Turn on thread page Beta

Likud party calls for de-facto annexation of Israeli settlements watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    According to Reuters "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party unanimously urged legislators in a non-binding resolution on Sunday to effectively annex Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, land that Palestinians want for a future state."

    So the Israel started moving, this act is in violation of UN resolutions and a violation of international law. Many experts have said this has been caused by Donald Trumps latest move to name Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and has brought new confidence in the Israeli government to do what they want.

    Does Israel have the right to do this or should the UN do more to stop this?

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-is...-idUKKBN1EP0M4
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Well, no, it doesn't have a right to do this unilaterally. But we really need to get away from the bland arguments over international law here: the law does not solve every problem, and it won't bring peace in the Middle East.

    For my part, I'd prefer a one or three-state solution rather than a two-state one. Apparently no-one really thinks that's a goer. Fine. In that case, there will have to be real discussions about boundaries. The Palestinians have given no indication that they will be happy to accept and protect the rights of a significant Jewish minority within their state, the settlements are there and having forced ethnic movement seems unacceptable to many. In that case, annexation by Israel seems one of the few reasonable outcomes.

    I don't like settlement building, but something will have to be done about their constitutional position at some point.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by L i b)
    Well, no, it doesn't have a right to do this unilaterally. But we really need to get away from the bland arguments over international law here: the law does not solve every problem, and it won't bring peace in the Middle East.

    For my part, I'd prefer a one or three-state solution rather than a two-state one. Apparently no-one really thinks that's a goer. Fine. In that case, there will have to be real discussions about boundaries. The Palestinians have given no indication that they will be happy to accept and protect the rights of a significant Jewish minority within their state, the settlements are there and having forced ethnic movement seems unacceptable to many. In that case, annexation by Israel seems one of the few reasonable outcomes.

    I don't like settlement building, but something will have to be done about their constitutional position at some point.
    Just a couple of questions on your post;
    1] What is wrong with simply, and hypothetically, marching in troops and ejecting the settlers from the West Bank? That is how they arrived after all
    2] How is Israel thieving land that isnt there's a reasonable out come...? By this metric we should simply toss the post war consensus in the bin and have at a new Great Game... It all seems dreadfully reminisent of mercantilism.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by ThEpOLiTiCaLgUy)
    According to Reuters "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party unanimously urged legislators in a non-binding resolution on Sunday to effectively annex Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, land that Palestinians want for a future state."

    So the Israel started moving, this act is in violation of UN resolutions and a violation of international law. Many experts have said this has been caused by Donald Trumps latest move to name Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and has brought new confidence in the Israeli government to do what they want.

    Does Israel have the right to do this or should the UN do more to stop this?

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-is...-idUKKBN1EP0M4
    People always seem to talk about DPRK, Iran, Syria etc. as Rogue states but if on balance we actually weigh what constitutes a rogue state i.e. flagrant breaking of international law, gross human rights abuses, ignoring given norms and generally acting in a bolshy and thuggish manner then Israel seems to tick every box there is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Just a couple of questions on your post;
    1] What is wrong with simply, and hypothetically, marching in troops and ejecting the settlers from the West Bank? That is how they arrived after all
    I think we call that "ethnic cleansing".

    2] How is Israel thieving land that isnt there's a reasonable out come...?
    I'm not sure we can see it in terms of "thieving", it's trying to come to a satisfactory outcome. As I've said, if you want a two-state solution - which I'm not overly convinced of myself - then the issue becomes quite pressing.

    If I saw any evidence, ever, that the Palestinians were willing to welcome, engage with and protect a Jewish minority in a prospective Palestinian state as equal citizens then I'd be perfectly happy with that. However it seems that they do not.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by L i b)
    I think we call that "ethnic cleansing".



    I'm not sure we can see it in terms of "thieving", it's trying to come to a satisfactory outcome. As I've said, if you want a two-state solution - which I'm not overly convinced of myself - then the issue becomes quite pressing.

    If I saw any evidence, ever, that the Palestinians were willing to welcome, engage with and protect a Jewish minority in a prospective Palestinian state as equal citizens then I'd be perfectly happy with that. However it seems that they do not.
    You mean what the IDF have been engaged in non stop for years?
    How else would you call taking something that doesnt belong to you with the intention to permanently deprive that person there of?
    Maybe so..

    Well having cluster bombs rain down on you, your buildings shelled, your children shot in the street and your ancestral lands stolen tends to put a downer on relations. To assert this is in any way the Palestinians fault is a revolting accusation though. Equally what evidence do you have the Palestinians hate Jews as opposed to Israelis...? Especially seeing as a fair number of Jews live in Palestine.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    You mean what the IDF have been engaged in non stop for years?
    How else would you call taking something that doesnt belong to you with the intention to permanently deprive that person there of?
    Maybe so..

    Well having cluster bombs rain down on you, your buildings shelled, your children shot in the street and your ancestral lands stolen tends to put a downer on relations. To assert this is in any way the Palestinians fault is a revolting accusation though. Equally what evidence do you have the Palestinians hate Jews as opposed to Israelis...? Especially seeing as a fair number of Jews live in Palestine.
    I'm not really sure this is a constructive reply, more a stream of consciousness.

