Skip to comments.(Vanity) Explain to me why it's "OK" for Israel to have settlements on The West Bank?
Posted on 06/25/2002 1:20:13 PM PDT by Johnny Shear
This is an honest question, no offense towards anyone is intended...
I won't try to claim I'm any kind of scholar on the subject of Isreal Settlements but I have done a bit of research on the subject. Yet, one question still remains...
I can't justify the Isreal Settlements in The West Bank and Gaza...In my own mind, anyway...
As far as I can tell, Isreal officially justifies these settlements based on the fact that they lay claim to Gaza and the West Bank due to defeating Arab aggressors in the 1967 war. And, Isreal is still technically at war with some Arab states so they can continue occupying these areas...
What I don't understand is how they justify the settlements. Occupation is one thing (Based on protecting themselves against an aggressor) but settlements are something completely different (In my opinion, anyway).
If anyone can educate me, I know Freepers can. And as a bonus, if anyone can supply information or sources on how the Palestinians "See Things", that would be great. (In the spirit of "Two sides to every story").
Thanks in advance for your time and efforts. And please excuse my ignorance on the subject.
IMHO, and I tend to agree with it, it is not a matter of occupation, it is a matter of ownership now.
Given the territory and the lay of the land and defense and security considerations ... I believe Israel should simply state that those areas are now part of Israel by virtue of their taking it in a defensive war against total agression. Israel should administer it all as a part of its own territory. In fact they should have done so beginning in 1967 and again in 1972. Anyone in the area wanting to swear allegiance to the state of Israel can do so and through a normalization process become a citizen. Anyone not wanting to do so is deported.
That's why I will never be a politician I suppose.
But how do they justify it? I'm sure we would like to have Cuba but how would we justify taking it?
If you are a Biblical believer, as Jews and Christians are, every inch of this is Jewish land and Arabs are just resident foreigners, guest-workers, to be deported if they will not be civil, will not live under the laws.
If your values are NOT Bible-based, but are based upon current leftist political correctness, then every Jew, like every white American, is just a "settler," a "colonist," sitting on land stolen from some nonwhite "people" who have every right to come in now or at any future time, and kill all such persons, as in Zimbabwe now.
You are no doubt one of those who are deluding yourself that there is a middle ground. Keep on dreaming, our wages, taxes, and armies are all that have kept you alive until now, or can keep you alive in the future.
Conquest & Discovery
Under International law, a distinction is made in governing a colonized "wasteland," (or vacant land,) and a land acquired by treaty or cession, which had already been cultivated and organized. If an uninhabited country was discovered and planted by British subjects, the English laws were said to be immediately in force there - for the law was the birthright of every subject, carried wherever they went. However, the entire body of English law was understood to have application to these new circumstances only to the extent that it was found to be applicable to the settlers' new situation and consistent with their local comfort and prosperity.
A different rule applied to conquered and ceded countries that already had laws of their own. In such cases, the English Crown had a right to abrogate the former laws and institute completely new ones. Until such new laws were promulgated, the old laws and customs of the country remained in full force to the extent that they were not contrary to religion or morals.
Justice Blackstone, in his "Commentaries" took the position that American colonies were to be deemed principally conquered or ceded countries. He stated: "Our American Plantations are principally of this later sort, [i.e. ceded or conquered countries,] being obtained in the last century either by right of conquest and driving out the natives, (with what natural justice I shall not at present inquire,) or by treaties. And, therefore, the common law of England, as such, has no allowance or authority there; they being no part of the mother country, but distinct, though dependent dominions." [1 Bl. Comm 107; Chitty on Prerog. Ch. 3, p 29.] (Emphasis mine.)
According to Justice Story, in a conquered country, where there were no existing laws, or none adaptable to a civilized community, or where the laws were silent, or were rejected and none substituted, the territory must be governed according to the rules of natural equity and right. Englishmen settling there must be deemed to carry with them those rights and privileges that belong to them in their native country. [2 Salk. 411, 412; See also Nall v. Campbell, Cowp. R. 204, 211, 212; 1 Chalm. Ann. 14,15, 678, 679, 689, 690; 1 Chalm. Opinions, 194; 2 Chalm. Opinions, 202; Chitty on Prerog. ch. 2; 2 Wilson's Law Lect. 48, 49.]
