Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I want a civil and informative discussion about the legetimacy of jewish settlement in the west bank and why so many people are against it.

Please, for the love of god NO AD HOMINEM, no personal attack and insults, like i had on previous threads about similar subjects, i posted this thread on serious debate for a reson.

main point of discussion: why are you against jewish settlemend and/or israeli control of the west bank?

I personally don't see any reson against it. the west bank never belonged to any Palastinian state.
it was a part of the kingdom of Jordan, and it was conquered by Israel after Jordan attempted to invade it in 1967, along with egypt and syria.

according to here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories#West_Bank

Jordan refused to sign a peace treaty with Israel, so the land taken could have not been given back, even it have a large arab population.
when Jordan Finally did agree to sighn a peace treaty, in 1993 – they didn't request the west bank back.

so technically israel is not occupying any Palestinian land. it is occupying a Jordanian land, which is not claimed by them anymore.

According to the international law its "disputed territory" and not occupied territory as many like to call.

So now that we know all this. why do people think jews are not allowed to settle there?
they never steal land. all the settlements are built on either purchased, or unowned land.

When they do build on private land, they get expelled very quickly, and very ruthlessly. like in the case with Amona http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amona,_Mateh_Binyamin#Evacuation

So if the settlements are not build on stolen land what's wrong with jews living there?
Because of the claim that all of the west bank is Palestinian and setteling there essetianly is theft of palestinian territory?

how does that work? people should be allowed to settle wherever they like as long as the land is not owned by anyone. denying someone to from building their homes because he does not belong to certin race/ethnicity is blatant racism.

there are plenty arabs who buying homes in jewish cities, and no one bats an eye.
yet jews bulding homes next to arab cities and everyone lose their minds??

Now about the claims about Israeli opression:
I live in the West bank. i never witnessed any opression from the israeli side. in fact, usually there are very good, friendly relations between the arab and jewish populations.

yes, there are checkpoints. but 99% of the time peope move though them smoothly. and when there is an alert, both Jews and Arabs suffer from the horrific traffic jams and inspections in the points.
but don't forget that the checkpoints are to catch terrorists when there is an alert.

Yes, there are soldiers patrolling the area, but again, 99% of the time they never cause anything bad, and there are quite a few instances when soldiers get friendly with the locals (jewish and arabic)
and again, these patrolls are to prevent terrorsim.

yes, there is a wall. but again. its TO PREVENT TERRORISM. before the wall, anyone from the west bank could enter major israeli cities and blow up busses and malls.
horrible things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada forced israel to build the wall.

yes, its ugly, but israel has to defend itself from islamic extremist threats, and withdrawing from the west bank as well as kicking 500,000 people out of their home will not be the solution. israel suffered from terrorist attacks before 1967.

In my personal opinion. giving the Palastinians their own state, will actually worsen their condition. with no israeli milletary, terrorsit organizations could quickly sieze control and turn the west bank into a terror state.
because that's excatly what happened when israel withdrew from Gaza.

So what are your opinions?

Oy vey.

No one will take you seriously, Jolly Jew.

I think both Palestine and Isreal are at wrong here,let's leave it at that.

Oy vey.

The religion of the Canaanites, which was prevalent throughout the Levant in the late bronze age and early iron age, was a polytheistic and loosely organized faith that involved cults of sacrifice (usually animal sacrifice) to various archetypal gods, including Ba'al, who an archetypal sky-god distantly related to the Egyptian Ra and the Greek Zeus. The Phoenecians, a seafaring culture, were principal practitioners of this religion and spread it throughout the ancient Near East and ancient Mediterranean. Consequently, the Carthaginians (whose civilization began as a Phoenecian colony) practiced a variation of the Canaanite religion.

Lacking holy texts (at leas that we know of), the religion of the Canaanites was likely upheld by members of priestly castes in given societies. It differs from the established faiths that survive to this day insofar as its religious practices were based more on the fulfillment of socio-religious duties than about persona proclamations of faith.

While Canaanite faith tradition persisted as long as the Phoenecian civilization persisted, its practice waned significantly when the Kingdom of Judah was founded some time at the end of the second millenium before Christ. The Israelites (whose religion could not yet be called Judaism) waged often bloody campaigns to stamp out the practice of the Canaanite religion. The Hebrew Bible tells us, however, that not all of the Israelites were in agreement about the abolition of the Canaanite religion: King Manasseh, who is cursed and called evil in the Bible, was recorded to have restored the Canaanite religious shrines throughout the region. King Josiah, his successor, promptly tore down these shrines again, winning the support of the priests. However, the Pharoah of Egypt, on his way to fight the Neo-Babylonians, killed Josiah in battle; it is unknown how the policy of religious direction in Judea proceeded while the territory was under first Egyptian, then Babylonian dominion.

