Question for buildings in the conflict of Israel and Palestine

[Pekka]

First off, I know I carry the flag of Israel. I don't know all the facts of every case such as this, but I still carry the flag in support of the nation. Now, go ahead and make your own conclusions on that. You might find it weird as my argumentation in this thread would be usually from someone on 'the other side'.

Now, the buildings. First thing we need to establish is that Israel is occupying lots of lands with settlements. This is a fact, and they are in direct violation of UN resolution. I do believe this to be true.

If we know this to be a fact, then we must see why this is so. The reason behind it. Now, I do believe from watching all kinds of media and sources, that since the attack attempt that lead to embarrasing result for Egypt, Syria and Jordan, what you needed to do was obvious in terms of security.

Someone here could also explain the main things what the roadmap plan is about and give the what ever 10 point plan it has.

Now, it's been some while now since that attack attempt, and so the forces remain in Palestinian land. Why is this? This is because, IMO, they have to protect the Israeli citizens that live in those regions, because they might come under attack pretty soon the military would leave those areas, settlements.

So what I see here is a twisted situation, on the other hand, the military has the duty to protect massive amounts of people. However, why are those settlers there in the first place? Some of them are quite extremists themselves, vigilante and violent.

And because there is lots of settlements around, basically it means that there are troops all over those areas. And in order to contain a situation that is hot and dangerous, they need to have lots of checkpoints and establish routes that are in their control and under their supervision. From security point of view, this is vital. If you would defy that, it means that the security of the settlers is breached.

So, about the buildings. What is the right of the settlers and their claim to their own buildings? If Palestinian buildings are bulldozed, how is that legal? If they don't have a permit, why is it in the hands of Israel to give those permits, after all we are talking about occupied area here. So there's controversy there. Wouldn't it be illegal to build settlements there plus destroy some of the buildings of the Palestinians and not the other way around?

Now the practical part, I do understand that since the situation has been dangerous for some decades now, a buffer zone is needed. But shouldn't that buffer zone be military only and in moderate proportions and settlers, shouldn't be be out of that buffer zone altogether? I think that defines occupation and the difference between clear self defense in those areas gets blurred, since you'd have to be in your own legal land, don't you think?

Alas, I still carry the flag of Israel, but this question I would like to be answered and debated on. I will continue to support Israel, however, in the case of settlements, I must say that I would prefer them to go home. Everyone has problems and I would just like to know and gain understanding as how this is seen with you guys.

[VetLegion]

If we know this to be a fact, then we must see why this is so. The reason behind it. Now, I do believe from watching all kinds of media and sources, that since the attack attempt that lead to embarrasing result for Egypt, Syria and Jordan, what you needed to do was obvious in terms of security.

I think settlements have nothing to do with security, if anything they are a liability in that regard.

They exist because settlers feel God has given them the right to that land. Most governments of Israel have supported/subsidised this to some extent, but Sharon pulled settlers out of Gaza. The question remains as to what happens to West Bank settlements.

[Pekka]

Too bad we don't have any Palestinians here, this woudl make a good debate, because we have Israelis here so.. too bad. Would be interesting.

I also, personally by the way, do think that the only lasting way for peace is to override the military, since they only are a machine that basically are the outlet and tool for politicians, and since we know they are notorious for not getting anywhere with their 'ideas', the only way is for the palestinians and israelis to conduct in a constructive dialogue with themselves, from one to another in massive amounts and establish rules of constructive debate and interraction. This could result into better understanding of each other and not just lashes of military and the others.

[Pekka]

"I think settlements have nothing to do with security, if anything they are a liability in that regard."

This is not what I said, I said the military in those settlement areas are there to protect those settlers, so in terms of security, I was talking about that only.

And yes, I do think settlers with their own actions are creating more conflict and definitely are part of the problem.

This is why I challenged their legality altogether. In terms of security right after hostile attack attempt, I meant that you needed to go outside your own borders to secure. But now? It' smostly just to protect those settlement areas.

[VetLegion]

Quick Google Image search gives this map (don't blame me if it's not accurate!):

[VetLegion]

Questioning legality doesn't make much sense in the theatre, in my opinion. You can question morality, and it's not bound by documents and laws.

[Pekka]

Well that says the settlement outposts. I don't know how accurate that map is, it seems obvious that outposts would be established in elevated areas for better security and control of that area. Of course, that creates a situation where you have a settlement, you also have a dominative position and control if no one else is allowed on those hills.

I think what would be interesting is, because I do think the outposts to be located there is obvious, but if the settlers built those areas on those hills in the first place this in mind or if they are not in fact on the hills so much as they are just randomly built, but the outposts were, of course, built on top.

[Pekka]

I disagree, I think we should focus on legality here rather than morality, because it is a bloody conflict and I don't think there's much sense to start pulling individual cases here and see how wrong they were. I think it should start from legality, definitely. But this isn't the debate on this thread, rather buildings and their status LEGALLY.

[VetLegion]

Well legality and morality are connected. It's not moral to break the laws... unless the laws are immoral to begin with

[Pekka]

yes yes, well take stand on the issue of those buildings then, based on your own convictions, that is, with your moral stand, legal or cry baby conviction .

[VetLegion]

It's pretty easy to say are the buildings legal, if you know the law. But which law is applicable in an occupied territory? I have no idea. Presumably Israeli law. I know squat about it though.

[Pekka]

Well you can still have your say on those buildings. I would say that it's an interesting question.

Because buildings do indicate land ownership. And if you would own that land you build your stuff on, then for someone else to come and knock it down is well.. illegal.

This is of course very basic analogue, we always have cases of exceptions. Now, if you don't own that land but you should be able to build on it, then it indicates to leasing the land from the legal owner of that land.

Because Israel is occupying those territories, does it legally own that land? THe very word, occupation, refers to being on a land that is not yours.

Yes, you sometimes do that legally, you sometimes have to do it. But rarely does that give you landowner rights, as in you get to decide what to do with the land and who can build what. That would be invasion, and invasion can't last for decades legally, it has to be occupation, and occupation always indicates that there is a date to leave that land, not intention to stay, because then it would be permanent occupation, that is invasion.

[VetLegion]

Israel can annex territory any time, as has done in the past. It's not a technical problem. The problem is, they want a lasting peace, and they don't know how to get it.

The good solution is to separate the populations as much as possible. I support Israel's wall

In that light, settlements should either go, or Israel should annex them and enough territory around them to form a continuous border, and then expel the remaining Palestinians.

However they should coordinate the thing with the formal creation of Palestinian state.

[Pekka]

I do agree, because I think one of the greatest problems is that since you have those settlements, and they need to be protected, it means that the infrastructure will be screwed because of all the checkpoints and control of routes. That basically means that if you happen to live there or even near or what ever, you will be subjected to foreign military every single day and you can't live normally at all, this would bring about humiliation and other things that won't go away but outbursts will begin when they are old enough to carry a rock. And then you do have a situation where you need to defend and return the favour of attacking youth and others.

So yeah, I do think the web of infrastructure is one of the keys, that needs to go away in order for Palestinians to have some means for normal lives, that is being not occupied by active military.

How does that happen? By bulldozing those settlements or just call the occupation invasion and screw everyone else and take the land and throw everyone else out. I would prefer retreating to home.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VetLegion
The good solution is to separate the populations as much as possible.

You mean like apartheid?

The good solution is for Israelis and Palestinians to make babies together so that the kids don't know whether they're Israeli or Palestinian. They can live in "the buildings."