Gaza pullout question

[plindboe]

The people who protest the pullout all seem to be fundies convinced that God gave them that piece of land. Sure, it's too bad for the settlers, I can only sympatize that they have to uproot their lifes there, but it was never their land to begin with.

So, are there no non-religious arguments against the pullout?

 

[Random]

Well, I think the problem is that there are really only two reasons for the settlements in the first place. The seizing of land for religious gain, and the seizing of land for monetary gain. I have yet to hear any reason for the Israeli settlements creation that holds up to any rational debate.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by plindboe
The people who protest the pullout all seem to be fundies convinced that God gave them that piece of land. Sure, it's too bad for the settlers, I can only sympatize that they have to uproot their lifes there, but it was never their land to begin with.

I don't understand what you mean when you say, ..."it was never their land..." If a person buys land, how is it not his?

Right now I'm arranging the financing of a property purchase in the United States for a man from Nigeria. When the deal is done, the property will belong to him, and that he's not a native born American will have nothing to do with his property rights.

Why should a Jewish "settler" in the Gaza Strip be any different?

Originally posted by plindboe
So, are there no non-religious arguments against the pullout?

Yes. Several.

One argument is that Israel should not make such decisions unilaterally. It should be part of a negotiated agreement with the Palestinian-Arabs, and Israel should get something for it. Like honest efforts by the PA to form a stable government. Some would argue that withdrawing without demanding concessions in return will encourage terrorism.

Another is that if Israel withdraws from Gaza, that the area will become a base for more anti-Israel militarism. Israel will not effectively be able to stop weapons shipments by sea or smuggling operations from Egypt, and Israeli intel will not be able to effectively keep track of terrorist operations.

Yet a third argument is the basic principle that ethnic cleansing is wrong. Many believe Jews who want to live among Arabs in Gaza or the West Bank should be allowed to do so, just as Israeli-Arabs live among Jews in Israel.

I hope this helps answer your questions.

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Gaza pullout question

I don't understand what you mean when you say, ..."it was never their land..." If a person buys land, how is it not his?

Very simple. If you "buy" my land from Ariel Sharon, it's not yours. Because it wasn't his to sell in the first place.

Why should a Jewish "settler" in the Gaza Strip be any different?

Well, for starters, because the settlers don't own the land; it's "owned" by the Israeli state--by which I mean the Israeli state claims ownership.

One argument is that Israel should not make such decisions unilaterally. It should be part of a negotiated agreement with the Palestinian-Arabs, and Israel should get something for it.

Bull puckey. If my neighbor steals my car, I shouldn't have to "negotiate" for its return, no matter what actions some members of my family might take.

Yet a third argument is the basic principle that ethnic cleansing is wrong. Many believe Jews who want to live among Arabs in Gaza or the West Bank should be allowed to do so, just as Israeli-Arabs live among Jews in Israel.

Certainly. Then let them buy or rent from the residents of that area and not live as outposts of the Israeli state, financed by Tel Aviv.

This withdrawal is not "ethnic cleansing," and using the term in any way connected with this is--to use ZN's term--turnspeak. Israel is shutting down its outposts, which it financed and created. If these people still want to live there, let them do it on the Palestinians' terms.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
Very simple. If you "buy" my land from Ariel Sharon, it's not yours. Because it wasn't his to sell in the first place.

Certainly you're aware these settlements predate Ariel Sharon being elected into power.

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, for starters, because the settlers don't own the land; it's "owned" by the Israeli state--by which I mean the Israeli state claims ownership.

And prior to that they were "owned" by the state of Egypt, and someone who wanted to buy them would have to have purchased them from that legal entity. So what? All you're demonstrating is that they're not owned by a Palestinian state that doesn't exist yet.

Originally posted by Cleon
Bull puckey. If my neighbor steals my car, I shouldn't have to "negotiate" for its return, no matter what actions some members of my family might take.

Suppose the neighbor were to "steal" the car as you tried to run him over with it? Don't you think it would be reasonable to assure him that wouldn't happen again before he gave it back?

The problem with your analogy is it doesn't speak to the circumstances of the event, which is a problem with most anti-Israel arguments.

Originally posted by Cleon
Certainly. Then let them buy or rent from the residents of that area and not live as outposts of the Israeli state, financed by Tel Aviv.

You know, I'd have no problem with these "settlers" becomming part of the tax base for a new state of Palestine, but the Palestinians would have to be able to create that state first. In the meantime, I think Jews should have the right to buy land there if they want.

Did you know that buying (I don't know about renting, I bet it doesn't come up much) from the Palestinian-Arab residents carries a death penalty for the Palestinian-Arab? That's some really hard-core racism.

