Why does Israel keep putting settlers in the occupied territories?

[Carver]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

with all the land in the world , .....the towel-heads , who , where being kicked out of other countries , for blowing stuff up , .....came to our land , why , well , since the towels where to lazy to do anything themselves , ......and of course , the jews had put all the sweat in it , why should they work for it , .....

More proof:

ZIONISM IS RACSISM

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Carver
More proof:

ZIONISM IS RACSISM

More proof that American idiots can't spell...

[Eli]

Originally posted by SpencerH
But if the modern palestinians are the descendents of the Canannites who were conquered and disposed from their land by the tribes of Israel after their Exodus from Egypt, then by your logic with respect to the cherokee and creek (now my) land, they have a prior claim dont they?

But they're not. The Canaanites were destroyed, I think. I dont know, cant be arsed to read more about the subject.

Israel is right. Accept it.

[Panag]

hi ,

zionism has nothing to do with one being a jew or an Israeli , ....


have a nice day

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
However, at a certain point it becomes insane trying to get at the root cause, and determine original blame. Hell, we all know it was Britain that screwed everything up. Since then both sides have been at each other's throats.

Revenge is not a viable basis for security. It is only by ceasing to humiliate the Palestinians that they will begin to lose the anger that has them hurling their bodies at Israelis. Israel cannot make peace with a beaten dog.

I think President Bush, Powell and Rice all agree with this.

Ned

[Ned]

I just had a quick review of this thread and I never saw the following point addressed:

Did the Israeli government sell the land to the West Bank settlers?

If they did, how did the Israeli government acquire title?

Also, this thread continues to illustrate the continued confusion of ownership of the title to land with sovereignty. The two are distinct concepts and legal principles.

Ned

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Could the Israeli government (not necessarily the settlers themselves) be viewing the settlements as bargaining chips in whatever final status negotiations? By giving up more in the way of settlements, the Israelis might be able to get a better deal in terms of borders, water, etc. than they would otherwise get. There may be some precedent for this. As I understand it the Israelis gave up (blew up?) their existing Sinai settlements as part of the peace treaty with Egypt, though the number of Sinai settlements apparently was much smaller.

This is exactly the point of view of most Israelis.

We know that we'll have to give back lands, but we'd obviously prefer to keep as much as we can

But there are those ~20 % that think that these lands are obviously ours and should be kept that way. Some go to the extremes of wanting a cleansing of pals.

And there are ~30% that think that the settlements are just the 20%'s fetish and want them disassembled.


I personally prefer to have them as strategic stations and as trading cards.

I would, however, already have dissassembled those which are a burden rather than an asset.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


This is exactly the point of view of most Israelis.

We know that we'll have to give back lands, but we'd obviously prefer to keep as much as we can

But there are those ~20 % that think that these lands are obviously ours and should be kept that way. Some go to the extremes of wanting a cleansing of pals.

And there are ~30% that think that the settlements are just the 20%'s fetish and want them disassembled.


I personally prefer to have them as strategic stations and as trading cards.

I would, however, already have dissassembled those which are a burden rather than an asset.

Siro, Do you know the answer to my question concerning title? How did the government of Israel acquire title?

Ned

[Natan]

Ned: Varies greatly from place to place. Some of the more common methods:
* Some land was owned by the Jewish agency in the West Bank before the 1948 war, this was confiscated by Jordan and the Israeli government took it back in 1967. In some other places, individual Jews owned land, this was also taken.
* Government lands, being that in Israel's view, Jordan was no longer the government.
*Confiscation of land from Bedouin tribes and others who, although residing on the land, could not produce any documentation demonstrating their ownership thereof.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Confiscation of land from Bedouin tribes and others who, although residing on the land, could not produce any documentation demonstrating their ownership thereof.

Being there is 9/10s of the law .

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Confiscation of land from Bedouin tribes and others who, although residing on the land, could not produce any documentation demonstrating their ownership thereof.

Being there is 9/10s of the law .

Nathan, Thanks. I can see the issue coming down to the land expropriated from the "Jordanian" government or the Bedouins. I can see how the Palestinians could believe that this is rightfully "their" land. I believe Jordan agreed to transfer its interests to the PA, not so?

How, much land of this type was involved?

Ned

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Confiscation of land from Bedouin tribes and others who, although residing on the land, could not produce any documentation demonstrating their ownership thereof.

Being there is 9/10s of the law .

I don't think a nomad is capable of acquiring title to land under any legal theory. What they may acquire are grazing rights by long usage. However, the title to the land not owned by anyone else is held by the government, which in the case question, was Jordan. Jordan had annexed the West Bank. Israel has not.

Ned

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

NO ,

they have nothing to do with us , they are just some crazy-towel-head-forced-out-of-muslim-country-blowing-themselfs-up ,
no good for nothing "beings"

have a nice day

I reported DeeeElllWay last night (?) for being an ******* anti-semite, and I'm reporting you today for being an ******* anti-Palestinian or whatever. That makes 4 reports in 12 months here for me. I sincerely hope you have a nice vacation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
I don't think a nomad is capable of acquiring title to land under any legal theory. What they may acquire are grazing rights by long usage. However, the title to the land not owned by anyone else is held by the government, which in the case question, was Jordan. Jordan had annexed the West Bank. Israel has not.

Ned

Note the smily! Note the smily!

[Adam Smith]

Siro:

Thanks for the perspective.

Now the next questions:
At what point do most Israelis believe it becomes counterproductive to continue to amass bargaining chips?
Is there sufficient sentiment to begin dismantling the more burdensome settlements as a show of good faith?
Does the Oslo process provide for this?
Could it be done in return for, say, Arab countries renouncing the Khartoum Resolution calling for the destruction of Israel?
Or would it simply be in Isreal's eocnomic interest to cut some losses? Defending some of the outlying settlements must be a tremendous economic burden.