    Like I've said, if I see evidence that there is a real feeling among the Palestinians to support a significant Jewish majority being part of a future Palestinian state, with the equal rights, entitlements and protections that demands, then I will change my view. I've not seen any evidence of this whatsoever - indeed, quite the contrary. Abbas has previously said they would have to leave.

    In general, I believe the Palestinian Authority is staffed by some pretty daft people. If they wanted to both improve their image and create a modern state, they'd be welcoming these "settlers" with open arms as potential new citizens. Those that didn't want to do that could merrily leave of their own accord.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm not really sure this is a constructive reply, more a stream of consciousness.
    Which bit of it are you having trouble with?

    Like I've said, if I see evidence that there is a real feeling among the Palestinians to support a significant Jewish majority being part of a future Palestinian state, with the equal rights, entitlements and protections that demands, then I will change my view. I've not seen any evidence of this whatsoever - indeed, quite the contrary. Abbas has previously said they would have to leave.
    Whilst i appreciate your point the fact the Israelis have expressly pissed all over any chance of the Palestinians being open to such an agreement seems to show theyre not open to it either.
    Meh its Abbas, he represents no one and no serious person would take his word to be representative of any Palestinian. He's a corrupt kleptocratic nob.
    As far a Jewish Majority state, can you not see why they would be upset with the idea? Hell it was one of the battle cries of Brexit in that we're loosing our countries persona, as it were, to foreign influence.

    In general, I believe the Palestinian Authority is staffed by some pretty daft people. If they wanted to both improve their image and create a modern state, they'd be welcoming these "settlers" with open arms as potential new citizens. Those that didn't want to do that could merrily leave of their own accord.
    Ha something we can agree on.
    Although as for welcoming these people, no one could ever do that - a vast number of them are crazed religious zealots who treat the Palestinians as scum - if theyre lucky. To say the Palestinians should 'welcome' their homes and farm steads being burned for these squatters is a terrible thing to say.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Whilst i appreciate your point the fact the Israelis have expressly pissed all over any chance of the Palestinians being open to such an agreement seems to show theyre not open to it either.
    Meh its Abbas, he represents no one and no serious person would take his word to be representative of any Palestinian. He's a corrupt kleptocratic nob.
    Whether Abbas is representative of anyone or not, he is the leader that is in place. He would be the first President of an independent Palestinian state and would have the authority of that office. I think listening to what he says is pretty reasonable.

    As far a Jewish Majority state, can you not see why they would be upset with the idea? Hell it was one of the battle cries of Brexit in that we're loosing our countries persona, as it were, to foreign influence.
    I don't think the Jewish settlers in Palestinian territories represent a majority - indeed, I think they're about 10% of the population of the West Bank. Arabs are about 20% of the population of Israel.

    I'm not sure we should be advocating anti-immigrant and nativist rhetoric in the Middle East simply because we have - unfortunately - some people who are minded that way in Britain.

    Although as for welcoming these people, no one could ever do that - a vast number of them are crazed religious zealots who treat the Palestinians as scum - if theyre lucky.
    Some perhaps are, but I wouldn't be so quick to make generalisations about thousands upon thousands of people. The way to address their antipathy is by extending the hand of friendship, not unleashing the force of hatred. If some had real problems with becoming part of Palestinian society, I suspect they would use their rights as Israeli citizens to return to Israel anyway.

    But to go back to my original point, they are there as a point of fact. It's not really worth arguing whether they should have come, or the mechanism by which they came: you'd be as well complaining about Saxons coming to Britain. They exist and the Palestinian territories have become their homes.

    So far as I see it, ethnic cleansing is the only other realistic alternative for the Palestinians. Sure, they're reluctant to do as I suggest - I'm not denying that there is nationalistic, racial and religious hatred and distrust in the Middle East. However if we're genuinely talking about peace, it involves moving forward, building trust and putting these old disputes aside.

    No-one will win by saying that they will never compromise - and ultimately, I think we may both agree that the status quo is more beneficial to the Israeli state than the Palestinians. With that in mind, if the Palestinians do indeed care about having a state with full self-government, without conflict and with the ability to actually make their country a better place for its people then they really should be considering how to make peace work.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by L i b)
    Whether Abbas is representative of anyone or not, he is the leader that is in place. He would be the first President of an independent Palestinian state and would have the authority of that office. I think listening to what he says is pretty reasonable.
    But taking it as representative of the Palestinian people is not.

    I don't think the Jewish settlers in Palestinian territories represent a majority - indeed, I think they're about 10% of the population of the West Bank. Arabs are about 20% of the population of Israel.
    You just said in a future state with a majority Jewish population?

    I'm not sure we should be advocating anti-immigrant and nativist rhetoric in the Middle East simply because we have - unfortunately - some people who are minded that way in Britain.
    Indeed no but it does make an excellent corollary.