My own people have a racist past too. When I bought my home, there was a deed restriction that I couldn't sell it to black people. Long out of date and completely unenforcable, it was still there. Of course, even 50 years ago I don't think breaking that restriction would have carried a death penalty.

Originally posted by Cleon
This withdrawal is not "ethnic cleansing," and using the term in any way connected with this is--to use ZN's term--turnspeak.

No...turnspeak is where I take action against you, then use your response to justify my action.

For example, I hit you, you hit me back, then I tell a police officer I had to hit your because you're so violent. That's turnspeak.

The withdrawal from Gaza is ethnic cleansing because it cleanses an area (Gaza) of an ethnicity (Jews). That's just straight-up what the word means. No turnspeak needed.

Essentially, you want to say it's not ethnic cleansing because in this case you believe ethnic cleansing is justified.

Originally posted by Cleon
Israel is shutting down its outposts, which it financed and created. If these people still want to live there, let them do it on the Palestinians' terms.

So long as those terms are reasonable, I don't have a problem with that. I think if they really want to stay, they should do so with the understanding they might become Palestinians.

 

[Tmy]

Re: Re: Gaza pullout question

Right now I'm arranging the financing of a property purchase in the United States for a man from Nigeria. When the deal is done, the property will belong to him, and that he's not a native born American will have nothing to do with his property rights.

Why should a Jewish "settler" in the Gaza Strip be any different?

.

The US govt can take that land if they wanted too. Even from a US citizen. Eminent Domain and all.

I dont know how land rights work in Isreal. Did these settlers even buy the land?? Or was it given to them by the govt in order to encourage these settlements.

 

[Cleon]

Certainly you're aware these settlements predate Ariel Sharon being elected into power.

Don't be obtuse. The point, as you well know, is that nobody has the right to sell or rent land that doesn't belong to them.

And prior to that they were "owned" by the state of Egypt, and someone who wanted to buy them would have to have purchased them from that legal entity. So what? All you're demonstrating is that they're not owned by a Palestinian state that doesn't exist yet.

I'm sorry, I must have missed Egypt selling/renting this land to foreign investors for the purpose of expanding the Egyptian state.

Suppose the neighbor were to "steal" the car as you tried to run him over with it?

Surely you're aware that the settlements pre-date the Intifada?

The problem with your analogy is it doesn't speak to the circumstances of the event, which is a problem with most anti-Israel arguments.

And the problem with your apologetics is that you ignore the facts of the situation; namely, Israel creating these settlements out of an ideological manifest destiny. This is well-documented, considering the financial incentives given to would-be settlers by the Israeli government and the World Zionist Organization.

You know, I'd have no problem with these "settlers" becomming part of the tax base for a new state of Palestine, but the Palestinians would have to be able to create that state first. In the meantime, I think Jews should have the right to buy land there if they want.

Er, buy land from who? You don't have the right to sell my land to someone else. And Israel doesn't have the right to sell Palestinian land to settlers so that they can create exclusively Jewish colonies.

Did you know that buying (I don't know about renting, I bet it doesn't come up much) from the Palestinian-Arab residents carries a death penalty for the Palestinian-Arab? That's some really hard-core racism.

Did you know that I've heard this claim made many, many times, and yet still not seen a shred of evidence of its existence, much less its application? That's some hard-core meme repition.

The withdrawal from Gaza is ethnic cleansing because it cleanses an area (Gaza) of an ethnicity (Jews). That's just straight-up what the word means. No turnspeak needed.

Lies and damn lies...

This has nothing to do with cleansing an area of Jews, and you're well aware of this. You choose to repeat your turnspeak/propaganda/half-truth/lies to perpetuate the myth, however.

This is about dismantling outposts of the Israeli state. If the US closes a military base in the Philippines, it doesn't come under the heading of "ethnically cleansing the Philippines of Americans." That's just stupid.

Essentially, you want to say it's not ethnic cleansing because in this case you believe ethnic cleansing is justified.

You may want to be careful with comments like that, lest you find yourself suspended again.

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Re: Gaza pullout question

I dont know how land rights work in Isreal. Did these settlers even buy the land?? Or was it given to them by the govt in order to encourage these settlements.

They did not buy the land, nor did the Israeli government give them a deed to it.

 

[Tmy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gaza pullout question

They did not buy the land, nor did the Israeli government give them a deed to it.

Howd they end up there? They just moved out there once Isreal annex the area??? Do they even have deeds to the place?

 

[gnome]

This is the way that I see it...