"Moreover," states Justice Story, "even if it were possible to consider the case, as a case of conquest from the Indians, it would not follow, if the natives did not remain there, but deserted it, and left it a vacant territory, that the rule as to conquests would continue to apply to it. On the contrary, as soon as the crown should choose to found an English colony in such vacant territory, the general principle of settlements in desert countries would govern it. It would cease to be a conquest, and become a colony; and as such be affected by the British laws. This doctrine is laid down with great clearness and force by, Lord Mansfield, in his celebrated judgment in Hall v. Campbell, (Cowp. R. 204, 211, 212.) In a still more recent case it was laid down by Lord Ellenborough, that the law of England might properly be recognised by subjects of England in a place occupied temporarily by British troops, who would impliedly carry that law with them." [Rex v. Brampton, 10 East R. 22, 288, 289.] (Emphasis mine.)
Justice Taney in Martin v. Waddell's Lessee, 41 U.S. 367 (1842) confirms:
"The English possessions in America were not claimed by right of conquest, but by right of discovery. For, according to the principles of international law, as understood by the then civilized powers of Europe, the Indian tribes in the new world were regarded as mere temporary occupants of the soil, and the absolute rights of property and dominion were held to belong to the European nation by which any particular portion of the country was first discovered. Whatever forbearance may have been sometimes practised towards the unfortunate aborigines, either from humanity or policy, yet the territory they occupied was disposed of by the governments of Europe, at their pleasure, as if it had been found without inhabitants..."
The ideological legal foundation for the American colonists' assertion of the right to English liberties and common law rested upon the validity of the claim that the colonies were vacant lands or "wastelands" settled by Englishmen and subject to English law. It is upon this foundation, in part, that the colonists justified their right to revolt against English acts of tyranny in regard to their liberties and rights.
RIGHTS OF CONQUEST
(Reference: John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and the Several States of the American Union, Childs & Peterson, c1856.)
CONQUEST, international law. The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished to the submission of its empire.
It is a general rule, that where conquered countries have laws of their own, these laws remain in force after the conquest, until they are abrogated, unless they are contrary to our religion, or enact any malum in se. In all such cases the laws of the conquering country prevail; for it is not to be presumed that laws opposed to religion or sound morals could be sanctioned. 1 Story, Const. Sec. 150, and the cases there cited.
Conquest does not, per se, give the conqueror plenum dominium et utile, but a temporary right of possession and government. 2 Gallis. R. 486; 3 Wash. C. C. R. 101. See 8 Wheat. R. 591; 2 Bay, R. 229; 2 Dall. R. 1; 12 Pet. 410.
The right which the English government claimed over the territory now composing the United States, was not founded on conquest, but discovery. Id. Sec. 152, et seq.
DISCOVERY, intern. law. The act of finding an unknown country.
The nations of Europe adopted the principle, that the discovery of any part of America gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority it was made, against all European governments. This title was to be consummated by possession. 8 Wheat. 543.
Yes, but they didn't "Take it" back during the 1967 war (Not for good anyway like they did other parts of what is now "Greater Isreal but wasn't in 1948....And those territories don't even seem to be disputed now), they simply "Occupied" it, and now we have all these problems.
So, do the settlers consider The West Bank as their home? Like they do Isreal? (And I'm not talking about those who use the bible as a way to state it's always been "Their home"), I'm wondering if they are of the opinion that they "Won" the West Bank in 1967???
Every square foot of land they return will mean more Israelis dead. The Palestinians have had 50 years to build a state, and have done nothing but whine and scheme, oh, and try to overthrown King Hussein. Going back a century or more, there was nothing there but sand when the first European Jews began returning. They made it the productive place it is today.
I understand "War Booty" and taking land from agressors for defensive reasons, but...
What I don't understand is why don't we ever hear about the land isreal took BEFORE the 1967 War? I've seen the maps...At the beginning of Isreal, it consisted of about 3 or 4 tiny little slivers...Then got a bit bigger after one or more of the wars before 1967. Now, we've got this problem because of Isreal occupying the West Bank but no problems based on what they occupied BEFORE the 1967 war (The land they took that was not part of Isreal after the 1948 UN Mandate).
I think I'm having trouble expressing my confusion...
Geez. That conquest thing shouldn't really be that hard to understand :).
Thw West Bank is Israel. When the IDF crushes the next attacker and Israel takes a bit more land, that will be Israel too.
Simple stuff, really.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.