Wait what are we talking about again?

>mfw another Jolly Jew Thread about Israel and Palestine

Just a reminder for anyone who posts here.

Jolly Jew can't be taken seriously, His threads are just the same Israel bullcrap over and over again that nobody cares

Jolly Jew said:

According to the international law its “disputed territory” and not occupied territory as many like to call.

The UNSC has said that Israel is occupying the land and that the Geneva Conventions apply with regards to occupations. Even the Israeli Supreme Court has said it's a "belligerent occupation" in the Beit Sourik case.

Personally, I don't see much of a problem with it. The Arabs had their chance in 1948 with the Partition Plan, they blew it then, then again in '67, then again in '74 (which also nearly lead to WW3). When you have to fight three wars to ensure you're not driven into the oceans while the UN sits on its hands, I find no issue in securing land around your border to stop it from happening. It's also likely had they not seized it in '67 there would have been WW3 as the Yom Kipper War would have gone really badly without the buffer, Samson would have been issued, and the nukes would have started flying.

I don't think they can nor should keep it, though. For one, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. are nice and cozy with the US and wouldn't risk pissing us off, Syria likely won't recover for decades, and Iran has hundreds of miles of desert separating it and the high chance of getting turned into a sheet of glass if they try to do a nuke. The only big threat Israel faces these days are regular old terrorists, and a buffer zone isn't really going to stop them. In fact, having the West Bank be as unstable as it is right now will probably only encourage it. Just imagine what'll happen when Abbas finally kicks the bucket.

Secondly, if Israel wants to remain a Jewish State, they can't keep it. There's far more Arabs than there are Jews and if they fully take over the West Bank, they either have to go full South Africa, or accept the fact they'll be a minority. That's probably the main reason Israel has never really considered fully incorporating the territory.

Going back to the Partition Plan is really the only viable option. It'd have to be modified and negotiated. This land for that, maybe through in some agricultural projects to spruce up any barren desert, but the core issues haven't changed very much since the British screwed everything up back then.

Preston said:

Jolly Jew can’t be taken seriously, His threads are just the same Israel bullcrap over and over again that nobody cares

That still doesn't permit shitposting. Make a parody thread in Riff Raff if you want to but don't fuck up the main forum just because you disagree with someone's viewpoint.

I do have a interesting question about all the area. What are your takes on ISIS launching attacks in the area? A couple days ago there was a attack by ISIS in Palestine areas. IF ISIS does launch a offensive on the area wouldn't that force Israel and Palestine to become de facto allies? Furthermore if Israel is dragged into this wouldn't they also become de facto allies of Iran who is also currently fighting against ISIS by arming those fighting them. The situation with ISIS is all kinds of complicated because not only is Iran arming those fighting ISIS in Iraq, but those same people are fighting in Yemen.

Guys whether you take JJ seriously or not. This is serious debate. If you wanna crack jokes at JJ's expense, we have Riff Raff for that.

Here you either debate or don't post.

I highly doubt any of that.

The Palastinians have two major leading parties. Phatah and Hamas.

these two parties were bitter rivals for a long time, and Hamas eventually managed to overthrow them in the Gaza strip. And despite the fact that these two parties hate each others' guts, and are completly differentr (one is secular and more prone to negotiation, and ther other is relgiously fanatic that openly supports genocide and total war until israel is destroyed.

And yet, despite their mutual hatred they decided to unite to apply pressure to the israeli goverment.

so seeing how the Palestinian authority is already in good relations with an organzation that's pretty much exactly like ISIS, i don't see anyone ever willing to cooperate with isreal.
but that is just my assumtion, everything can change. hell, Israel has already promised to send Jordan forces to combat ISIS if they ever start banging on their border.

@xTSGx
The main problem is that if Israel will completly withdraw from the west bank, it will turn into another gaza strip – Hamas will to a violant takeover. will turn the place into a sick islamic dictatorship, will launch rockets at israel all day, and then hide behind its civillians when israel retaliates.
So, because NOBODY wants the west bank to turn into bloody war zone, i don't see how withdrawing from the west bank can be possible.

the only way i see a Palestinian state could be possible, is only if it will have open borders with israel and be completly supervised by it, to make sure no extremists come to power. but i doubt anyone will like the idea

@all the jokers.
i appricate your humor. but it really saddens me.
my country is precived as some kind of sick serial killer and sometimes even compared to nazi germany.
so my attempts to fight these claims is BS?

