Israeli Occupation: what "occupation"?

Scroll to see replies

In response to the original discussion, I'd have to say that I don't agree with the notion of more or less randomly implanting a large group of people on a geographic area and calling it a state. I think a more sensible solution in '48 would have been the internationalisation under the UN of all of 'The Holy Land' considering that the worlds three biggest religions all consider it to be sacred, with the proper democratic mechanism for self-government by ALL the people in it. However, the State of Israel has now existed for 60 years and I wouldn't advocate or condone it's abolition.

As for the post-67 areas, I think it's pretty clear legally as well as politically that these areas are under occupation, and colonisation.

Also, while you are right that a lot of the land in Israel was bought, there's a question to the legitimacy of the sales, as well as the fact that a lot of it wasn't so much bought as granted at gunpoint to Jewish immigrants. As the Arabs living there didn't have a real concept of owning a piece of land for themselves, it was easy for the British and the Israeli's to claim that 'nobody was living there'.

Reply 21

moshe_yichai

Israel has more power than it know what to do with it.

Reply 22

yawn

Chiron

Who is spamming now

...ermm

You?

Reply 23

yawn

moshe_yichai

Israel has more power than it know what to do with it.

...and...

Reply 24

moshe_yichai

yawn

...and...

they seem to always make the wrong decision in their pursuit for peace

Reply 25

Bismarck

moshe_yichai

they seem to always make the wrong decision in their pursuit for peace

The best decision would obviously be to commit national suicide. No more wars. Right?

Reply 26

moshe_yichai

Bismarck

The best decision would obviously be to commit national suicide. No more wars. Right?

i do not wish for Israel's end...but it seems to be the source of some the world's most devastating problems. i don't know. :confused:

Reply 27

GreenMonstrosity

In response to the original discussion, I'd have to say that I don't agree with the notion of more or less randomly implanting a large group of people on a geographic area and calling it a state.

There were always Jews in the region of Palestine. Their numbers increased significantly during the latter half of the 19th century to the first half of the 20th, but the Jews had ancient roots in the region. In any case, 80% of the area went to the Arabs (what we now call Jordan), the rest was to be split between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs (UN Resolution 181). The Arabs rejected this plan.

As for the post-67 areas, I think it's pretty clear legally as well as politically that these areas are under occupation, and colonisation.

Occupation? You need sovereign title over an area for it to be under occupation. Palestine lacks that over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, under international law "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.” Israel was in such a position since Gaza and the West Bank had been illegally annexed by Egypt and Jordan in the 1948 war.

Was it? The land was owned by the state or by Turkish and Absentee land lords. Jews bought it from the state. I find it hard to see how Jews could have held the Ottoman Empire to ransom, in exchange for selling them land. Indeed, one contemporary memoir describes how difficult it often was for Jews to buy land in Palestine.

As the Arabs living there didn't have a real concept of owning a piece of land for themselves, it was easy for the British and the Israeli's to claim that 'nobody was living there'.

Partly right - there was a collective system of ownership, but, as several contemporary sources show, much of the land that the Jews bought kept Arab farmers tenanted as they had been under the Ottomans.

Reply 28

Jaffaholic

The Balfour Declaration was a fallacy that had no major input from Arabs, so it has no basis for future land allocation. You say that the Jewish people were denied over 3/4 of the land they were promised. You also claim that indigenous Arbas didnt own their land? So the states that owned and controlled them had a greater right to give the areas as they saw fit to Jews migrated into the area? Often giving land that people had lived on for generations and still did so - so crucial this bit when Israel start claiming that Jews lived there a couple of millenia ago?

When talking about the 1948 mandate, Jews constituted 30% of the population yet were given half of the land. Thats one major reason why Palestinians rejected the mandate, im sure you just forgot to mention that.

When talking about refugees, they left to avoid the war, yet were not allowed to return by the Israelis even though they had homes and ownership to land. Of course, Jewish people who were displaced were allowed back. Time and time again, arab refugees were not allowed back, most notably in 1967. A clear strategy to reduce arb numbers. No other motive for it.

You also ignore illegal immigration that took place between 1946-47. It was illegal! The British even imprisoned those few that they were able to catch.

The "Six-day-war" was never asymmetric with US support. If it had been, Israel would have lost.

I loved the comment about "unavoidable" capture of land in the 6-day war. Its funny how the West Bank and Gaza areas magically shrank.

OK, now to tackle occupation. Several security council resolutions have called the presence of the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza strip, "an occupation". Cant get more explicit than that now can we?

"Stolen", "Cheated" land? I call it a long term and clear erosion of Palestinian territories(dont know what else you want me to call it), surmounting to invasion IMHO. Nothing has been more explicit than recent number of settlements that have been made inside Palestinian territories (or as the American media like to call them, "Israeli neighbourhoods" - rebranding excercise). As Jews migrated to Israel, there were greater needs for land, and opportunities/excuses were needed to take.

Its not just land, resources have been taken to a greater extent than land. Something that doesnt get reported by the mainstream media.

Its lovely how you paint a picture, where Israel didnt make a single mistake. Read your posts and see how one sided they are. Everything is the fault of Arabs and surrounding nations. Never once the fault of Jews or poor management (biased) during the British mandate.

