[wat0n]

Trial of Abu Khdeir killers 'a sham', says family

They are free to say whatever they want, they will surely not be satisfied with the sentence even if Ben-David gets a long time behind bars. Not that they ought to anyway.

What does matter however is that Israeli experts testified that he's sane so it's unlikely he will get freed on insanity (though one can never know for sure if he doesn't read the ruling when it's made), regardless of the stunts the defence may try to pull.

[skinster]

The settlers shouldn't even be in the West Bank / East Jerusalem. Why doesn't Israel take them?

[Decky]

They shouldn't be there either.

[wat0n]

The settlers shouldn't even be in the West Bank / East Jerusalem. Why doesn't Israel take them?

Because the Israeli politicians fear telling 4% of the population they have to leave what they consider their homes, especially since there are zero guarantees that doing so would bring peace as a direct result of such withdrawal.

[skinster]

But it's quite clearly not "their homes" whether they consider them to be or not. They are in Palestinian territory, not Israeli. They are there illegally according to international law. And they are attacking and killing Palestinians and their property very regularly, with impunity.

Israel is as responsible as the settlers for their violence and for the death of the baby these settlers burned alive last week.

[wat0n]

But it's quite clearly not "their homes" whether they consider them to be or not. They are in Palestinian territory, not Israeli. They are there illegally according to international law.

Indeed, and Palestinians should keep this in mind when they claim they have a right to return, even though there is no basis for that under international law or practice. They may believe that land in Israeli territory is their home but there is no real basis to say so, just like settlers have no basis to argue the same with regards to what they consider their homes - even when, in some cases, they did own it during Ottoman or Mandatory years.

And they are attacking and killing Palestinians and their property very regularly, with impunity.

Israel is as responsible as the settlers for their violence and for the death of the baby these settlers burned alive last week.

Israel is responsible for its negligent attitude towards settlers, which is why it seems it's going to change course now that it has been shown that extremist settlers are willing to do stuff that is much more serious than crimes against property or harassment.

It's sad that it took the death of a toddler, but it's still better than those who say that, for example, since rockets launched from Gaza into Israel have only killed 50 people since 2001 the threat posed by them is not enough reason for Israel to crack down on rocket launchers even though that number is much higher than the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli settlers in the same period, don't you think?

[skinster]

Why are you comparing illegal squatting by settlers in Palestinian territory today to a political position of the Palestinians right of return to the land they were born in, which isn't happening anywhere?

Do you support the illegal settlers and their illegal settlements?

[wat0n]

Why are you comparing illegal squatting by settlers in Palestinian territory today to a political position of the Palestinians right of return to the land they were born in, which isn't happening anywhere?

Because both frame it in the same way, i.e. that they are returning to their homeland. The only difference between them is that settlers are actually accomplishing it while Palestinians are not.

And no, the Palestinians don't frame it as a "political demand". They frame it as a legal, non-negotiable right to live in Israel - again, no different from how settlers frame it (even the " legal" part as they claim they are not breaking any international or Israeli law anyway - and that they don't care about them too). Heck, the most extreme settlers are even killing civilians for that now, just like some Palestinians do.

Do you support the illegal settlers and their illegal settlements?

No, just like I don't support the legally baseless demand of return by Palestinians too.

You see, unlike many pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis (especially rightist ones among the latter), I don't discriminate on this issue. I'd even say that'd it be fair that, for every settler that the Palestinians allowed to keep the lands they are living on as theirs, one Palestinian who claims a right to return should be allowed to do so under a final peace treaty, irrespective of land swaps (as they are another issue even if it's related).

[skinster]

Both are not framed in the same way. The settlers and their settlements are illegal according to international law. The settlers don't think international law allows for them to return to their homeland, they believe the land belongs to them because of god saying so, which is obviously absurd because god is not an estate agent.

The Palestinian right of return may be legal according to UN resolutions but IS NOT HAPPENING ANYWHERE.

These two things aren't comparable. They'd be comparable if the settlers beliefs mirrored any law, but they don't. Not to mention yet again that the Palestinians right of return isn't offered to any Palestinians, which is why they're in refugee camps in neighbouring countries.

No, just like I don't support the legally baseless demand of return by Palestinians too.

