A Palestinian State

[Alan]

Not that we SHOULDN'T support Israel, but there is a difference between support and ignoring provocations like the increasing illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian areas.

I've noticed you parrot this point about "illegal" settlements many times in various threads. Perhaps you could explain to me how settlements in areas which were seized in self defense from countries not involved in the current dispute could be considered illegal.

As a former Israeli Defense Minister said: "The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law."

Based upon the facts of the matter, the excuses given, and the language used by many, I can only assume that a large part of the international community would like to see the middle east Judenfrei, by any means possible.

[loosechickens]

Certainly, Alan. They are considered illegal under a number of conventions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement for the full explanation, including the argument for the illegality of the settlements and arguments by Israel for the legality of the settlements. Actually, this whole piece is both eye opening and shows the scope of the problem.

excerpt:

" An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and is considered occupied territory by the international community.[1] Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank. Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, areas which have been annexed by Israel, are considered settlements by the international community, which does not recognize Israel's annexations of these territories.[2] Settlements also existed in the Sinai and Gaza Strip until Israel evacuated the Sinai settlements following the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement and unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

The International Court of Justice and the international community say these settlements are illegal,[3][4] and no government supports Israel's settlements.[5] Israel disputes the position of the international community.[6] The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[7] Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West bank in 2005.[8]

As of December 2010, 327,750 Israelis live in the 121 officially-recognised settlements in the West Bank, 192,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem and over 20,000 live in settlements in the Golan Heights [9][10] Settlements range in character from farming communities and frontier villages to urban suburbs and neighborhoods. The three largest settlements, Modi'in Illit, Maale Adumim and Betar Illit, have achieved city status, with over 30,000 residents each.

Israeli policies toward these settlements have ranged from active promotion to removal by force.[11] The ongoing settlement construction by Israel is frequently criticized as an obstacle to the peace process by the United Nations[12] and third parties including the United Kingdom,[13] the European Union,[14] and the United States.[12]"

[Alan]

So, from your link, it would appear that the international community considers the settlements "illegal" because the presence of Jewish people in the disputed territories changes the demographic makeup of the area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...t#Legal_status

What do the international community and American progressives have against diversity?

[creaker]

So, from your link, it would appear that the international community considers the settlements "illegal" because the presence of Jewish people in the disputed territories changes the demographic makeup of the area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...t#Legal_status

What do the international community and American progressives have against diversity?

I read it and it the contested legality of the Israeli settlements appears to be related to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

[JaneV2.0]

"It is a common pattern, and one wonders at the Jews, who have suffered so much injustice, abuse and mistreatment at the hands of others in the past, are unable to see the abuse and mistreatment they have handed out to the Palestinians over the years, as continuing a pattern of doing unto others what was done unto them. Very sad. "

A Chinese national with whom I worked, and who had lived and worked in Israel, related to me that Palestinians were treated horribly there--"worse than you treat black people," was the way they put it.

Israel was created by fiat, so there's no reason Palestine can't be fashioned likewise--preferably with the U.S. well out of it. Expecting any president to untie such a Gordian knot single-handedly is sheer folly.

I'd like to live long enough to see us deal with our own problems first, but I don't have much hope of that happening.

[gail_d]

I was a history major as an undergraduate and one of the courses whose content has stayed with methroughout the years is the course I took in Modern Middle East history taught by my advisor and then-chair of my university's history department, Dr. Caroline T. Marshall. Some judicious googling turned up that she recommended this book, now in its 6th edition, which I now recommend to you:

History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Bickerton and Klausner.

The longer history of the region, the oversight of the region in modern times as a British mandate, the history of the persecution of the Jews as a religious minority, and the immediate post-WWII reaction to the magnitude of the Holocaust were significant contributors to the formation of the state of Israel.

Diplomatically, the United States continues to support a two-state solution (similar to that proposed in 1947 under the United Nations partition plan for Palestine, but with the borders to be negotiated by the parties--in other words, this is not a new development): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

The term 'two-state solution' means different things to different people: http://djpressman.wordpress.com/2011...ate-solutions/

Acquiring (or attempting to acquire) territory by settlement instead of through official channels is, historically, a dicey action: see also "Indian Territory"/Oklahoma.

It's an excruciatingly difficult situation and has been for the past century. I don't buy the "well, the Jews have always been at war with the Arabs, so they will always be" line of thought because, in fact, they haven't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Eastern_history

[creaker]

I've just spent the past hour or so trying to pick apart just the highlights of what led up to the creation of the state of Israel just from the end of WWI to 1948 - what a complicated mess.

[Alan]

I read it and it the contested legality of the Israeli settlements appears to be related to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Yes, specifically Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which forbids an "occupying authority" from "deporting" or "transfering" parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory.

It occurs to me that the "illegal settlement" argument requires a very one-sided reading of the conventions requirements in order to make that case.

[catherine]

I've been reading with interest, but with absolutely no intention of adding to the discussion in a meaningful way because I'm quite ignorant of the complexities you guys have been so eloquently been outlining.

I just want to say from a completely simplistic point of view, that this issue really points out how when people's rights are encroached upon, through conquest or personal liberty, the "sins of the father" last for generations upon generations upon generations. The Jews have met injustice, the Palestinians have met injustice, the blacks have met injustice, the Native Americans have met injustice and for those few examples we have been paying the price, we are paying the price, and we will pay the price for God knows how long.

I have sometimes fantasized that an alien from another planet wants to help us take away this problem, so they pass a magnetic wand over everyone in the world that removes our memory of history. Then they take us in a big spaceship and "sprinkle" us randomly back on earth so we're all mixed up and forced to live side by side with people who are neighbors by pure chance.

What would happen? How long would it be before people form alliances and then wield power over other groups all over again? What do the lessons of history tell us about how these conflicts have been resolved in the past. We don't see any more IRA bombings of London anymore. Unfortunately we aren't threatened by Native Americans because we've killed them and stripped them of their cultural ties. We just can't leave well enough alone--we're still conquistadors.

Who knows the answer? Where do we even start? I think we all have to have some huge spiritual revolution before we can "all just get along" as Rodney King said. Or a really great leader or two. I'm reading that really great book about change by the Heath Brothers called Switch, and maybe some of those principles could be applied to good use here.

OK, now I'll go back to letting you smarter, more informed people hash it out.

[creaker]

Yes, specifically Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which forbids an "occupying authority" from "deporting" or "transfering" parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory.

It occurs to me that the "illegal settlement" argument requires a very one-sided reading of the conventions requirements in order to make that case.

I think the primary requirement would be being an "occupied territory", and I think that would be quite debatable in itself.

In the end, there will be no solution that will be equitable and fair or acceptable to everyone - as far as I can tell there has never been an equitable and fair situation in this region of the world to being with.