The comparison I would use is Israel being the English colonists and the Palestinians being the Native Americans in 16th century North America.

You can point to the Palestinians doing terrible things, and you'd be correct, they are terrible acts. But you also have to realize that the conflict there was started because a bunch of people moved into a country they had no business running and got their hands on a bunch of land they had no business owning. But now that they've been settled on it for as long as they have, and since they have nukes and no one else near them does, there's no convincing them to leave at this point. And there's no good way of pleasing the people who had their land stolen short of giving it back to them…

I wouldn't exactly say that the current denizens have no business owning palestine. No matter what anyone may think about who should own the land, the fact is that the land was owned by the UK following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following WW1. The native palestinians may think that the land should be theirs, but frankly, they haven't had a right to it since at least the end of WW1 when it was won fair and square by the UK. It wasn't even "theirs" per se under Ottoman rule: the Ottomans owned the land, and had they wanted to, they could have turned the area into a Jewish state just as easily as the brits did, and there would have been nothing the natives could have done about it. Now we can debate the ethical considerations of the situation all day, but there is no debating that the UK, the legal owners of the land had the legal "right" to establish Israel. The land wasn't "stolen" from the palestinians, it was won from the ottomans, and that's a fact.

If this thread was solely about whoever had the physical means to control the region without consideration of ethics, then there would be little point in discussing the fate of Palestine given that it exists solely as Israel allows it to exist.

It's not just about who has the physical means to control the region, it's also about who has the legal right to do so.

In the context of nations, the only legal rule that truly exists is, "Might means right."

And Britain was mightier than the Ottoman Empire, as is Israel mightier than the Palestinians that live around it. My point is that it's silly to claim that they have no "right" to be there, when the facts of the case would suggest that they have more legal basis in owning the land than anyone else does at this point.

Most problems in the world, like this one, boil down to the fact that people don't like being around other people that are different than them.

It's a tough issue, and I'm suspicious of anyone who strongly supports only either Israel or the Pales. As far as I'm concerned, in 2015, there are multiple groups living there and, as a cosmopolitan, I feel that they all have equal rights and that their concerns have equal weight. I dislike Netanyahu and am unhappy with his re-election, particularly after he appealed to racism to get votes (even much of Israel's right recognized that this is despicable, because Israel should avoid nationalistic rhetoric). I don't think that historical arguments matter at all.

The legal right of self determination would have suggested that Palestine had the right to tell the Brits to step off, but it seems that got thrown out the window as well.

EDIT: sorry for the overdue reply, didn''t check the forum for the past few days.

yeah, that;s the whole problem, and its solution.

if the Palastinians were ok with "Jews living in their land" this whole conflict would have been solved 100 years ago.

As for Natanyahu.
yeah, i hate him too, and many israelis do as well. he is still not gonig to leave any time soon, because there is simply no other alternative.

you see, during the last elections, the left-wing managed a very toxic campegin against natanyahu and all his peers from the right wing.

nearly all news papers, news channels and notable figures talked shit about natanyau like he was the devil himself. they were'nt ashamed of slandering his wife, family, and personal life as well.
further more, the left wing labeled all right-wingers as mysogisnst, racist, ingonrat racist lunatics. pretty much what all SJW's are doing to gamergate now.

so naturally, people were disgusted by this campegin so they intetionally voted in spite, against it…
because if that's how they treat anyone who disagrees with them, how on earth will they rule the whole nation?

still, he is not THAT bad. he is still ensurring the reletive peace that is now in the west bank.

>if the Palastinians were ok with “Jews living in their land”

The only thing that made it the jews' land was a bunch of ancient history and the okay from the colonial government. Both of those reasons were bullshit to the Palestinians, and justifiably so.

Justify it, then. Just saying that the Palestinians are correct is meaningless unless you make an argument. If the legal owners of the land were fine with the Israelis owning it, and the Jewish people have historically been the owners of the land, why then is that not sufficient reason for them to own it now?

Okay.

1. The owners of the land were not so by means of self determination or something else legitimate but rather by force of arms, and only recently. Thus giving them the 'legal' right to distribute the land, but certainly not the moral right, and the lack of that moral right is a very big reason why many Palestinians feel the need to strap bombs to themselves and run into checkpoints. Obviously one does not justify the other, but you'd have to be an idiot if you can't see the connection between them.

2. Any legitimate claim by the Jews on the land by means of history was invalidated a long, long time ago. The land was owned by the Jews several thousand years ago, but they were kicked out by the Romans. Since then, it was settled by different people who then formed the majority of the land's population. Those Palestinians had lived there for generations and generations and generations; evicting them because of some millenia old bones and what a fucking RELIGIOUS TEXTBOOK says is absolutely absurd.

