Turn on thread page Beta

Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    Yes - i have the word in my head but for the love of god can't rmember the exact term!
    Its the word used when you send someone from say britain back to say american.
    i want to say re-naturalise but im sure thats not the word im thinking of.... :confused:
    involuntary repatriation?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I was thinking about the pullout from Gaza, and the rationale for doing so, and realized that Israel can do something similar with the West Bank while using the Palestinians' own argument. Up to now, the argument Palestinians and their supporters use for a sovereign Palestinian state is self-determination. This means that the people who live on a piece of land deserve to have sovereignty over it. Therefore, Palestinians have the right to create a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank because those areas are predominantly Palestinian.

    Now suppose Israel unilaterally gives up all parts of the West Bank that are inhabited by Palestinians and only retains land that is inhabited by Jewish settlers. On what grounds can the Palestinians demand to get this land? If there are no Palestinians living there, surely they can't invoke self-determination? Their historic claim to the land is no better than Israel's, any aggression by Palestine could only be justified by territorial claims; the same territorial claims that most of the world rejects in other instances.

    So would Israel force Palestine into a checkmate if it gives up only the land with a Palestinian majority in the West Bank?
    No, because the israeli majority in most areas is completely artifical and only a few years old. In many cases what happens is you get some israeli settlers moving into an area unprotected. a FEw years pass, they grow bigger and bigger then some incident or another kicks off local trouble. like them destroying whole fields of olive groves, or something utterly unprovoked. in any case the IDF arrive, tear up any 'cover'/vantage poitns - which means all farmland and any buildings bigger than a bungalow - palestinians flee, protected israeli settlement then grows and grows...

    Th very fact that any unoccupied palestine property can be destroyed, and that israeli armed forces have the power to seize any building is why areas lose palestinian populations. people are scared of being singled out so flee the areas.
    I think the best thing for israel in the west bank would be
    -give up peripheral settlements - ALL of them.
    Those that are VERY close to the border and large should be retained. it should be noted most the really big settlements are near the border - like the chuffy one near jerusalem. Therefore you would only be getting rid of settlements supporting about 50-100k people.
    -Give East jerusalem back!

    I think east jerusalem is pretty vital actually to the future.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And if Israel refused to remove them? Who will be doing the removing then? When the Serbs kick out all Bosniaks from a city, it's called ethnic cleansing, but when the Palestinians kill out all Jews from a city, it's not ethnic cleansing?
    I'm not disputing that-if the Israelis are removed forcibly from Palestinian lands then it counts as ethic cleansing, whether or not the onus is from the Israelis or Arabs, and whether the Israelis are killed or just repatriated. I understand you now-I just didn't when you first used the 'ethnic cleansing' phrase.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And if Israel refused to remove them? Who will be doing the removing then? When the Serbs kick out all Bosniaks from a city, it's called ethnic cleansing, but when the Palestinians kill out all Jews from a city, it's not ethnic cleansing?
    Is that what the Palistinians are doing? No really?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viper)
    Is that what the Palistinians are doing? No really?
    I think he meant 'kick' instead of 'kill'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    I think he meant 'kick' instead of 'kill'
    I'm not so sure about that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Now suppose Israel unilaterally gives up all parts of the West Bank that are inhabited by Palestinians and only retains land that is inhabited by Jewish settlers. On what grounds can the Palestinians demand to get this land? If there are no Palestinians living there, surely they can't invoke self-determination?
    Surely the Arabs living in Israel could do the same? No country is totally populated. A bit of an odd point really.

    Their historic claim to the land is no better than Israel's,
    Yes it is. Judean Israelis' ancestors lived there 2000 years ago. Palestinians have been living there for at least the past 300 years. Black Jewish Israelis are living there for the first time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I don't see your point. Self-determination is absolute. Either you believe people have the right to choose who will have sovereignty over them or you don't. If Israel was to retain territory were only Jews lived, on what grounds can Palestine demand this land?
    Isn't that the exact same thing Israel did in the 1st place, of course on a much larger scale?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Yep, it was a freudian slip. We all know how Arabs kicked out Jews 60 years ago, and it involved quite a bit of killing.
    Terrorist tactics were used in the early formation of Israel, whats your point?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And if Israel refused to remove them? Who will be doing the removing then? When the Serbs kick out all Bosniaks from a city, it's called ethnic cleansing, but when the Palestinians kill out all Jews from a city, it's not ethnic cleansing?
    And if its a volountary withdrawal perpetrated by the government in the best interests of long term peace and stability..?

    Why should the millions of israelis bear the financial and social costs of supporting the whim of a few hundred thousand settlers whose wish is to
    a) get very cheap land/houses (which is why most settled there - the cost was dirt cheap)
    b) settle in what they think is their biblical birth right.
    c) expand israeli borders in the desire to create a 'greater israel' (the minority of settlers i imagine)


    What is your stance on British civilians who have purchased and built holiday homes in Turkish Cyprus on land which international law decrees does not belong to Turkish Cypriot citizens..?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    They would be free to try; I would imagine it would lead to their expulsion from the country though.