How is the settlers demand of living in settlements based on law? Where is this? And if this is the case, why does the entire international community oppose the settlements and considers them illegal?

You do support the settlers because you support their right to live in Palestinian territory illegally.

[wat0n]

Both are not framed in the same way

Yes, they are.

Palestinians and their supporters frame entering Israeli territory as a legally-guaranteed and morally justified right. They claim that such land is their homeland, and so they are entitled to live there.

Settlers and their supporters frame entering Palestinian territory as a legally-guaranteed and morally-justified right. They claim that such land is their homeland, and so they are entitled to live there.

You choose to only listen at the former but not at the latter, because the former are Arab Muslims - that is, they share your parents' religion and the religion you were raised as - and the latter are Jews (who most certainly don't share your family's religion).

The settlers and their settlements are illegal according to international law.

Certainly they are.

The settlers don't think international law allows for them to return to their homeland, they believe the land belongs to them because of god saying so, which is obviously absurd because god is not an estate agent.

That's a moralistic argument (no different from Muslims supporting Palestinian Muslims living in the part of Dar al-Islam recognized as Israeli territory), not a legal one. Usually their legal arguments are centered in:

1) The British Mandate's charter, which allows Jews to live in the West Bank, though they don't show clearly why does it still apply considering that the Mandate already ended or how this right to move there fits international custom - though it is not really different from those who claim Palestinians have a right to return and don't show which legally-binding norms or international custom support such right.

2) Claiming that the Fourth Geneva Convention or at least its article 49 does not apply in this case - which is kind of silly in both counts as the Convention applies even when such territory doesn't belong to a state and is also international custom, and furthermore the last paragraph doesn't limit the transfers of its own population to just being involuntary ones: Population transfers can perfectly be voluntary.

3) Claiming that the Oslo Accords don't stop Israel from settling the West Bank - perhaps the most solid one, but one may also claim that it also doesn't allow for it and, furthermore, one might also claim that it at best allows Israel to build to accommodate the growth of the already settled population rather than bring new ones in.

I find it odd that you aren't aware of these arguments, they can be easily found on Wikipedia

The Palestinian right of return may be legal according to UN resolutions but IS NOT HAPPENING ANYWHERE.

Not even one of those resolutions is legally-binding and even then, the poster child of all of those resolutions, doesn't say that the so-called right to return is unconditional and also doesn't say Israel must allow it.

If the Palestinians aren't moving to Israeli territory is simply because they haven't managed to settle in it.

How is the settlers demand of living in settlements based on law? Where is this? And if this is the case, why does the entire international community oppose the settlements and considers them illegal?

I think I summarized the core of their argument above. It's flawed, but they do appeal to international law at least.

You do support the settlers because you support their right to live in Palestinian territory illegally.

No, I don't support the settlement enterprise under both moral and practical concerns about it.

I also don't think it is legal and I have not claimed it is or that I agree with their arguments. That doesn't mean they haven't appealed to interpretations of international law to defend their actions, especially those who aren't religious fanatics or even religious at all (since you act as if you know so much about settlers, I'm sure you are aware there are quite a few secular ones and also quite a few non-Zionist settlers).

It's just that I am opposed your religiously-based double-standards of settler v/s Palestinian legal claims, which is no different from other instances dealing with having a different, more lenient standard when involving Muslims compared to yours when it involves Jews. Or are you going to claim that you don't try to show that Islamists didn't just appear in a vacuum and that they have some grievances with regards to past misdeeds committed on them whenever ISIL is the subject, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that Jewish fundamentalism also didn't appear in a vacuum and that it might arise because they also have some grievances with regards to past misdeeds committed against them? Please, don't make me fucking laugh

[skinster]

Waton comparing a hypothetical potentially lawful thing that hasn't happened (Palestinian right of return to their homes) to something illegal that's actually happening (Settlement-building in the occupied PALESTINIAN territories by illegal settlers who have absolutely NO justification for being there besides GOD SAYS SO).

What a joke.

What is further a joke, is that you're trying to make this a religious debate when Zionism is not a religious but a political ideology.

So I take it you don't support the 2 state solution? That could be something we agree on.

