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

[Arrian]

LotM,

Thanks for your posts. I've read them, and intend to read them again, slower, but I'm off to lunch in a few minutes. In the meantime:

So what im saying is that, based on all I know, its the HAWKISH side of my inclination that wants Israel to give up the aid. I truely dont think you get that, or get why.

I follow the argument you've laid out. I get it. And I think perhaps that ending the aid could be benificial to BOTH countries. Might it free Israel's hand to act more hawkish? Indeed it might. It also might alter the balance of power somewhat - possibly to the better. There is an argument that the US position skews the conflict such that Israel has little reason to make compromises necessary for peace. I'm not sure I agree with that - I have some reservations - but I think there is at least a kernel of truth there. Removing the US from the equation might just be the trigger for change that results in peace. Or it might be the trigger for even worse violence. I'm honestly not sure, but I think it's a debate that should happen - openly and frankly. That's not possible in US politics. It *may* be possible between you and I here at 'poly, though I suspect even then it'll be touch and go.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
LotM,

Thanks for your posts. I've read them, and intend to read them again, slower, but I'm off to lunch in a few minutes. In the meantime:



I follow the argument you've laid out. I get it. And I think perhaps that ending the aid could be benificial to BOTH countries. Might it free Israel's hand to act more hawkish? Indeed it might. It also might alter the balance of power somewhat - possibly to the better. There is an argument that the US position skews the conflict such that Israel has little reason to make compromises necessary for peace.

Thats where I think you still dont get what Im saying. $3 billion dollars less in aid will, I believe, not lead to cuts in the IDF. It will lead to cuts in Israeli social programs, in subsidies to religious institutions,etc. Which means its principle impact will be on Israeli coalition building. Ultimately that is to the benefit of the Likud. The religious parties even the ultra-Orthodox who arent aligned with the settler movement as the National Religious are, are by nature more sympathetic to the Likud on a range of grounds. They are often drawn into centrist or dovish coalitions due to their reliance on state funds, which are used by people like Peres or Barak to buy their participation in coalitions. And the unspoken expectation from the US govt is that they WILL be used that way. In the absence of much of the money, and the expectation, the religious would probably simply go over the to the Likud. The left, OTOH, in its coalition building, would be truer to its ideals of secularism, and less inclined to cut deals with the religious for the sake of peace. The result, I believe, is that it would lead to more hawkish Israeli domestic politics.

I also dont agree that Israel has refused to compromise for the sake of peace. I beleive they have repeatedly done so, from Oslo, to Wye Island, to Camp David, to the road map, to the withdrawl from Gaza. They have not, generally, made largescale unreciprocated concessions to improve the atmosphere. I think it is naive to believe that they would be more inclined to do so in the absence of US aid.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


TBH, I'm kind of dumbfounded at the country simply ignoring its supreme court.

Perhaps it would be wise to wait and see what the arguement boils down to? I rather suspect it will end up in a lot of nuanced discussions of Ottoman land law, what claims villagers had to formerly state land, etc.

IIIUC all vacant land was usually kept as state land, and then as agriculture pressured for more land, it was parcelled out by the Ottoman authoritiess. Thats why there was so much state land available in 1967 when Israel took the place, both UK and Jordan having kept most of that land in state hands. Indeed, IIRC Israel was criticized for not continuing to parcel out state lands as the Ottomans had done, and thus starving the villages of new land needed for growth, while at the same time allocating land for settlements (esp after 1977 when Likud took power, Labour having only authorized limited settlements in strategically key locations) I presume there are claims that some villagers had received title to lands that the Civil Admin for whatever reason did not recognize. Its going to be a long debate about A. What is the reality wrt titles, and if the CA was stretching things, who knew what and when.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
LotM,

Thanks for your posts. I've read them, and intend to read them again, slower, but I'm off to lunch in a few minutes. In the meantime:



I follow the argument you've laid out. I get it. And I think perhaps that ending the aid could be benificial to BOTH countries. Might it free Israel's hand to act more hawkish? Indeed it might. It also might alter the balance of power somewhat - possibly to the better. There is an argument that the US position skews the conflict such that Israel has little reason to make compromises necessary for peace. I'm not sure I agree with that - I have some reservations - but I think there is at least a kernel of truth there. Removing the US from the equation might just be the trigger for change that results in peace. Or it might be the trigger for even worse violence. I'm honestly not sure, but I think it's a debate that should happen - openly and frankly. That's not possible in US politics. It *may* be possible between you and I here at 'poly, though I suspect even then it'll be touch and go.

-Arrian

The crux of that debate is whether Israel has truely foregone reasonable opportunities to compromise. That debate has occured, and frequently. I retain the right to vote against, and to oppose in any other legal way, any elected official whom I feel is making policy on the basis of what I believe to be an incorrect answer to that question.

[Arrian]

Thats where I think you still dont get what Im saying. $3 billion dollars less in aid will, I believe, not lead to cuts in the IDF. It will lead to cuts in Israeli social programs, in subsidies to religious institutions,etc.

Where Israel chooses to allocate the US aid is their choice, but also rather meaningless to this debate, IMO. $3 billion allocated to social programs means $3 billion freed up for the IDF (or some other department). Remove that, and it forces a choice between guns & butter. I agree it's likely that Israel would choose guns. That's not really the point. Removal of US aid removes a cushion and would (perhaps, the argument goes) force a more realistic appraisal of Israel's position.