- The land was under dispute at the time the settlements were made.
- Settling the land while it was under dispute was an act likely to prolong, rather than resolve, the conflict, because it presents the other side with a fait accompli, "Well, all that suddenly doesn't matter, because now you're not getting the land because someone else lives there."
- For this reason, undoing the settlments unilaterally need not be a capitulation to terrorism, but the undoing of an act that was a bad idea in the first place. The fact that some a$$holes on the other side are killing people over it doesn't mean the settlers should stay put and continue to poison what peaceful negotiations are attempted-- or else, it's only the a$$holes, rather than the peacemakers, that have anything to offer the Palestinians.

 

[Hutch]

A couple of points. One, the Gaza Strip makes good logistical sense for Israel as it would make the border with Egypt a straight line rather than the longer border you have with the Gaza peninsula (yes, I know it's not a penisula, but it'll do until a better word comes along). If the area was deserted, then it would have been a fait accomplie 40 years ago.

A pity there are a million Arabs living there.....made annexation a lot harder.

Take at look at this map to see the angles.

Note also on the map the amount of land occupied by the Israeli settlements in the Strip. I mentioned about a million Arabs (I think the actual numbers are 1.1M, I am willing to stand corrected.
Then take a look at
this chart. Remember, some of those settlements have been there 25 years...I'll wait a minute.

Now, you own maybe 20% of the land, which you have the military guard for you, while having 0.6% of the population of the area. I think even in the US of A, that might raise an eyebrow or two if it was, in, say Mahattan or a similary sized chunk of territory.

As for Mycroft's arguments about the sale of the land, since there is no Soverign Government to control land sales or write zoning codes (or, lets be frank, banning certain groups from owning land there), then sales of an area thats soverignty is disputed and still undetermined lands is a dicey legal proposition at best, IMHO.

Let the buyer beware.

The facts as above--after 25 years, millions of dollars of investment, many lives lost (often of soldiers sent to guard the settlers) and (I'm guessing here, but I think it's a good bet) more than a few incentives to Israelis to move there, you have a very few thousand in tiny towns (with large military infrastructure) that have almost no relationship to the over 1 Million other folks occupying the rest of the land.

Sharon is bull-headed, but even he can see when hitting your head against a brick wall is not doing the wall any harm. But withdrawing, making the terrorists either (1) Hit Israel proper (if they can) which makes retaliation more legally justifiable or (2) Try to govern the Gaza and find out just how much they need to work with Israel to make the Strip function.

We shall see.

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gaza pullout question

Howd they end up there? They just moved out there once Isreal annex the area???

Israel never formally annexed Gaza or the West Bank. Just East Jerusalem. (Which is why they're called the "Occupied Territories." They're not part of Israel, but Israel has occupied them militarily since the 1967 war.)

As for how the settlements got there, well, they were largely financed by Israel and the World Zionist Organization. Settlers were encouraged to move there via a combination of religious fundamentalism and financial incentives (tax breaks, cheap moving costs, sometimes even straight cash). The IDF was then moved in to "defend" the settlements.

Do they even have deeds to the place?

Nope.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Did these settlers even buy the land?? Or was it given to them by the govt in order to encourage these settlements.

In a nutshell:

The Gaza strip has been historically Egyptian land - off and on - since the 13th century B.C. There are 3 types of land there: 1) privately owned, 2) state owned and 3) "public" land - ownerless.

For 400 years Gaza was ruled by the Ottoman Empire so the lands in category 1, 2 & 3 were administered by the Ottomans. When the British took over 1, 2 & 3 was administered by the British. When Egypt took over in 1948 Gaza was administered by Egypt. When Egypt lost to Israel in '67, Israel then became administrator of lands 1, 2 & 3.

Israel then built settlements on lands in category 1, 2 or 3.

 

[a_unique_person]

The people who protest the pullout all seem to be fundies convinced that God gave them that piece of land. Sure, it's too bad for the settlers, I can only sympatize that they have to uproot their lifes there, but it was never their land to begin with.

So, are there no non-religious arguments against the pullout?

The fundies are the leading edge of settlers, but most settlers are only there for economic reasons, that is, state subsidies. They are quite happy to settle anywhere they can reasonably afford, hence the settlers who are leaving without any fuss, and those who are going to hang on till the bitter end.

 

[Mycroft]

They did not buy the land, nor did the Israeli government give them a deed to it.

Evidence?

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Gaza pullout question

The fundies are the leading edge of settlers, but most settlers are only there for economic reasons, that is, state subsidies. They are quite happy to settle anywhere they can reasonably afford, hence the settlers who are leaving without any fuss, and those who are going to hang on till the bitter end.

Is that why they're making such a fuss about leaving?