[wat0n]

Waton comparing a hypothetical potentially lawful thing that hasn't happened (Palestinian right of return to their homes) to something illegal that's actually happening (Settlement-building in the occupied PALESTINIAN territories by illegal settlers who have absolutely NO justification for being there besides GOD SAYS SO).

What a joke.

Nope, I'm comparing claims to rights to settle land by some Israelis and some Palestinians. Certainly that is important and useful in itself to understand what's going on the conflict since land plays a major role in it.

The above's true even if you pretend that settlers and their supporters don't try to provide legal justifications for their actions, however flawed they may be, or if you legitimately cannot understand plain English.

What is further a joke, is that you're trying to make this a religious debate when Zionism is not a religious but a political ideology.

Your different treatment of Jewish and Muslim religious fanatics is most certainly based on religion, don't you think?

So I take it you don't support the 2 state solution? That could be something we agree on.

Where did I hint anything like that? Please quote me or I might question your reading comprehension - it'd not be the first time anti-Israel posters have shown inability to understand cogent arguments in plain English.

Thank you!

[skinster]

What justifications do settlers have for Palestinian territory? (that you apparently don't support and think are flawed, but defend the settlers in anyway)

I understand English perfectly well, it's my first language. I also know when I see hasbara too.

There is no different "treatment" of Jewish and Muslim fanatics from me, please quote whatever I said where I supported Muslim fanatics or whatever it is that you're alluding to.

Where did I hint anything like that? Please quote me or I might question your reading comprehension - it'd not be the first time anti-Israel posters have shown inability to understand cogent arguments in plain English.

If you support the settlers - which you're doing so by suggesting their justification for Palestinian territory is in any way legitimate - how can there be two states? The settlers obstruct a 2-state solution.

Even though we know by now that a Palestinian state is opposed by most of the Israeli government anyway. Zionist greed knows no bounds.

[wat0n]

What justifications do settlers have for Palestinian territory? (that you apparently don't support and think are flawed, but defend the settlers in anyway)

I'm not "defending settlers". There's a difference between saying what they claim and supporting such claims.

I understand English perfectly well, it's my first language. I also know when I see hasbara too.

Then I'm sure you can tell the above.

There is no different "treatment" of Jewish and Muslim fanatics from me, please quote whatever I said where I supported Muslim fanatics or whatever it is that you're alluding to.

Do you think that some settlers at least may have grievances from past misdeeds committed against them by Arabs? That their political stance could in some cases be explained, at least in part, by them?

If you support the settlers - which you're doing so by suggesting their justification for Palestinian territory is in any way legitimate - how can there be two states? The settlers obstruct a 2-state solution.

Even though we know by now that a Palestinian state is opposed by most of the Israeli government anyway. Zionist greed knows no bounds.

I don't support settlers skinster, though it is important to consider their arguments and interests if you want to deal with them.

In particular, it would be useful to know which settlers would voluntarily move from the West Bank (and under which conditions) and which of them are hardliners that would not move under any circumstances whatsoever. It would also be useful to know where they live and, in the case of those who aren't willing to move, if they would object for the territory where they live to be ruled by Palestinians - all of which require knowing how they think and realizing that they are not a particularly homogeneous group in terms of their ideological outlook, but that they have their own subtleties that can be quite surprising (example)

That's what the British did when pursuing their divide and conquer strategy, and is likely a good and useful way to deal with settlers in this particular case.

Of course, doing so requires having a spine, and Netanyahu and most Israeli politicians don't have one. Even many Israelis don't as they believe that settlers would launch a civil war to oppose any evacuation, even though most say they would not - even among those living east of the WB barrier, despite being more extreme than the average settler.

But then, such lack of spine is also present among Palestinian leaders, unfortunately - which is why stuff like this was only known once it was leaked.

[skinster]

You are supporting settlers if you're offering legitimacy to their arguments in any way.

Do you think that some settlers at least may have grievances from past misdeeds committed against them by Arabs? That their political stance could in some cases be explained, at least in part, by them?

No.

Considering what happened to Palestine by Zionism, no. Besides, Zionists got the land they wanted, is that not enough? Why must they encroach on what little has been left for the Palestinians when they already have much more of the land and their actual own country?

