Breaking the Law in the West Bank - The Private Land Report - Nov. 2006

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by mactbone
OK, but if you do something illegal, why do you expect anything other than what happened? They know the law and they know the consequence - and more importantly, so do the rest of the public. Is there enough sentiment with the public that they would try to change things so that the settlements could continue existing? Or is it really just handwringing?

are you talking about the private land issue, or the illegal outposts?

The private land issue is a novum, at least in public. Its been maintained in the past that all settlements were built on public land (of which there is a lot, due to the background of Ottoman land law)

The outposts? In the settlement movement they do want them all legalized, I guess. On the part of settler sympathizers i guess theres some real support for this, and some handwringing. Moving to the center, I think you get a lot of people who accept removals, but arent wild about them, and would be far more favorable if there was more response to the concessions Israel does make, and less terrorism, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
The native american comparison is rather apt. Other people took over their lands, pushed them into increasingly marginal areas and, when they resisted, killed them. There were rather understandably upset.

The lands taken for settlement (if thats what happened, jury still out) were hardly the most productive lands, since they are not agricultural settlements mostly. Generally the settlements are on hilltops, and the Pals live in the fertile valleys.

I suggest you might read some more about the history of the settlement of the US, and you might find room in your heart for empathy BOTH for indians AND for white settlers.

Note, I said empathy, not sympathy. You dont have to sympathize with anyone. You need empathy, not to be a nice person, but to understand reality, and so understand the effects of ones own actions. Empathy is a matter of self interest.

I fail to see why having a divided society, and debating what to do, makes one not an object for empathy. Its not like we're talking about a debate about commiting genocide against Pals. Its a debate about tearing down some mobile homes and synagogues, where people are living. Yes, I believe in the rule of law. Does a rigid enforcement of law help, or does it alienate part of your population from the law? We are able to talk about that in so many other contexts, but to talk about it in this context requires a loss of empathy. Cause the settlers, are you know, moral monsters.

Well Ive got news for you, most of them are not. They dont share your (or my) ideological beliefs and assumptions. I think theyve made a mistaken historical bet. I think they undervalue rule of law, and secular democracy. But they are not moral monsters (again, leaving out the Kahanist types who commit unprovoked or atrocious acts of violence)

If I was in Israeli, Id be part of that debate, and while Id support the dismantling of the outposts, Id listen to the other side, and try to implement it in a way that causes the least trauma, and Id also try to do so in a way that obtains some concessions in return. I take it, that, therefore, youd have no empathy for me.

[Arrian]

Correction:

I was getting upset (I'm not normally this testy about these things, LotM, but I'm having a bad day) and I did indeed confuse empathy and sympathy. My sympathy is running out (for both sides).

My empathy... well, that requires understanding where people are coming from and I'm not really on solid ground for either side there either. edit: to expand - I have some general knowledge of the history, and I have followed events pretty well for the past decade or so. So my empathy is... limited.

I do not see the illegal outposts as a legitimate bargaining chip. In fact, I find the idea repugnant. Facts on the ground: take as much as you can grab and then offer it back in negotiations... yeah, that's good faith. I'm aware the other side doesn't act in good faith either, but the US is barely involved with the other side. The US is heavily involved with Israel (whether I like it or not).

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian

My government provides Israel with a huge amount of support (money, diplo cover in the UN, etc).


About $3 billion per year. Which Netanyahu wanted Israel to forego. Precisely because he wanted a free hand. And because the extra money makes it easier for moderates and doves to build coalitions.


"Thus I'm involved, however indirectly, and I dislike that involvement when Israel does something I find repugnant.

This is very simple: these "outposts" are illegal and should not be countenanced."

The outposts are no more or less illegal under international law then all the other settlements. The outposts are , and who, in the perception of most Israelis, hate not only the settlers but the existence of the state of Israe more illegal under Israeli law, because they are not AUTHORIZED by the Civil Administration. Hence I dont see why you have a particular stake in them.

Those outpost that have been created in recent years are in violation of the Oslo accords. However the Oslo accords have been in tatters for years, and the successor roadmap has also been violated. The Israeli arguement is that it has been violated more seriously and more massively by the other side. The position of the US, and of the Olmert govt, is to make SOME concessions, to return to the road map, in exchange for concessions on the other side, in order to reestablish a basis for negotiations. This seems eminently reasonable to me. For the past few months that has been impossible due to the Hamas govt. Now, at last, do in large part to the firmness shown by the US, there is movement on the Pal side toward a different govt, that would give Abbas more influence. That could be the basis for new negotiations. Why choose this moment to turn away?


" Yet they are allowed (perhaps even encouraged). Frankly, were I in charge, the US position on the matter would be: remove them or waive your aid goodbye.

I'd be dubbed an anti-semite, of course."

Youd be dubbed a poor diplomat, at any rate, since you would stake all your leverage for a minor issue, and do it outside the context of all the other issues with the road map. If you truely didnt care about Pal violations of the road map, or Israels security concerns, or if you were truely in your heart of hearts sick of the Israelis and just longing for an excuse to cut the aid, then youd be anti-Israel to be sure (assuming youre not a likudnik who wants the aid cut for Bibis reasons) Whether, at this moment in history, being anti-Israel is the same as being an antisemite is an involved debate, one I prefer not to have right now.

[Arrian]

Oh, I think I'd have more demands than just that one.

That being said, I'm not anti-Israel (in general). I may be anti-Israel on a particular issue. I am not anti-Israel on all issues.

-Arrian

[dannubis]

Lotm,

I fully understand the fact that dismantling settlements is a very emotional business, but where was the jewish emotion when they stole that privately held land in the first place?

