What is the difference between Illegal settlements and stealing land?
Every educated person knows illegal settlments means stealing land, just because you can try to justify it with lies does not make it so.
- PetitLv 68 years agoFavorite Answer
Israeli settlements have been established for land theft purpose my friend. Not long ago, the Israeli PM stated that Israel can't return to its only internationally recognized territories on 67' lines because that will leave too many Israelies outside Israel's borders. So this raises an important question like what are Israelis doing outside Israel's borders in the first place? To answer that question, let's take a quick look at the historical background. Before 1948, Jews owned no more than 1% of lands in West Bank, and no more than 2% in Jerusalem district:
But now, Jewish settlements, although built on only 2%, control 42% of the West Bank
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/righ... - Notice that at least 22% of settlements were buit on private Palestinian land.
So how did this happen? Here is a hint (this link contains very original sources)
Israel considers every settlement in the occupied territories Israel proper, which means settlements serve land grab purpose.
On the international law: UN Security Council, International Community, International Court of Justice, all ruled that settlements are illegal, built on occupied territories, and that Fourth Geneva Convention applies. But Israel and its fanatic supporters have their own version of the international law.
USCR 242 clearly mentions the status of the territories Israel occupied in 1967 war : that these territories do not belong to Israel because they are captured by war (defensive or offensive, sovereign or not). So selling these territories, giving them away to Jewish individuals from all over the world, or building settlements for their citizens, are all actions that can be accurately described as violation of the international law. Some people will tell you that Jews legally purchases settlement lands but that is a lie. Palestinians are not allowed to sell land to Jews as that is considered treason punishable by death. Israel is not allowed to sell territories it conquered by war. So how did Jewish settlers purchase the land legally and from whom?
The settlements also violate basic Palestinian rights like freedom of movement (Palestinians are not allowed to travel anywhere through or near the settlements that have been been created deep inside the Palestinian territories) and equal rights (the settlements and settlers enjoy far more benefits than the native population)
- michardavLv 68 years ago
There is one thing all pro-Israeli miss many settlements are illegal even by Israeli standards! Here's a simple litmus test, one that contributors like shay miss, let's forget about the background of Geneva, it's irrelevant, let's forget that the Red Cross did not rule out other means of transfer or encouragemtn, by tax incentives and cheap housing fro example- no let's use international. UN security council resolutions regarding the IV Geneva Convention ARE LEGALLY BINDING. UN 446 SPECIFICALLY SAYS the settlements are violations of the IV Geneva convention and violate the law. PERIOD!! There is no need to look further. You can argue the ruling is misguided, you say you're against it- but it doesn't change it. In fact some Israelis knew from the beginning (1967) that settlements were illegal and counseled against them.
@short and sweet, know where this number 2% came from? Forget it doesn't include the Jerusalem district, it's the land that's actually BUILT UP! That's like saying 98% of Canada isn't "Canadian" because only 2% is "settled"! Now ask the poster how much land do the settlements CONTROL? (hint- it's WAY over half) "In February 2008, the Civil Administration stated that the land on which more than a third of West Bank settlements was built had been expropriated by the IDF for "security purposes." http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/third-of... - and another way they do it - http://www.haaretz.com/news/court-case-reveals-how...
I guess it's easier to just deny it than explain it.
And the illegal Arab settlements comment? Does anybody REALLY take that seriously? The fact that somebody would even claim that a people who have lived there since the Neolithic, the descendants of the Hebrews, would be illegally occupying the land just astounds me!
- Anonymous8 years ago
Buying land with money from prior owners, as these communities have done, is not "stealing." Youtubes are merely people venting their rants - often their hates - or misinformed "opinions."
These Israeli communities are on less than 2% TWO PERCENT of the land, & most of those are merely suburbs of Jerusalem. Those Jews could be integrated into a future Palestinian state, except the PAuthority has officially said no Jews allowed.
So the entire fuss, is just an excuse to avoid the real question.
When will the Palestinian governments start spreading peace initiatives (not bombs) as ideal (change their charters that say wipe out Israel)... and accept a country offer... OR seriously negotiate. This whole thing is a smoke screen to put off negotiating... since there are already land swaps agreed to for almost all of this. Problem is - the Palestinian Authority can't make a peace deal (doesn't represent the full Pali people) because they & Hamas are fighting & Hamas won't deal.
Since when was the West Bank designated as Jew-ridden? Jews can live there now.
And since when does Israel pulling all Israeli communities out of Gaza, not count as a big peace move that... everyone including... the PA & Hamas should take seriously?
On one state -- is imperialistic take over of Israel & Jews, once again. Leaving 56 Muslim, 22 Arab countries... and 0 Jewish. That's doesn't solve any underlying issues. That's Palestinian Arabs saying "I'll stop trying to annihilate you, when I've annihilated you."
There's no excuse to make Israelis live with Arabs dominating them. Especially when there are so many Arab countries that could take them in, & two that could offer them a bit of land to make a solid country. And they weren't unhappy with the prior offers -- that comes from those who want no more Israel, not those local Palestinians who want their own country (http://www.onevoicemovement.org)
Two peoples, two nations.
Personal comment to someone: BTW, that prior exchange was a misunderstanding. Too bad you won't let that get resolved, before deciding what it all meant. And to whatever you are going to say - I heard it, and you misunderstood. Not different values -- you misunderstood. (Though my writing skills not being the best, can cause that.)
- Anonymous8 years ago
Of course, illegal settlements means stealing land. That is why over 300 illegal settlements built by arabs on the land of Israel means exactly this. stealing land from the Jews.
Arabs have been practicing this for so many years that they just can not understand that the situation has changed and if they want to build something on hte land of the Jews they must ask a permission.
But for their own good, they would better start to understand this, otherwise they may lose even the land they have now.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Shay pLv 78 years ago
What settlements are illegal ??
Israel's use of land for settlements conforms to all rules and norms of international law.
The various agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993 contain no prohibitions on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, they specifically provide that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks. The parties expressly agreed that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis, pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.
Furthermore, Israel had established its settlements in the West Bank in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which forbids a state from deporting or transferring "parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." However, this allegation has no validity in law as Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories.
Article 49 is not relevant to the issue of the settlements. The Convention was drafted immediately following the Second World War, against the background of the massive forced population transfers that occurred during that period. As the International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, Article 49 (entitled "Deportations, Transfers, Evacuations") was intended to prevent the forcible transfer of civilians, thereby protecting the local population from displacement. Israel has not forcibly transferred its citizens to the territory and the Convention does not place any prohibition on individuals voluntarily choosing their place of residence. Moreover, the settlements are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice.
I'll be glad to answer any other terminological inexactitude you might see proper to bring forth.
- Kevin7Lv 78 years ago
Shay P and Short and Sweet are correct.