Your analysis of internal Israeli politics may well be accurate, however.

I also dont agree that Israel has refused to compromise for the sake of peace.

I'm not saying Israel hasn't ever compromised. Still, strong US support has an impact on the equation. Without it, perhaps more compromise would be deemed acceptable. Would that be enough to solve the conflict? I don't know. At this point, I rather doubt it.

I do not think it's naive to think that US support (financial and otherwise) for Israel has a tangible impact on Israel's approach to negotiations with the Palestinians.

-Arrian

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
ongoing colonisation of the West Bank

Colonizing the barren land

if you take away a person's reason to fight, only the very very fanatical will continue and ultimately even they will be defeated.

The reason Palestinian fight is "their" land.
Ergo, by taking all "their" land, we take away their reason to fight.

Yeah, baby

[GePap]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Perhaps if Jews, and others, had not had to endure hundreds of years of dhimmi oppression, there would not have been the urge to create a Jewish state.

Last time I checked, it was Jews living under European rule that felt the urge for a Jewsih state, as Zionism is a form of nationalism, a western notion.

Last time I checked, the state whose flag you fly was the first big european kingdom to force all its Jews to leave the country....

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Perhaps if Jews, and others, had not had to endure hundreds of years of dhimmi oppression, there would not have been the urge to create a Jewish state.

Actually, virtually all the very worst examples of Jewish oppression/massacres etc have been European - there are literally countless examples from virtually every corner of Europe for hundreds of years...

Arabic nations on the whole were incredibly tolerant by comparison right up until the moment that the Zionist movement started to take action in stealing a huge chunk of territory from right under their noses, and yes, they've been pissed ever since...

The settlements are a continuing example of the ongoing theft by the Israelis of land that doesn't belong to them!

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Colonizing the barren land


The reason Palestinian fight is "their" land.
Ergo, by taking all "their" land, we take away their reason to fight.

Yeah, baby

I can always count on you to be the arrogant dickhead Israeli that proves my point!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Actually, virtually all the very worst examples of Jewish oppression/massacres etc have been European - there are literally countless examples from virtually every corner of Europe for hundreds of years...

Arabic nations on the whole were incredibly tolerant by comparison right up until the moment that the Zionist movement started to take action in stealing a huge chunk of territory from right under their noses, and yes, they've been pissed ever since...

The settlements are a continuing example of the ongoing theft by the Israelis of land that doesn't belong to them!

European oppression of Jews has of course been horrendous, but is based on a different tradition to islamic oppression of Jews, certainly under the Ottomans.

The latter comes from the Jewish & Christian status of 'protected peoples' under Islamic rule - where they are allowed to keep their religion (rather than the usual convert-or-die option) but as second-class citizens with no equality or legal rights.

The former is more about conspiracy-theories about alleged sinister Jewish power, and is not only still prevelant today, but the ideas have been exported to the islamic world.

They are two contrasts, one sees Jews as lowly dogs, another as powerful overlords. I think the Ottomans came before Zionism.

As for land - it was mostly a desert, wasn't it? Maybe they should leave the land as they found it if they get kicked out.

[Cort Haus]

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=24023&catcode=13

In Arab culture, dogs are considered filthy, dirty beasts, and negotiating with "dogs" is not an option. Historically Jews were often identified this way because for centuries, we were living as a subjected people under the dominant culture of Islam.

We were a "protected" minority living under a religious caste system where we had to wear identifiable clothes, pay a special tax, were not allowed to ride horses, forced to live in ghettoes, and were submitted to other indignities. Our fortunes fluctuated with the benevolence of whoever was ruling at the time. When he was fair and just, Jews prospered. Otherwise, watch out! Massacres of Jews by Arab Muslims were not unknown. While most people know how European Jews suffered, little is known of the Jews of the Arab world.

Today, the Arab and Muslim worlds are the most anti-Semitic of any region. Much of their media--the television programs, cartoons, and editorials--promote the kind of anti-Semitism not seen or heard since the time when Hitler walked this earth. Also, in many mosques throughout the region, religious leaders who are quick to take offense over such matters as cartoons regularly teach the vilest anti-Jewish defamation.

[MOBIUS]

Today, the Arab and Muslim worlds are the most anti-Semitic of any region.

They hate themselves!!?

Jeez, you expect me to take you seriously when you post drivel like this...

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


They hate themselves!!?

Jeez, you expect me to take you seriously when you post drivel like this...

Stop playing with semantics and pretending you have misunderstood it. And stop hurling f*cking insults as well or you'll get some back.

[GePap]

Excuse me Court, but what the **** does current Arab antisemitism have to do with illegal Israeli settlements and the illegal depravation of Palestinian property (or basic civic, or human) rights?

Cause I am really at a loss to understand what point you are making, if any.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Stop playing with semantics and pretending you have misunderstood it. And stop hurling f*cking insults as well or you'll get some back.

Is that semantics, or semitics...?

The point is, that Arabs are a semitic race, therefore for them to be anti-semitic would be to hate themselves...

This guy is pissed off (I noticed you didn't post his really ranty bits) he got kicked out of Egypt as a direct result of his co-religionists stealing Palestine from the people living there in the name of Zionism.

Cause and effect, dumbass!