Your soveriegn title BS, it is occupation. Palestine doesnt recognise Israel claim to the territory. Or does Isarel even claim it? If not it is obviously invasion. What does Israel consider the Palestinian territories to be?

edit: ive just noticed the comment that it was in the best interests of Jews to employ Arab farmers. An influential Jewish trade union Histadrut demanded that Jews only employ Jews. And the reality is, your idealistic idea of employing Arabs never happened on a significant scale.

Reply 29

Howard

Bismarck

So were Jews in the '40s. Too bad Hitler didn't finish the job, right? Obviously all crimes are the fault of the victim.

The Jews are resposible for all wars - according to Mel Gibson that is.....

Reply 30

Profesh

alasdair_R

Also, while you are right that a lot of the land in Israel was bought, there's a question to the legitimacy of the sales, as well as the fact that a lot of it wasn't so much bought as granted at gunpoint to Jewish immigrants. As the Arabs living there didn't have a real concept of owning a piece of land for themselves, it was easy for the British and the Israeli's to claim that 'nobody was living there'.

The few remaining Native-Americans are still kept fed and watered in dedicated 'reservations'; aren't they?

Reply 31

GreenMonstrosity

The Balfour Declaration was a fallacy that had no major input from Arabs, so it has no basis for future land allocation.

The Balfour Declaration expressed the desire of the British to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, not necessarily of Palestine, so there was plenty of room to negotiate. Indeed, like I said already, nearly 80% of the Mandate Land went to the creation of the Arab state of Transjordan. The McMahon correspondence clearly says that the Arabs would get all land except that which was not "purely Arab" (letter of 24 October, 1915).

You say that the Jewish people were denied over 3/4 of the land they were promised. You also claim that indigenous Arbas didnt own their land? So the states that owned and controlled them had a greater right to give the areas as they saw fit to Jews migrated into the area? Often giving land that people had lived on for generations and still did so - so crucial this bit when Israel start claiming that Jews lived there a couple of millenia ago?

Jews lived there throughout the Diaspora: they didn't just suddenly return out of nowhere after a 2000 year absence. They immigrated in greater numbers towards the end of the 19th century, but so did the Arabs from neighbouring regions. Furthermore, you say that the inhabitants of Palestine had lived there for generations? Well that seems to ignore the fact that there was significant net Arab immigration into Palestine during the Mandate period.

When talking about the 1948 mandate, Jews constituted 30% of the population yet were given half of the land. Thats one major reason why Palestinians rejected the mandate, im sure you just forgot to mention that.

Jews were a MAJORITY in the region that was allocated to them. The reason why the Palestinians rejected the partition was because they quite unreasonably desired to get all the land, not just some of it. Furthermore, when we consider how the Ottoman empire was broken up at the end of the war, Arabs got 99% of the land and all of the oil. The Jews got one little strip of mainly desert - which was going to be split into two states, an Arab and a Jewish one (Resolution 181)

When talking about refugees, they left to avoid the war, yet were not allowed to return by the Israelis even though they had homes and ownership to land.

After the 1948 war, Israel offered 100,000 refugees the chance to return, in exchange for peace. 35,000 returned, and Israel released the frozen bank accounts and assets of Arab refugees. The right of return is dependent on the condition "... that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date". Everyday in the news, we see manifold proof of the vacuity of that intention.

Of course, Jewish people who were displaced were allowed back.

Your argument was fine before you started making things up.

You also ignore illegal immigration that took place between 1946-47. It was illegal! The British even imprisoned those few that they were able to catch.

And you ignore the illegal ARAB immigration into Palestine at this time

OK, now to tackle occupation. Several security council resolutions have called the presence of the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza strip, "an occupation". Cant get more explicit than that now can we?

Which resolutions, please may I see them (this isn't a challenge, it's a request, I want to see if your understanding of them is the same as mine or that of the drafters). I find it diffcult to understand how an entity to be "occupied" when the people who claim to be under occupation have no sovereign title over that land. International law states:

"Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

Indeed, Israel only entered the West Bank after mortal provocation. The land was unlawfully siezed by Jordan and Egypt in the first place. I already dealt with this. How would you define "occupation" then?

Its not just land, resources have been taken to a greater extent than land. Something that doesnt get reported by the mainstream media.

"Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors.

In the economic sphere, most of this progress was the result of access to the far larger and more advanced Israeli economy: the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule.

During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world-ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew somewhat more slowly, the rate was still high by international standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10 percent higher than Jordan's (one of the betteroff Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent."

Its lovely how you paint a picture, where Israel didnt make a single mistake. Read your posts and see how one sided they are. Everything is the fault of Arabs and surrounding nations. Never once the fault of Jews or poor management (biased) during the British mandate.

With how one-sided so much of the mainstream media and people like you are, a little balance is good

Your soveriegn title BS, it is occupation. Palestine doesnt recognise Israel claim to the territory.

Yes, I know. Nobody seems to agree with them for some reason. Based on what do they make this claim?

ive just noticed the comment that it was in the best interests of Jews to employ Arab farmers. An influential Jewish trade union Histadrut demanded that Jews only employ Jews. And the reality is, your idealistic idea of employing Arabs never happened on a significant scale.

The Hope-Simpson report and most other evidence available suggests that the standard of living for Palestinians rose well above that of their Arab counterparts during this period, and in some respects, even above that of some European countries.

PS: If you want "evidence" or sources for any of my claims, feel free to challenge me for it.

Reply 32

TheThirdMan

Someone owns land until it is taken from them. Therefore, the land does not belong to the arabs. Pretty simple really. By the same argument, england is still under occupation from normandy.