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.
Name another country that conquered territory in a defensive war when attacked that had to give it back. It's a ludicrous notion.
They gave it back? I thought it got repossessed for failure to make payment.
The so-called West Bank is the West bank of the Jordan River, and the West bank of the Dead Sea. The 'original' (pre-'67) borders were established by a UN ceasefire line in 1949, when it was obvious that the then Palmach was about to exterminate the British backed Arab Legion. A quick cease fire was called to save some segment of British authority in the region.
The West Bank has a natural defensive border on the river, much like another border, called the Rio Grande, where the land on the North side of that river was taken from another country.
The Brits, by the way, have NEVER liked the idea of Israel, and have done their level best to destroy it, from the beginning, up to and including stripping all the kibbutzs of weapons as they pulled out of Palistine and giving the guns to the Arabs in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.
If Israel has no right to the West Bank, then by the same reasoning, we should give Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California back to Mexico, with improvements. How is your Spanish?
2nd, consider that Israel is surrounded by racist, hostile arab states that have all participated in wars hoping to annihilate Israel and that if Israel went to the old borders, it would only be 7 miles wide in some places.
3rd, there are currently over 20 "arab countries" - even president Bush refers to them as such. It only seems fair that there should be one state of Israel.
Why should arab's be allowed to have "arab countries" while everyone else has to be dilluted with diversity, immigration, affirmitive action and other crap? Who in their right mind would give a country to a bunch of murdering, corrupt, undemocratic villains hell-bent on the destruction of western civilization?
Hey, if Israel should give land "back" to Palestinians and Yasser Arafat, [who was born in Egypt], won't the United States be pressured by the "international community" to "give back" our "occupied Territories" of Texas, New Mexico, California and Arizona?
I believe many in the Israel govrnment share the opinion, and that is why they do not definitively close it down ... but that is just my opinion.
Ultimately, I believe it is going to come to either that (meaning they simply annex it and end up fighting a war to defeat their enemies once again) or it is going to come to some gross compromise of Israel's security with people who have vowed to destroy them. That could lead to a much worse outcome IMHO.
There is an outside chance that over a relatively long period of time, that true moderates gain control in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and through sustained preservation of peace and destruction of the terror network that currently exists amongt them, the Palestinians actually become peaceful and the Israelis work out an agreement with them for a small "Palestinian State".
With all that has happened, I believe that is the most remote possibility ... again, IMHO.
Well you've also got a bunch of third-world'ers south of the border who insist that California is "occupied territory" and should be returned to Mexico as well.
The fact remains that the Arabs lost the war and lost the territory.
On one level the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews is a real tragedy. Two peoples, with equally good claims, lay claim to one land and are unable to find a compromise which allows them to share. The early Zionists recognized this: The Arabs, after centuries of domination, wanted to re-establish a united Islam under which they could live with pride and power. The Jews, after centuries of unpleasant habitation in other peoples countries culminating in a frightful Holocaust, wanted the same thing and felt the only place they could do so was in their ancient homeland.
Everything else follows from that. The conflict continues. The settlements are both defensive and offensive; needed as protection in future conflicts, desired as part of the homeland and to make it more viable.
As for how human beings justify these things, perhaps you are young and naive. Human beings can find endless justification for anything. Remember manifest destiny? The white man's burden? I only mention these things because I think you'll be familiar with them. Not because I think white men or Americans are evil. Dark peoples have plenty of the same. Just look what the Arabs are justifying.
Part of Transjordan, which was established by the British after 1917, devolving the Hashemites under the late King Hussein's father...Jordan lost the territory in 1967 as in #2. It has never been part of any other "state", which includes Jerusalem, lying within it, which has certainly never been anyone elses capitol, other than the Jews.
To include this area west of the the more natural "border" of the Jordan River to the east, as "Palestinian" (the name Palestine given the region by Rome) would be to thrust yet another Arab state into the belly of Israel proper, which is otherwise already surrounded by Arab states but for the Mediterranian Sea.
Many Israeli settlements in the region undoubtedly predate the independence of modern Israel itself in 1948. Others originated in the spirit of that ancient Judaism, and the accession of Israeli administrations since then that take in the predominance of this general overview.
So it may ultimately be a matter of opinion, of which mine is that the notion of a Palestinian state within the West Bank, if even in Gaza, or as much of the northern Sinai that so-called "Palestinians" might prevail upon Egypt to "give" them (which would be none), is ridiculous.
What confuses me is: Why is the West Bank looked at any diffently than the land Isreal won in wars BEFORE 1967? We NEVER see any maps that show what Isreal was like in 1948 but we ALWAYS see the maps that show the West Bank and Gaza as not being part of Isreal.
It seems very inconsistant. Hell, even the Palistinians don't seem to want anything more than "Pre-1967 land". Which, based on the maps I have seen actually means "Pre-1967 but Post (For whatever reasons) 1948"???
And on top of that, I never really see a compelling argument made by Isreal that they actually do have a "Right to the West Bank" as a result of winning a war. They just seem to never address it???
You say they "Won it fair and square from agressors" (Which I beleive they very well may have) but they don't even present it that way themselves?????
Explain to me why it's OK for the Palestinians to have a perfectly "JEW-FREE" state?
They have been violated so regularly by both sides, almost from the inception, that it is abundantly clear that this is so.
Oslo = Enabling Terrorism = Clinton's Real Leagcy
Isreal, now that the Olso accords are quite obviously dead, would be absolutely foolish to consider embarking in that direction again.
But, like I said, just my opinion.
Q. If the Suicide-Worshippers had won territory in their attack instead of losing it, would they have given it back?
Everyone should know that Texas won Texas
The arab world engaged in an unprovoked aggressive war of annihliation against the population of Israel. They lost militarily, but the state of war has never ended.
Under these circumstances, the land is Israeli territory under international law. The most arab friendly connotation one can ascribe is that the land is "disputer territory."
The "palistinean" people have no claim to these lands, there is no "palistinean" ethnicity, no "palistinean" nation has ever existed, the closest one can come to that is that the Romans named the province Palistine after defeating Isreal in another war of annhiliation in antiquity. They did so as an insult to the Israeli nation, deriving the name from the Philistines, the Israelis bitterest local adversaries.
So the "occupied territories" are nothing of the kind, they are Israeli territory, and the "palistinean" people are the victims of their own duplicity in leaving their homes in 1967 to march back at the head of a conquering Arab army and conduct genocide against innocent civilians. They are Saudi Egyptian, Lebonese, Iranian, arafat himself is Egyptian, only united in infamy as turncoats who attempted to abandon their neighbors and assist in their mass murder. Arabs to remained in Isreal when the "palistineans" ingnored Israeli pleas that they stay and defend their homes are living today in Israel in peace and prosperity, the only Arabs in the world with democratically elected representation.
Isreal, having been repeatedly invaded through these lands, has chosen to construct settlements in strategic areas in order to provide security to their civilian population by obstructing future armies of murderers from their genocidal goals.
The miasma of propaganda surrounding the arab Israeli conflict make such simple distinctions exceedingly difficult to apprehend, and the cause of millions of enslaved people suffering under palistinean authority bondage is valid, but the terriroty they wish to claim is not their land, it never was.
The only difference is, Mr. Yisrael is going to jail.
And yet we send bazillions to both sides...