> Are Palestinians citizens of Israel, or is it a foreign country
Palestinians who live in the lands that Israel has ruled since 1948 are citizens of Israel. The West Bank is not a foreign country, there was never an independent state/country established there. I do not know why the Arabs did not establish an independent Arab state in the West Bank in 1948. In any case, Jordan militarily occupied the area from 1948 to 1967 and Israel militarily occupies the area since. And Israel has been trying to pass off that occupation to an entity that would establish an independent state there for almost 30 years. But no such entity existed or exists today. The PA would be the first contender, but they are incapable of actually administrating the area, and also they rejected every single offer that Israel made to pass the duty of administering the land to them.
> that Israeli settlers are invading
The Israeli settlers are not invading. I've repeated this a few times in this thread, so this is a copy-paste:
League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so.
Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.
> And Israel has been trying to pass off that occupation to an entity that would establish an independent state there for almost 30 years.
I was thinking the other day, why doesn't Israel offer the west bank to Jordan?
I think that by permitting, providing security and infrastructure for, and aiding settlement activity, Israel demonstrates a lack of interest in actually passing off occupation. Because of the settlements already there today, it would be already very difficult to maintain the rights and security of Israeli citizens who live in the west bank without the military occupation.
So while I think your argument about Ottoman law is mostly sophistic (why is Ottoman law in 'force'? Because Israel has not allowed self-determination) I think it's really hard to argue that Israel has demonstrated any commitment to ending the occupation: rather, the settlement program makes the occupation a permanent necessity, even if the Israelis elected a government that had ending the occupation as a number one issue on the agenda.
> I was thinking the other day, why doesn't Israel offer the west bank to Jordan?
Jordan absolutely does not want the West Bank. They washed their hands of that mess years ago.
> I think that by permitting, providing security and infrastructure for, and aiding settlement activity, Israel demonstrates a lack of interest in actually passing off occupation. Because of the settlements already there today, it would be already very difficult to maintain the rights and security of Israeli citizens who live in the west bank without the military occupation.
Yes, there are many facets to the occupation, and no government body is 100% attached to any facet - sometimes they'll flip flop. But being that despite the narrative commonly mentioned in social media that the settlements are illegal, I do understand how a government agency tasked with a purpose will fulfill that purpose to the best of its ability to all Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide - that is the stated purpose of the state. I'll remind you that even our Home Force of the army has traveled to foreign countries to help Jews there, such as Ethiopia, Turkey, etc. We are a state for the Jews, even if those Jews are not on our sovereign territory.
> So while I think your argument about Ottoman law is mostly sophistic (why is Ottoman law in 'force'? Because Israel has not allowed self-determination) I think it's really hard to argue that Israel has demonstrated any commitment to ending the occupation: rather, the settlement program makes the occupation a permanent necessity, even if the Israelis elected a government that had ending the occupation as a number one issue on the agenda.
It is actually very practical. In fact Israel has allowed self-determination for specific areas in coordination with the PA. And Israel has completely left the Gaza strip.
You need to understand that these organizations are for the benefit of a future state called Palestine, not for the benefit of the people who would live in that state. The people - and their suffering - are a means to an end to establish that state. I know that is very difficult for Westerners to comprehend, as Western states are _for_ the citizens.
Palestinians who live in the lands that Israel has ruled since 1948 are citizens of Israel. The West Bank is not a foreign country, there was never an independent state/country established there. I do not know why the Arabs did not establish an independent Arab state in the West Bank in 1948. In any case, Jordan militarily occupied the area from 1948 to 1967 and Israel militarily occupies the area since. And Israel has been trying to pass off that occupation to an entity that would establish an independent state there for almost 30 years. But no such entity existed or exists today. The PA would be the first contender, but they are incapable of actually administrating the area, and also they rejected every single offer that Israel made to pass the duty of administering the land to them.
The Israeli settlers are not invading. I've repeated this a few times in this thread, so this is a copy-paste:
League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so.
Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.
> And Israel has been trying to pass off that occupation to an entity that would establish an independent state there for almost 30 years.
I was thinking the other day, why doesn't Israel offer the west bank to Jordan?
I think that by permitting, providing security and infrastructure for, and aiding settlement activity, Israel demonstrates a lack of interest in actually passing off occupation. Because of the settlements already there today, it would be already very difficult to maintain the rights and security of Israeli citizens who live in the west bank without the military occupation.
So while I think your argument about Ottoman law is mostly sophistic (why is Ottoman law in 'force'? Because Israel has not allowed self-determination) I think it's really hard to argue that Israel has demonstrated any commitment to ending the occupation: rather, the settlement program makes the occupation a permanent necessity, even if the Israelis elected a government that had ending the occupation as a number one issue on the agenda.
Jordan absolutely does not want the West Bank. They washed their hands of that mess years ago.
Yes, there are many facets to the occupation, and no government body is 100% attached to any facet - sometimes they'll flip flop. But being that despite the narrative commonly mentioned in social media that the settlements are illegal, I do understand how a government agency tasked with a purpose will fulfill that purpose to the best of its ability to all Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide - that is the stated purpose of the state. I'll remind you that even our Home Force of the army has traveled to foreign countries to help Jews there, such as Ethiopia, Turkey, etc. We are a state for the Jews, even if those Jews are not on our sovereign territory.
It is actually very practical. In fact Israel has allowed self-determination for specific areas in coordination with the PA. And Israel has completely left the Gaza strip.
You need to understand that these organizations are for the benefit of a future state called Palestine, not for the benefit of the people who would live in that state. The people - and their suffering - are a means to an end to establish that state. I know that is very difficult for Westerners to comprehend, as Western states are _for_ the citizens.
3 replies →
Your copying and pasting of that collection of falsehoods is a bad contribution to the thread and you should stop.
What specifically do you assert is false in my comment?