Of course, doing so requires having a spine, and Netanyahu and most Israeli politicians don't have one. Even many Israelis don't as they believe that settlers would launch a civil war to oppose any evacuation, even though most say they would not - even among those living east of the WB barrier, despite being more extreme than the average settler.

The military in the West Bank support the settlers, allow them weapons and impunity for any of their crimes and you're trying to act as though the settlers are separate from the Israeli government and the Israeli government is unable to deal with them?

The only thing the Israeli government needs to do if the settlers were an actual problem for them, is to stop providing security for them, or building their settlements. But the government, like the settlers, oppose a 2-state solution because they want all of the land and none of the Palestinians.

[wat0n]

You are supporting settlers if you're offering legitimacy to their arguments in any way.

So when you say that ISIL didn't spring from nowhere but is the result of American policies, you are supporting it?

No.

Considering what happened to Palestine by Zionism, no. Besides, Zionists got the land they wanted, is that not enough? Why must they encroach on what little has been left for the Palestinians when they already have much more of the land and their actual own country?

So no Jews were expelled from their homes in Hebron in 1929 or from east Jerusalem during the 1948 war now?

The Zionists got their state, yes, and perhaps the Palestinians would have one today if their leadership had acted differently back then. But that doesn't change the fact that, yes, Jews also lost their property back then, Arabs aren't the only ones with grievances in that regard.

The military in the West Bank support the settlers, allow them weapons and impunity for any of their crimes and you're trying to act as though the settlers are separate from the Israeli government and the Israeli government is unable to deal with them?

Yes they are. You said it yourself, extremist ones are so arrogant that they attack even Israeli soldiers didn't you? To that, add the belief that all are religious fanatics and that there are hundreds of thousands of them, and you can see why some Israelis believe that withdrawing from the West Bank might lead to a civil war.

It all follows from your position and the fact that many Israelis actually believe you, plus those who support settling the West Bank as well.

The only thing the Israeli government needs to do if the settlers were an actual problem for them, is to stop providing security for them, or building their settlements. But the government, like the settlers, oppose a 2-state solution because they want all of the land and none of the Palestinians.

But if they are so fanatical and so numerous, then what makes you believe that it is so easy for the Israeli government to stop supporting them overnight?

As for Israeli government policy, if they wanted all the land they wouldn't have left any settlements in 2005 or would at least be retaking them now. But they did leave them and they haven't retaken them. They didn't even let settlers rebuild one of the uprooted ones just last week when they tried to. In short, the facts clearly disagree with you.

But fanatics motivated by religious allegiances cannot realize that reality can often be complex and that the actions of democratically elected governments in particular depend a lot on perceptions and subtleties that are not easy to catch at a first look.

[skinster]

It's annoying when you get on the deflection train so I'll ignore the off-topic stuff and stick to the topic.

As I said, the Israelis could stop building settlers homes and take the military out of the West Bank that supports them and gives them guns, and then let the settlers live under Palestinian rule considering they are in Palestinian territory. See how that works out. If they start a civil war, authorities can deal with them.

[wat0n]

Indeed, but the authorities lack the spine to call the bluff since most won't. Even the mere suggestion of trying could hurt their prospects of reaching the government if it involves an unilateral withdrawal like that from Gaza (one that leaves the West Bank with zero Israeli presence, ready for Hamas to attempt to take over). An agreed upon withdrawal would be a much easier sell.

And anyway, why would they want to risk a civil war (even if short) when it's not even clear that it would end the conflict with the Palestinians?

Oh and I haven't changed the topic. It's that you cannot provide any reply to my arguments so you just avoid them like the plague. Do you think I don't realize?

[skinster]

It's not that the authorities lack the spine, it's because the authorities want exactly what's been happening with the settlers, otherwise they wouldn't give them impunity for their crimes, in the occupied territories as well as internationally.

[wat0n]

It's not that the authorities lack the spine, it's because the authorities want exactly what's been happening with the settlers, otherwise they wouldn't give them impunity for their crimes, in the occupied territories as well as internationally.

Then why did they stop them from rebuilding Sa-Nur (a settlement uprooted in 2005) and demolished the Draynoff buildings even as settlers riot (both of which have triggered the burning of an infant this thread is about), for example?