Why does Israel keep putting settlers in the occupied territories?

[Sirotnikov]

Every Jewish settlement, the security zones (within W Bank and Gaza), the Israeli only raods (in W Bank) proposed at Camp David, not allowing Pals to return to their land seized through violence in 1967.

1. How is settling in an area equal to ethnically cleansing the population? I understand it disturbs the balance of people living there, but if I come and build a home in your back yard, it's far from kicking you out.

2. Israeli only roads were suggested for security reasons to provide an enviroment free of clashes. The rest of the roads were meant to be palestinian only. there goes your claim goodbye.

3. Who was prevented from returning to 1967 land? Even terrorists that we've exiled managed to return.

4. How is 1967 anything short of a war?

What you must confront, is that the entire Israeli state is an exercise in ethnic cleansing.

No, you failed to prove it.

And anyway, I was specifically asking for references to ethnical cleansing of local arabs pre 1948.

Nevertheless, the Pals are still willing to accept just 22% of the land and leave 78% to Israel. But no, that's not enough; the Israelis have been told by God to settle the W Bank.

1. You're an idiot if you think that there is more than 15% of Israelis who actually care about what god told them to do.

2. If you go an read the reports I brought in this thread, you'll see they really are aiming at getting back to pre 1947 borders (IE only Palestine).

3. A huge part of "historical palestine" is actually Jordan. That's right - the whole Area was called palestine, until, Britain decided to divide it along the Jordan river, and give the "Trans-Palestine" area to the Hashemic monarchy, originally from Saudi Arabia.

Now, compare Jordan, to Israel.

4. Why in god's name, did no one cry about the poor opressed palestinians in the 1948 - 1967 time period?

They were under egyptian and jordanian occupation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
4. Why in god's name, did no one cry about the poor opressed palestinians in the 1948 - 1967 time period?

They were under egyptian and jordanian occupation.

Because no one cared about the Palestinians. And the Palestinians didn't have an organization of their own to voice their plight to the world.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because no one cared about the Palestinians.

Personally, I would say that the Western countries care more about the fate of the Palestinians that most if not all Arab States do.

And the Palestinians didn't have an organization of their own to voice their plight to the world.

I would say that the PLO was formed more as an imitation of the Stern gang than anything else.

[chequita guevara]

This now, that was then.

The PLO was formed as a propaganda group by Nasser, so he could trot them out whenever he wanted to increase his anti-Israel rhetoric. It was so obvious though, that the PLO more or less fell to pieces immediately. After '67, Fatah took it over, gathered the other groups around it, and rebuilt the organization.

[Sirotnikov]

No, but rather because the palestinians never wanted an independant state in 1967 borders.

Until the late 60s, most palestinains considered themselves either "arabs" or "syrians". The idea of "palestine" as a nation, rather than an area, was very uncommon.


I don't mind them having a state on 1967 territories. But I don't like their crying as if they lived as free citizens and we suddenly conquered them. If they had employed no terror against pre 1967 Israel, we probably wouldn't have stayed in the conquered areas.

[Natan]

As for the actual issue, Israel encouraged people to move to parts of the West Bank it felt would be needed for Israel's security in a future war. Also, now there's an idea of this as non-violent protest - the Palestinians use terrorism to get Jews to leave the region, so people move to the settlements to show them "not only won't we leave, we'll keep building new cities." The Lebensraum comparison is silly because Israel's claim to the land is not based soley or even partially on the idea that Jews need more land for their economic/social well being. Securing area's which have belonged to one's nation historically is connected to Nazis the way having a strong central government is, i.e., it's a trait Nazi Germany shares with many countries throughout history.

Chegitz: It's very tempting, in the aftermath of a war or military campaign, to declare the result predictable. But this is not always so. It was quite reasonable to expect Nazi Germany to defeat Soviet Russia, and it was quite reasonable to expect the Arabs to defeat the Jews in 1947-48. There were a few key unpredictable factors: One was that the Arab armies were not as organized or capable as they should have been. This was not really predictable, and in fact, the Jordanian army was an exception to this, but it was a factor which worked against the Arabs. Another factor which worked against them was that the Jewish towns and villages throughout the area put up a much stiffer defence than expected, Trevor Dupuy's Encyclopedia of Military History (a fairly unbiased source on this matter, I think) cites this as the critical factor. And finally, at a strategic level, the Arab armies were unable to properly coordinate their offensives.

Now for some specific points:
Several Jewish settlements were totally wiped out during the war, including some in Gaza, those in the Hula valley, and Kfar Etzion. Jews were also expelled from East Jerusalem. The Iraqi army mounted a strong offensive against Gesher in may, and as you note, the Egyptians nearly reached Ashdod. So the war really was a contest, and the Arabs really did destroy Jewish settlements.

Also, it's not quite clear to me to what extent Palestinians saw Jordanian rule as foriegn.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Until the late 60s, most palestinains considered themselves either "arabs" or "syrians". The idea of "palestine" as a nation, rather than an area, was very uncommon.