What makes force of arms an illegitimate method of acquiring land? Additionally, what, pray tell, is immoral about the Jews also living in Palestine?

The fact is, the English were the rightful owners of the land until the UN partition plan was enacted. With the partition plan, the others in the region were more than welcome to play nice. When they were unwilling to and Israel came under attack, the Israelis won more land fair and square. Israel since it's inception, fairly determined by the United Nations, has attempted to play nice with it's neighbors and the Palestinians, and every inch Israel gives, a mile is taken. If it seems Israel is being unfair now, know that they are only unfair because they have been treated in kind.

You keep throwing around "self-determination" like it's confetti at a party, but you don't respect the Israelis' self determination in the slightest. The UN declared that the Israelis had a right to live in a part of Palestine, and the Israelis lived there. The neighboring peoples decided not to respect Israel's self-determination, and Israel has defended itself from them. The Palestinians are free to self-determine, and live in the land that they legally own as they see fit. Self-determination does not, however, give them the right to harass their neighbors, or to disrespect their neighbors' self-determination.

>What makes force of arms an illegitimate method of acquiring land?

I'm going to buy a gun and kill you and then your house will be mine. Sound fair?

My god your post is so fucking stupid but that line just takes the cake.

The politics of nations operate by different rules than the interactions of individuals. What works for a country might not work for a person. If this level of nuance escapes you, there's not much I can do to help you understand.

If any nation established through conquest is illegitimate, then most any any nation on earth is illegitimate. War and conquest are at this point simply a part of human nature, and nearly every border you see on a map was drawn in blood. To claim that conquest is not a legitimate way to establish a country is to ignore the reality of all human history, and indeed pre-history. The other side of the self-determination coin is sovereignty, and without sovereignty, without the ability and will to defend oneself from external threats, by force if need be, a person's "moral" claim to a land is meaningless.

And yet, I was arguing on the motivations of the Palestinians and not of Palestine, which doesn't even exist at this point. Furthermore, it's wrong to claim that something being practiced in history is justification enough for being practiced now- slavery is something with a long history with humans as well, but was eventually banished from whatever nations had the power to outlaw it. In a world of democracy, we might have more leeway in determining how such conflicts are resolved, although it's never often the case because of how such systems are so easily abused.

Also, to claim that force is the only method through which sovereignty is determined is also incorrect- have you ever heard of the decolonization movements of the past? Of how India was freed from the British Raj? Or should Ghandi have stood down and been content to see his country wither, because Britain had more guns and more boats?

When you look at the situation, you can clearly see a bunch of people had a great injustice dealt to them, and they responded as you would expect any angry mob to respond.

I'm not claiming that conquest is the only correct way just because it was it was done historically, I'm saying that most nations extant today were established and recognized through conquest, and if you respect the sovereignty of any nation whatsoever that was won by conquest, you have no basis by which to declare Israel's sovereignty invalid just because it was won by such.

Many peoples freed from their colonial masters had to do so violently, my own country included. I'm not saying that nonviolent methods can not be used to gain independence, but in many cases, they have not been effective.

My original point is that whether the situation the Palestinians are in is an "injustice" is debatable. You claimed that the Israelis have "no business" owning Palestine, and frankly, I disagree.

I respect sovereignty generally on the basis of who was living there for the past 100 years; anything older then that begins to lose any sort of valid impact outside of certain scenarios.

But if the only reasons you can give me for why Jews should have the land are "The British said they could", and religious reasons, then I'll have to firmly disagree.

Sovereignty is determined by whomever has the power and resources to hold the land, not by whomever claims that it should belong to them. The amount of time they've been living there is irrelevant. Before the European settlers moved into the Americas, the natives had sovereignty, as they had he power to rule the land. Once the settlers arrived, they quickly used their advanced technology to take the land for themselves, and used the power these weapons gave them to hold and govern it. At this point, the Europeans had sovereignty, regardless of the centuries of habitation by the natives, as their rule of it was uncontested, and the natives could no longer control the land themselves.

As I said before, whether anyone believes they have the right to is largely irrelevant, as they do own the land regardless. I for one respect the division of the destabilized Ottoman Empire's lands to Britain and France following WW1, and I respect the partition plan for Palestine by the UN in 1947. I also respect the acquisition of lands by Israel following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and the Six-Day War. All of these decisions were made by those with sovereign power over the area at the time, and were therefore legally acceptable. After a war, any territories that change hands are fair game. There is no reason for it not to be, as the power that held that land before no longer does; Their sovereignty over the land is void.