And what happened to the people on that land ? Somehow I have the idea that not so much emotion was involved when the soldiers removed them no ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Correction:

I was getting upset (I'm not normally this testy about these things, LotM, but I'm having a bad day) and I did indeed confuse empathy and sympathy. My sympathy is running out (for both sides).

My empathy... well, that requires understanding where people are coming from and I'm not really on solid ground for either side there either. So my empathy is... limited.

I do not see the illegal outposts as a legitimate bargaining chip. In fact, I find the idea repugnant. Facts on the ground: take as much as you can grab and then offer it back in negotiations... yeah, that's good faith. I'm aware the other side doesn't act in good faith either, but the US is barely involved with the other side. The US is heavily involved with Israel (whether I like it or not).

-Arrian

First of all its simply not true that the US isnt involved with the Pal side, and many of our allies, and our non-ally partners are quite involved. Second, the Israeli govt is NOT establishing illegal outposts. Just as Mr Abbas, G-d bless him, apparently has never authorized rocket attacks on Israel, or suicide bombings of pizza parlors. What he HAS done is used his obligation to crackdown on terrorism, to disarm terrorists, as a bargaining chip. In return Israel uses its obligation to crackdown on post-1991 settlements and outposts as a bargaining chip. Some Israel supporters would find MY position morally revolting - equating a failure to tear down some mobile homes with a failure to crackdown on those who deliberately murder innocents. Nonethelss, I feel Israel has no choice but to realize Abbas political reality, and to make the equation.

And of course the settlers themselves hardly envision their outposts as bargaining chips. They envision them as permanent homes, on land they beleive they have a right to.

as for empathy being limited by not knowing where people are coming from, i was trying to help you with that, as best I could, also living in the US but following matters in Israel somewhat more closely.


Youre testy??? I see the fabulous Baker boys about to cut a deal with Syria and Iran for "peace with honor" in Iraq, possibly at the cost of giving them a condominium over Iraq, looking aside from the Iranian nuke program, and putting new (and IMHO unwarrented) pressure on Israel) and then Syria, apparently revelling in the catbird seat, having the sheer gall to murder Pierre Gemayel. "the worst are full of passionate intensity, while the best lack all conviction"

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But its a democracy, and so there is debate on the terms that are meaningful to the people, and not to someone thousands of miles away who doesnt face the day to day realities.

It's not a democracy for the people getting their land taken.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by dannubis
Lotm,

I fully understand the fact that dismantling settlements is a very emotional business, but where was the jewish emotion when they stole that privately held land in the first place?

And what happened to the people on that land ? Somehow I have the idea that not so much emotion was involved when the soldiers removed them no ?

It was said at the time that it was all public land, not private land. Thats what the dispute is about now. If there was even dispute, the land must have been vacant, as land that was farmed became private land under the old Ottoman land laws (inherited by the Brit mandate and by Jordan) Presumably it was private land owned by a farmer or villager, which was not put to the plow, and certainly had no homes on it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh, I think I'd have more demands than just that one.

That being said, I'm not anti-Israel (in general). I may be anti-Israel on a particular issue. I am not anti-Israel on all issues.

-Arrian

I said IF. If you have no sympathy for the dilemmas Israel faces wrt the road map, security, and negotiating with the pals, Id consider that prima facie evidence of being anti-Israel, even if one loudly proclaimed ones love for an Israel confined to indefensible boundaries.

[Arrian]

I edited that: we are involved with the Pals. Not NEARLY to the same extent, however. It's apples and oranges.

Anyway, toning down the rhetoric some: the illegal outposts should go. That is my opinion, for whatever it may be worth. Further, the settlements in violation of the Oslo accords should probably go too, but almost assuredly won't. Terror should stop, but won't. And so on and so forth.

...

The testiness I refer to is due to physical pain - my back is angry today (and yesterday, resulting in a crappy night's sleep). I'm sorry it seeped into my posts, but then again I probably owe my wife an apology for a short (particularly on my part) telephone conversation half an hour ago too.

Of course Iraq pisses me off too. I'm not at all happy that the "solution" to this mess appears to be to hand it over to Iran/Syria. But that's another matter.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


It's not a democracy for the people getting their land taken.

An Israel extending from the Jordan river to the sea, without suffrage for the Pals of the territories, would be no democracy. Which is ONE of the reasons I favor a withdrawl, broadly, from the territories, whether negotiated or unilateral.

That, however was not at issue, but about the extent of debate within Israel about dismantling the settlements. The debate being broader than Arrian is comfortable with. To which I responded simply that such broad debates happen in democracies.

Thank you for taking my words out of context, however.

[Aeson]

I don't think cutting any voluntary aid to X necessarily qualifies as being anti-X. Even if the aid was going to someone you felt was cooperating with you fully. In the case where the aid receiver is not being cooperative with the terms for the aid, it's even more silly to call taking a neutral stance "anti".

The move from "pro" to "neutral" is towards the negative, but that doesn't make "neutral" into "anti".

(Not that I'm saying we should cut aid to anyone, just talking on general principles.)

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I said IF. If you have no sympathy for the dilemmas Israel faces wrt the road map, security, and negotiating with the pals, Id consider that prima facie evidence of being anti-Israel, even if one loudly proclaimed ones love for an Israel confined to indefensible boundaries.

Ok, am I misreading this or is this a thinly-veiled shot at my positions wrt the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? As in "you SAY you're not anti-Israel, but you really are."

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Aeson

Lucid as usual.

-Arrian