    Some perhaps are, but I wouldn't be so quick to make generalisations about thousands upon thousands of people. The way to address their antipathy is by extending the hand of friendship, not unleashing the force of hatred. If some had real problems with becoming part of Palestinian society, I suspect they would use their rights as Israeli citizens to return to Israel anyway.
    In an ideal world i would be inclined to agree with you but unfortunately by the very virtue of their presence on land that was forcibly taken from its rightful owners it essentially makes acceptance impossible. Equally though there is that rather infamous picture of the Street in the west bank where theyve had to put wire mesh on top of it to stop the settlers pelting them with rubbish and rocks.

    But to go back to my original point, they are there as a point of fact. It's not really worth arguing whether they should have come, or the mechanism by which they came: you'd be as well complaining about Saxons coming to Britain. They exist and the Palestinian territories have become their homes.
    With respect to Israel in general i am inclined to agree with you but as for settlers there is a precedent for removing them as was done a few years back albeit in small numbers.

    So far as I see it, ethnic cleansing is the only other realistic alternative for the Palestinians. Sure, they're reluctant to do as I suggest - I'm not denying that there is nationalistic, racial and religious hatred and distrust in the Middle East. However if we're genuinely talking about peace, it involves moving forward, building trust and putting these old disputes aside.
    It does beg the question if such odds are surmountable, I must say I take the view that Israel has committed far to many crimes against the Palestinians for it to be resolved amicably for them aswell as for the Israelis in particular those living near the disputed territories.
    No-one will win by saying that they will never compromise - and ultimately, I think we may both agree that the status quo is more beneficial to the Israeli state than the Palestinians. With that in mind, if the Palestinians do indeed care about having a state with full self-government, without conflict and with the ability to actually make their country a better place for its people then they really should be considering how to make peace work.
    Indeed, I dont for see the Israelis giving up what is de facto theres unless there is some drastic change in the equilibrium.
    With respect to that though you cant expect the Palestinians to make such a move without any signs of good faith from the Israelis and building walls, shutting them out of their buildings, detaining children, laying siege to Gaza etc. are not helping.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    But taking it as representative of the Palestinian people is not.
    Well, I'd like to see some voices among those Palestinian people disagree with him - and indeed, to have more progressive voices leading them.

    You just said in a future state with a majority Jewish population?
    Ah, sorry, my fault: I meant to say a significant Jewish minority (as in, the current Jewish population in the West Bank). Apologies.

    In an ideal world i would be inclined to agree with you but unfortunately by the very virtue of their presence on land that was forcibly taken from its rightful owners it essentially makes acceptance impossible. Equally though there is that rather infamous picture of the Street in the west bank where theyve had to put wire mesh on top of it to stop the settlers pelting them with rubbish and rocks.
    Well, this is the most ideal world we have - and yet, they're all still there. The question is what to do about it. If we look to Northern Ireland, we've seen real progress through the peace process. Now, the UK Government could in theory have simply deported anyone who seemed a bit too Irish in the sympathies over the border to the Irish Republic - but that would've been a barmy move.

    Instead, there was hard work on all sides to build relations, to ensure that people had equal rights and protections from the law, and to tackle the violence from the extremists who would not move along on that journey.

    It does beg the question if such odds are surmountable, I must say I take the view that Israel has committed far to many crimes against the Palestinians for it to be resolved amicably for them aswell as for the Israelis in particular those living near the disputed territories.

    Indeed, I dont for see the Israelis giving up what is de facto theres unless there is some drastic change in the equilibrium.
    With respect to that though you cant expect the Palestinians to make such a move without any signs of good faith from the Israelis and building walls, shutting them out of their buildings, detaining children, laying siege to Gaza etc. are not helping.
    Someone's got to make gestures of good faith. Indeed, both sides have been involved in peace talks in the past and both sides have taken agreed steps as a result. This is simply one more agreed step to take.

    If, as you suggest, there can be no progress then what benefit is that to the Palestinian people? I have made a case not that Palestinians should ignore their own interests in exchange for peace, but rather that taking these steps would be very much in their own interests - as well as advance the cause of peace both internally and internationally.

    There are always a thousand arguments to be made against trying to resolve conflict. Now, I don't pretend to have seen a lot of conflict: I grew up in a quiet village in rural Scotland where the village bobby concerned himself with a bit of low-level poaching and the odd outsider coming in to do some housebreaking. But if we are to assume, as I do, that there is very little worse than multi-generational violence, then people involved really have to ask themselves if their entrenched positions are really worth dying on a hill for.

    Put away the flags, the jingoism, the built-up hatreds and the dulce et decorum est attitudes and I think clear heads can solve almost any problem when they work together. There will always be some who care more about their enemies suffering than they do about the suffering of their own children's generations, but once you get a process started, I think the majority tend to come on board.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Israel doesn't abide by international law so unless the U.N place sanctions on them or some other countries forcefully intervene there isn't much anyone can do. Unfortunately the U.S will veto any sanction attempts so Israel is basically untouchable so long as the U.S has veto rights.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 3, 2018
The home of Results and Clearing

2,574

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.