As for your assertion that my argument involves "religious reasons", it doesn't. At all. I'm an atheist, and I consider Judaism, Islam, and every other religion for that matter, to be equally improbable. My basis for thinking that Israel is in the right in this matter is purely political. It isn't because "hurr durr muslimz r teh evulz".

your second paragraph is full of so many wrong assumptions.

the people that setteled in Palestine after the Romans ravaged it were not any means the Palastinian arabs of today.
The Palastinian arabs of today did not live there for serveral generations. the land was filled with a hotch-potch of all races, ethnicities and religions including jews. they had no no nationality other than being a province in the Maluk/Ottmane empire.

and NO ONE was evicted before they staretd the war. and it DEFIENTLY not because of a religous text book!

The jews were being oppressed and eventually massacred, and they wanted a state of their own to avoid this persecuton. they wanted a state of their own where they can protect themselves and unite all the jews scattered around the world.

NO ONE wanted to evict any of the existing residents. the existing residents were the ones who tried to evict the newcomers. even though they had absolutly no right to do so, other than the claim "that's my land, you can't live here, F OFF'

If the Palastinians and their allies didn't start a war in 1947 there would have been no evicitions.

As for now, i really don't care who owns what as long as people can live well there. i wouldn't think twice to let the Palestinians control the west bank if it meant stability and coexistance with the Jews.
however, bloody histroy has clearly showed that will NOT be happening any time soon.

Jolly Jew said:

… it will turn into another gaza strip

I feel as though this creates a sort of negative feedback loop. The Palestinians get butthurt over not being independent, they do a intifada, Israel responds by cracking down to protect itself, which makes them more butthurt, which causes them to lash out more, which causes Israel to respond more. If somebody doesn't try and break the cycle, it's only going to continue until some group gets a dirty bomb and we have a huge happening on our hands.

There are always going to be those who want to wipe Israel out. That's sadly not going to change whether Palestine's independent or not. Rockets already fly in as it is. The only difference is that people won't be able to hide behind "Israel's oppressing them!" when the bunker busters go flying if they're totally severed from Israel.

yeah, i hate him too, and many israelis do as well. he is still not gonig to leave any time soon, because there is simply no other alternative.

It's good to see "vote for the lesser evil" isn't just a mantra in the US.

jarbox said:

The owners of the land were not so by means of self determination or something else legitimate but rather by force of arms, and only recently

If you're going to use that argument, than the whole of the Middle East is Turkey's since the Allies forcibly stripped it from the Ottoman Empire at the conclusion of WW1.

Poland is also Germany's since Prussia made up what is most of modern Poland.

The Confederate States of America needs to be refounded since they were only stopped via Union oppression and force of arms.

Palestinians had lived there for generations and generations and generations

South Syrians, that's what the area was called by the Ottomans. For generations, they'd identified as either that, or Ottomans--Palestine didn't get its modern name until 1920. The last time it was called "Palestine" prior to that would be the pre-1516's when the Ottoman's captured Jund Filastin and incorporated it into their Southern Syrian territory. That's five centuries. It's highly doubtful anyone in 1918 would have still identified as something five centuries old.

The British said they could

No, the United Nation's General Assembly said they could. The Arabs disagreed and decided to use their force of arms to eject the Jews into the Mediterranean.

The only way for the cycle to be broken is for the Palestinians stop encouraging the murder of Jews.

i just dont see another way. Israel definetly can't break the cycle, god knows how many times it tried.

Right now the biggest obstecle is the brainwashing of youths like in this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE7PN6te-VQ

untill this brainwashing stops, true peace with the Palestinians will never be possible.

now you could say that israeli brainwashing needs to be stopped as well, but the thing is there's barely any of it to speak of.
I Learned history in a religious high school, they never twisted facts, they never used racist slurs and foul genralizations during the studies of israel's history.

so to put it shortly:

Peace is only stopped when there is no moe hatred
Hatred is only stopped when the brainwashing cease.

but right now nobody cares about the brainwashing of childeren to hatered and rasicm, they are much more comfortble about boycotting goods that came from the west bank and made by Jews.
because, you know, Palastinian workers losing thier jobs thanks to this boycott will surely bring peace to the region…

ok… so if no one else have anything else to say i can naturally think that eveyone agrees with me.

…right?

That's a bad assumption. It could also mean that people are sick and tired of the topic or don't see any more purpose in getting a point across

i know its a bad assupmtion, i was just hoping that by saying it, people would more likeley post their opinions…