I would like to argue something pretty important to me.

[lynx]

Rafi, you've missed the point.

The land was occupied after the 6 day war, occupation refers to who controls the day to day running of the territory involved, not who owns the individual parcels of land.

By and large the inhabitants stayed on their land. They may have got out of the way for a short time while the fighting took place, but for the most part they returned to their farms and smallholdings.

The trouble is some of them returned to find an Israeli squatter living in their home. Other's were forcibly evicted in the manner I indicated. That's not a result of war, it is pure simple theft, there isn't any other way to describe it, and it had the backing of the Israeli courts, army and (possibly by neglect) the Israeli parliament. Theft of a parcel of land is a completely different concept from occupation of a territory.

That's why all the illegal settlements in the occupied zones should be removed.

SnnY, I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Given that these illegal settlements were established with the blessing of the Israeli legal machinery, it is up to them to compensate any evicted settlers, if indeed you feel that there should be any compensation for the perpetrators of theft.

Said much more diplomatically than me..

It makes a change for the boot to be on the other foot.

[Snee]

Oh, come on, it's not that simple.

By saying that you totally ignore the fact that a population is made up by individuals, or that this particular one lives in a state that hasn't recognized the decisions made by the UN.

The nation is guilty of breaking the law, sure enough, but the individuals have followed the local laws, they can't be held accountable for decisions made by a governement that is no longer in office.

You cannot force people who have done no wrong to give up what they own, because their nation hasn't followed the rules (the particulars of which they never agreed on) in the past.

And, speaking of international law, I have to say that our local laws matter far more to me. I'd follow our own laws before any international laws, when in this country.



@lynx: it may have been stolen, but that doesn't mean that it's fair to take it away again if the current owners took no part in the original theft.

For all I know a lot of people probably have no clue that their land was taken illegally, as all of it wasn't aqcuired in the same way.

[Rat Faced]

Local Laws are, in theory, subject to International Law.

Just as By-Laws are subject to National Law.



This is why "International Law" restricts itself to "international" issues, giving rise to POWs getting better treatment than the locals in some instances.

The Territories were "Occupied", therefore it was and is Israels responsibility to look after them in accordance to International Law.

They have not even attempted to annex them; as they did the Golan Hights, which far from Syria not wanting back, Israel are continually in negotiaitions about.

Again, Israel blatently broke International Law to ANNEX the Golan Hights.. despite the fact they were occupied by 3/4million Syrians prior to their occupation. ie: Stole the land.

[lynx]

Look at it this way.

Less than one percent of the land now held by Israeli settlers in the occupied territories was held by them before 1967.

Almost none of the land was purchased from its legitimate owners. Any subsequent purchasers knew that, so they should be almost certain they were buying stolen land. That being the case they have only themselves to blame. Those who bought legally purchased land will be safe from eviction.

As for what you describe as inheritors, you can't inherit something that isn't owned by the legator.

And finally, they did not follow local law, they subverted it.

Kick them out now, the longer this goes on the more of your subsequent "purchasers/inheritors" there will be.

[Snee]

@rat: But the thing is, that normally when a nation is subject to international law, it recognizes its authority, and the international is integrated into local laws accordingly, in this case however, past israeli governments (and notice that "past" means that the current inhabitants of the land might not have had a say in the composition of the same governments on account of not having been around to vote) chose to ignore those laws and thus allowed the land to be treated as israeli land, regular property.

It is not the individual's task to find out what international laws apply, or to follow them on his or her own, that is for the nation to do.

They have all gotten a raw deal, innocent settlers and palestinians, but it can't be solved by robbing one side or the other, no matter the historic background.

@lynx: but how, if you didn't take it yourself, will you know what land was bought, what land was stolen, and what land was unoccupied to begin with.

The original settler would probably not use that as a sales-argument, and nor would your parents tell you they didn't acquire it legally, maybe it was stolen, maybe it wasn't, you wouldn't know it till they took it away.

[Rat Faced]

The settlers are the Religious Right... ask Tralalala.

They knew it was not Israeli land, and went in anyway, because they want "Greater Israel".

They wanted to make it impossible to give the land back to the Palestinians.

They knew what they were doing was illegal and immoral and did it anyway.

I have no sympathy for them.

[Snee]

The settlers are the Religious Right... ask Tralalala.

They knew it was not Israeli land, and went in anyway, because they want "Greater Israel".

They wanted to make it impossible to give the land back to the Palestinians.

They knew what they were doing was illegal and immoral and did it anyway.

I have no sympathy for them.

Nor have I, for the original settlers, if they stole the land.

But how many of them are left now? And how many people who had nothing to do with the theft live there now?

Can you be certain all the settlers are members of the religious right, and even if they are deeply religious, do they deserve to be punished for that, if they didn't steal anything?

[tralalala]

I'm too bloody tired, its 23:04...

But anyways....

@Lynx (previouse page) - what do you mean by "some of them reutrned.."? From where? To what??

You say Israel disobeyed it's responsibilities. Which ones? The Arabs were the ones to start each and every one of the wars Israel has fought since 1947. Israel cannot be held responsible for beatin the sh*t out of them and thus conquering land that originally wasn't thiers...

What if the US started a war tomorrow with Mexico that Mexico intiated, and as a result the US took over a quarter of Mexico, then what?





That's it for tonight..
If anything makes sense, then I ROCK!! If not, then just don't take any notice..... :Lol:

[Rat Faced]

Snny...

The Occupation happened in 1967.

Most of the "settlers" arrived long after that.

They went there for a specific purpose and knew the land didnt belong to Israel in any legal terms. They went anyway.

"Settlers" is being used one way here too.

There are Arab "settlers" of Jewish land not in Israel, when Jews evacuated the surrounding land in 1948 and in 1967 to avoid the fighting.

I have the same argument to them.. tough, its not yours.

There are also Jewish Palestinians. Jews have been in Palestine a long time, and are recognised by the Palestinian Authority as being Palestinian if there prior to 1948.

@ Tralalala

The Arabs were the ones to start each and every one of the wars Israel has fought since 1947.

Crap.

Israel still bombs and threatens to bomb the smaller Arab nations surrounding it on a regular basis.

They also started the 1967 6 day war.

The argument that Arab nations were gathering Military Vehicles on the border doesnt wash, you attacked them.

That argument gives Arab Nations the excuse to attack you now, as Israeli forces are currently massed on the Border of the Gaza Strip.. If they do, then they will have attacked you.

[Snee]

Snny...

The Occupation happened in 1967.

Most of the "settlers" arrived long after that.

They went there for a specific purpose and knew the land didnt belong to Israel in any legal terms. They went anyway.

"Settlers" is being used one way here too.

There are Arab "settlers" of Jewish land not in Israel, when Jews evacuated the surrounding land in 1948 and in 1967 to avoid the fighting.

I have the same argument to them.. tough, its not yours.

There are also Jewish Palestinians. Jews have been in Palestine a long time, and are recognised by the Palestinian Authority as being Palestinian if there prior to 1948.

Do you have any statistics for when most of the settlements occured?

It was my understanding that Israel's borders were expanded in a big way increasingly in the years after 1967 and that the outward growth has kept a much slower (but steady) pace in more recent years. I could be wrong though.

And, if I'm wrong about that, I'm wrong about how many people are innocent and are not, I don't mind admitting to that as long as it's a fact and not one of those dodgy links as provided by a tosser.


And for the record, I'm all for evicting thieves if indeed that's what they are, and for compensating those who were stolen from. Innocents shouldn't have to suffer though.