    There have been Jews in Israel throughout the last 4000 years. Just because they were ruled by non-Jews, doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Meanwhile, Palestinian Arabs have been living in Israel/Palestine for only the last ~1300 years.



    The same can be said of the Palestinians and all other Arab nations.
    I'm talking about the 20th/21st century, where things are supposed to be done in a more civilised manner? Does it make it right anyway?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    There have been Jews in Israel throughout the last 4000 years. Just because they were ruled by non-Jews, doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Meanwhile, Palestinian Arabs have been living in Israel/Palestine for only the last ~1300 years.
    After the expulsions very few Jews lived in Palestine and they lived in small enclaves. And in those enclaves started the anti-Israeli anti-zionist movement by Orthodox Jews.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viper)
    I'm talking about the 20th/21st century, where things are supposed to be done in a more civilised manner? Does it make it right anyway?
    The Serbs managed to get legal control of 49% of Bosnia (despite having a third of the population) as recently as a decade ago. The international community recognized their gains.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    They would be free to try; I would imagine it would lead to their expulsion from the country though.



    There have been Jews in Israel throughout the last 4000 years. Just because they were ruled by non-Jews, doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Meanwhile, Palestinian Arabs have been living in Israel/Palestine for only the last ~1300 years.



    The same can be said of the Palestinians and all other Arab nations.
    4000 years?
    More like 3000, and a good amount of those was a small area in what is now i think the most southernly part of israel. It took centuries before it started spreading.

    And as i asked you once before (but can't find the thread since)

    can you show me the proff that modern israelis are more genetcally linked to ancient jewish/israeli settlers than palestinians are to the ancient caanites whom the jewish drove from the land?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I don't see your point. Self-determination is absolute. Either you believe people have the right to choose who will have sovereignty over them or you don't. If Israel was to retain territory were only Jews lived, on what grounds can Palestine demand this land?
    Damn it you're absolutely right. So they should. Its a sensible choice which doesn't lead to further problems.

    That said, the last people i know that invoked sucha philosophy was infact the NAZIS (o we do love the comparison) who decided that as alot of german speaking people lived in czech areas they should annexe them.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Surely the Arabs living in Israel could do the same? No country is totally populated. A bit of an odd point really.

    Yes it is. Judean Israelis' ancestors lived there 2000 years ago. Palestinians have been living there for at least the past 300 years. Black Jewish Israelis are living there for the first time.
    I personally don't see the point in all this 'but they were there for a few hundred years over 2000 years ago!' rubbish. Its like the spanish claim to gibraltar. Sure they were there for the british, but the brits have been in possession now for over 4 times longer than the spanish were originally...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    Damn it you're absolutely right. So they should. Its a sensible choice which doesn't lead to further problems.

    That said, the last people i know that invoked sucha philosophy was infact the NAZIS (o we do love the comparison) who decided that as alot of german speaking people lived in czech areas they should annexe them.
    You might want to learn more history. The last people who invoked such a philosophy where the Serbs and Croats, who invoked it in 1992.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What about the million Jews that were expelled from the other Arab countries and Iran?
    Evidently they hadn't been there for the last 4000 years. And there are still up to 25 000 Jews in Iran and Jews in the Iranian Parliament.

    I personally don't see the point in all this 'but they were there for a few hundred years over 2000 years ago!' rubbish.
    The point of it is, that if someone and their family has lived on land for 200 years and are then kicked off, that is a bigger and more relevant problem that if some other people's ancient ancestors were kicked of 2000 years ago.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The Serbs managed to get legal control of 49% of Bosnia (despite having a third of the population) as recently as a decade ago. The international community recognized their gains.
    I was referring to the Israeli Palistinian situation. I'm merely saying you can't say Palistinians have no reason to take back territory even though more Jews live there.
    When Israel was formed, there was more land and than there was Jewish people, all they did was get more and more Jews to immigrate, and then make a claim of self-determination to add legal status to it.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And if this voluntary withdrawal doesn't take place? Would you support ethnic cleansing against the Jews living in the settlements?



    I don't see the relevancy. I never said I support the self-determination argument, merely that most of the world does. It's much easier to covince someone if you accept their assumptions and then refute the conclusions derived from those assumptions than if you make your own assumptions and work from there.

    I couldn't care less if the Turkish Cypriots sold land that they don't have control over according to "international law". If the Greeks don't like it, they're free to use any means necessary to take back that land.
    If its a volountary action of the state then yes it should take place. They ote in their government, and if their government says 'guys we're going to move you away from this area to inc stability and prosperity for all citizens, but we'll compensate you' then they should comply.
    Ethnic cleansing is a phrase you are using because it invokes images of mass graves, and slaughter.

    You are what we call a hawk. You live for death and war. Not that you want it of course, but the solution to you is always fighting and one sides obliteration or the other.
    You idea that the greeks should use force to take back the lands lost. how would you do that exactly ey?
    My point is that if you buy land that you know wasn't the owners to sell you should expect to be moved off soon enough. Its like handling stolen goods.
 
 
 
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.