This is a intresting problem as I see it. How long does a people really need to define itself as a distinct people and get all that it means including the right to a specific territory?

Feeling that you're part of a certain group or people is something in the mind of those and the peoples existance is based on that ( a little bit like Humes "trees falling where no one can hear it, does it make a sound?")

I have no clear answers to this. Surely about 30 years is a short time to "invent" a people but it has been done in a haste before.

[Carver]

Sirotnikov, Chris 62,

You guys probably already know the numbers, but if you need to see ethnic cleansing in black and white, here:

Map - turn of the century
-a good map from the Virtual Jewish Library showing the overwhelmingly Arab population of "Israel".


Jewish Claim to Israel
-statement from the Virtual Jewish Library boasting that there were 10,000 Jews living in "Israel".



Israeli migration
-another link stating how the Jewish population swelled after WWII.

The key idea is that all these Jews didn't randomly settle in Israel because of job opportunities or good housing prices. They came because of the creation of a Jewish state. Meaning, ethnicity (or religion) was the primary factor in giving birth to the nation. Even Israelis call it a Jewish "homeland". Why would they call it that? Because it was created for the Jews - which wouldn't be bad, but it was created out of land belonging to others.

[CyberGnu]

Chris, Carver would never touch a svastika: He would have to take it from Sharon, and we know how sharon would respond to that!

Kropotkin and Siro, that palestinians didn't exist until 30 years ago is one of those perpetual lies that is propagated mainly in israeli textbooks. It only exists to delegitimize the palestinians claim to their homeland.

The truth is that palestinians have been a distinct group for hundreds of years, with their own flavor of music, weaving, pottery, customs and dialect of arabic.

As I've said about ten fifteen times before, saying that palestinians never existed because they look a lot like their neighbours is like saying that Norwegians doesn't exist...


Natan, that is factually wrong. Sharon himself has refused to reign in the settlemtns because of 'Israels right to natural expansion'. There is nothing in there about security.

Siro, are you saying that you really don't know what the probelm with the settlemnts are?

Moving out people of one ethniciity to give room for people of another ethnicity is ethnic cleansing. And that is exactly what the settlements are all about!

[Natan]

Cyber, the people of Bavaria have distinct customs - are they a different nation from other Germans? Are Silesians non-poles? Every region of the Levant has a distinct culture and dialect - be it the Akkar, Mount Lebanon, the Beqaa valley, Latakia, Alexandretta, or the Jazira. In fact, Gazans are somewhat different from West Bankers. By this logic, Syria is just a hodgepodge of different ethnic groups.

And CyberGNU, what Sharon has said in his autobiography and elsewhere, is that Israel needs the West Bank for security and that it was captured in a defensive war. He has refused to prevent the "natural expansion of settlements" but that is different from refusing to prevent the "natural expansion of Israel" into the settlements.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
The truth is that palestinians have been a distinct group for hundreds of years, with their own flavor of music, weaving, pottery, customs and dialect of arabic.

As I've said about ten fifteen times before, saying that palestinians never existed because they look a lot like their neighbours is like saying that Norwegians doesn't exist...

I myself was intrested of the concept and the idea to look at one self as a member of a distinct people (ie nationalism). Clearly the jews self image has changed a lot over the last hundered years too. Considering the prize-level in Norway they will soon cease to be.

[CyberGnu]

Natan, Bavaria was actually a separate state for many many years. Germany is essentially a federal alliance of a multitude of states. Play som EU and you'll see

If silesians want to call themselves silesians instead of poles, that is fine with me. It is up to the particular group.

And you know, one CAN be part of one ethnicity and another nationality... Look at switzerland, for example.


Now, am I correctly summing up your argument that since silesians prefer to think of themselves as poles first rhather than silesian, that automatically means palestinians must do the same?

[Kropotkin]

There's no generally accepted definition of nationality. A nationality is what people that claim to be part of it says it is.

[Natan]

No, I agree with Kropotkin that nationalities are what you make of them. And it's my view that the Palestinians did not consider themselves to be of a different nationality than other Arabs until some point in the late 50s or early 60s; before then they considered themselves a region of Syria. Not that it actually matters; Macedonians considered themselves Bulgarians for a long time, and Moldovans considered themselves Romanians. But you said that they were definitely a distinct nationality and anyone who says otherwise has been reading Israeli textbooks. (you seem addicted to that insult)

[CyberGnu]

Natan, it is well documented that palestinians in the early 20'th century wanted a nation of their own. That they wouldn't mind sharing it with other arab subgroups is a different question.

The point is that palestinians have existed as a concept for at least 200 years... Regardless of whether they wanted to have their own nation or not.

If you consider it an insult to have read Israeli textbooks, that is up to you. I merely pointed out that it is a lie perpetuated in Israeli textbooks, and in elongation by word of mouth.