreement can begin, the Palestinians must form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel, and there is no possibility that will happen in the foreseeable future, meaning there is no possibility there will be a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

Agree, but about the need, but I'm not sure that it will not happen in the foreseeable future.

Therefore if you are interested in the welfare of the Palestinians as people, as opposed to a people, you will support negotiations about how to deal with their problems within the context of the status quo rather than give them false hope of something that cannot happen.

What sort of scenario do you invision here?

Collectively, all the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria take up less than 2% of the land, so it is certainly possible to form a contiguous state around them; furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank are separated by Israel, so in the event of peace accommodation would have to be made to allow them to operate as a single state, and that same accommodation would allow Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria without obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore either Gaza and the West Bank cannot become a single state or Israeli sovereignty over its communities in Judea and Samaria is not an obstacle to the formation of a Palestinian state.

I think that would lead to a security nightmare. It already creates substantial problems with people unable to access portions of their land. I really don't think it could be done to create a feasible state nor do I think Gaza and WB could be unified into one state.

The 2% claim is also very deceptive: How much Palestinian land do Israeli settlements really eat up?

1. What the 2 percent figure omits.

Those who cite the 2 percent figure rarely clarify that this refers purely to the built-up area of the settlements. As described in a Human Rights Watch report earlier this year, while “the built-up area of residential settlements covers 6,000 hectares”, there are also “approximately 20 Israeli-administered industrial zones in the West Bank covering about 1,365 hectares, and Israeli settlers oversee the cultivation of 9,300 hectares of agricultural land.”


2. The settlements’ local authorities.

Settlement areas in the West Bank, including local and regional councils marked in grey (UN OCHA, 2009)


The 2 percent figure also obscures a perhaps more significant reality. 23 Jewish local authorities operate in the West Bank: “three municipalities, fourteen local councils and six regional councils.” According to a 2009 United Nations report, 39 percent of the West Bank falls under these authorities’ jurisdiction. Israel has “consistently refused to allocate such land for Palestinian use.”


As an example, the report describes how “almost all of the [Jordan Valley and Dead Sea] area falls under the jurisdiction of two [settler] Regional Councils” – the “practical implication” of which “is that, in almost the entirety of the Jordan Valley, Palestinian construction is prohibited.”


Israeli NGO B’Tselem, meanwhile, describing how Palestinians are prevented from using land in ‘Area C’ (around 60 percent of the West Bank), states that settlements and their regional councils constitute 36.6 percent of the West Bank as a whole.


Furthermore, “the areas of jurisdiction of the Jewish local authorities, most of which extend far beyond the built-up area, are defined as ‘closed military zones’…[and] Palestinians are forbidden to enter these areas without authorization from the Israeli military commander.”​

Here is a map...how would it work?

Furthermore, not only are these communities not obstacles to peace, but they are oases of peace in a turbulent region. Each day tens of thousands of Palestinians go to work in these communities earning two to six times what they could otherwise earn and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would gladly work there if there were enough jobs. Israel has extended its labor protection laws to everyone who works for an Israeli employer, so there is no exploitation of the Palestinian workers. The Palestinian Authority passed a law a few years ago making it a crime to work in Israeli communities but it is universally ignored.

They are clearly obstacles to peace. That is repeatedly stated by the Palestinian side - whether you agree or not, the Palestinians feel that they are and they are one of the negotiating partners.

There is no plausible scenario under which the Palestinians can form a government that can credibly offer peace to Israel in the foreseeable future, so there is no plausible path to a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future.

The status quo, with the Palestinians Authority in areas A and B having 95+% of the powers of a sovereign state - unless feuding among the terrorist groups destroys what government structure they have - and Israel retaining control of are C, indefinitely because there is no viable alternative. Israel will continue to build within its existing communities and to create more communities, but only within its master plan which means no more that about 8% of Judea and Samaria will be developed for Israeli use. The Palestinians will prosper within this framework if they choose to live in peace with Israelis.

At the moment, the "status quo" puts the Palestinians under military law in much of the area and Israel controls their trade, power, and water rights as well as movement. Not sure I can see how they can prosper even IF they give up violence and accept a permenent second class status. And, looking at the map - it is far more than 8%.

Today, tens of thousands of Palestinians prosper by going to work in Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria, and they also go there to shop as Israelis from these communities go to many of the nearby Arab villages to shop, and it is these mutually beneficial transactions that are the path to peace, not UN resolutions that give the Arabs false hopes and inspire terrorism that will make their lives more difficult. The more Israel builds in Judea and Samaria, the more peace and prosperity it brings to the Arabs in the area.

The reality is - the more the Palestinians are squeezed out and restricted. Israel restricts their ability expand, and build new settlements. I don't see how that brings more "peace and prosperity".

The Palestinians don't have enough to lose, which is why this happens to begin with.

Israel is obligated and expected to protect the people of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem, especially following this Antisemitic resultion.

I disagree that it is an antisemitic resolution. I think it's dangerous to frame all aspects of this conflict in "anti-semitic" terms. Opposing settlement building is not anti-semitic.

That tresulution is directly against Jews, about half million of them, to be exact. It allowes to mark products and to refrain from having business with them. I don't want to sound populistic, and I am myslef not a fan of Nazi Germany comparisons of any sort, but let's not play dumb, this is how things started back then, with "stamping" Jews. The moment the UN will condemn the illegal Arab building, then I will take my words back.

 

[Lipush]

Ok, how many new Arab settlements?

I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to check. I know that there is growth in Palestinian settlements in Area B that spill into Area C. No one seems to define that as "settlements" though. The conversation centers around where Jews are buying and building homes. (And do you see that THIS is the problem?)

I can see how that is a problem.

But - I also see the other side - Palestinians being prevented from buying into certain areas. And...as an adjunct, Palestinians preventing Palestinians from selling to Jews.

In Palestinian law, selling lands or houses to Jews is a serious crime. How come no one ever looks at the problem in the same way?

 

[montelatici]

There is a similar refusal among certain Israeli demographics, to share land with Palestinians and certainly, the settlements are not integrated.

If you are talking about Judea and Samaria, Israel is sharing the land, and the Arabs are objection to it. Arab Israelis are free to move to the Israeli communities if they want to, but citizens of the Palestinian Authority are not, just as they are not free to move to any other country without applying for permission.

How many new Palestinian settlements have there been in Area C?

Few I would imagine, but there are numerous Arab towns and villages in area C so Israeli is sharing the land.

It's not really sharing if they are restricting expansion. It's tolerating. If there are no new Arab settlements...and Arabs are restricted from moving to Jewish settlements how is that really sharing?

Arab Israelis are not restricted from moving into the communities, but citizens of the PA are foreigners so they would have to apply for residency from the Israeli government. There are Arab communities in area C and there are Israeli communities in area C so of course they are sharing the land.

Non-Jews, even if Israeli citizens, are prevented, legally, from living in the Jewish settlements which are built on Jewish Fund land. The Jewish Fund specifically limits the leasing of land to Jews.

Israelis are foreigners in the occupied territories, the do not apply for residency to the P.A. LOL It's amazing how far these Zionists will go (and lie) to defend the indefensible.

 

[Lipush]

So, would Israel allow an equal number of Arab only settlements to be built within Israel's de facto borders?

Hahahaha. One can see you don't know much about this, eh. The problem already exist, and for years.