 

[webfusion]

Economic inter-dependence et al

Coupla things ---

a) "Did you know that I've heard this claim made many, many times, and yet still not seen a shred of evidence of its existence, much less its application? That's some hard-core meme repition (sic)" -- Cleon says this in reference to the fact that Palestinians face the death sentence for selling land to Jews.

Evidence shred:
...The PA enacted a law prescribing capital punishment to anyone who sells land to Jews. Arafat explained the law as:

• a Jordanian law that we inherited, which applies to both the West Bank and Gaza, and sets the death penalty for those who sell land to Israelis. . . . We are talking about a few traitors, and we shall implement against them what is written in the law books.

Thus far, four real estate dealers have been found brutally murdered near cities controlled by the PA while a fifth real estate dealer died, allegedly from a heart attack, (while being interrogated) in PA police custody.

I think that it is fair to say the PA today under Abbas shows a clear intent to continue implementing executions for capital crimes, of which selling land to Jews falls under the category.
Ipso Facto.


b)"you have a very few thousand in tiny towns (with large military infrastructure) that have almost no relationship to the over 1 Million other folks occupying the rest of the land." quoting Hutch

Not so.
Until the Intifada started in December 1987, the Israelis and the Arabs in Gaza had intricate and detailed relationships on many levels; social, economic and political.
Hundreds of thousands came to work daily in Israel.
Tens of thousands worked in Jewish enterprises in the strip itself, in factories, agriculture, transportation and construction.
Hundreds of thousands offered goods and services to Israelis who came freely into the Gaza Strip daily (the Arabs had a thriving trade in vehicle parts & repairs, produce and livestock, fish, and baked goods, among other endeavors).

Israel even helped build a major industrial area for the Arabs at Erez Crossing, which was designed as a model of economic cooperation. It still functions today, barely.


c) In regards to the premise of the OP that 'fundies' are protesting the pullout, I encourage everyone to take a moment to read the news showing this week's demonstrations against this pullout which just took place in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv:

It is hardly accurate to characterize the opponents to the disengagement exclusively (or mainly) as 'fundies' -- when hundreds of thousands of ordinary Israelis gather in public to express their views of dissatisfaction with the whole idea of leaving Gaza (and the West Bank).

 

[Mycroft]

Here is a site that shows pictures from Gaza as well as news articles about the pullout.

Gaza Watch -- A Little Green Footballs site

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Economic inter-dependence et al

Coupla things ---

a) "Did you know that I've heard this claim made many, many times, and yet still not seen a shred of evidence of its existence, much less its application? That's some hard-core meme repition (sic)" -- Cleon says this in reference to the fact that Palestinians face the death sentence for selling land to Jews.

Evidence shred:
...The PA enacted a law prescribing capital punishment to anyone who sells land to Jews. Arafat explained the law as:

• a Jordanian law that we inherited, which applies to both the West Bank and Gaza, and sets the death penalty for those who sell land to Israelis. . . . We are talking about a few traitors, and we shall implement against them what is written in the law books.

I hate to tell you this, but Sharon is having to be very carefully guarded for handing back land to the Palestinians. Another PM actually lost his life for doing so.

Thus far, four real estate dealers have been found brutally murdered near cities controlled by the PA while a fifth real estate dealer died, allegedly from a heart attack, (while being interrogated) in PA police custody.

I think that it is fair to say the PA today under Abbas shows a clear intent to continue implementing executions for capital crimes, of which selling land to Jews falls under the category.
Ipso Facto.


b)"you have a very few thousand in tiny towns (with large military infrastructure) that have almost no relationship to the over 1 Million other folks occupying the rest of the land." quoting Hutch

Not so.
Until the Intifada started in December 1987, the Israelis and the Arabs in Gaza had intricate and detailed relationships on many levels; social, economic and political.
Hundreds of thousands came to work daily in Israel.
Tens of thousands worked in Jewish enterprises in the strip itself, in factories, agriculture, transportation and construction.
Hundreds of thousands offered goods and services to Israelis who came freely into the Gaza Strip daily (the Arabs had a thriving trade in vehicle parts & repairs, produce and livestock, fish, and baked goods, among other endeavors).

Israel even helped build a major industrial area for the Arabs at Erez Crossing, which was designed as a model of economic cooperation. It still functions today, barely.


c) In regards to the premise of the OP that 'fundies' are protesting the pullout, I encourage everyone to take a moment to read the news showing this week's demonstrations against this pullout which just took place in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: It is hardly accurate to characterize the opponents to the disengagement exclusively (or mainly) as 'fundies' -- when hundreds of thousands of ordinary Israelis gather in public to express their views of dissatisfaction with the whole idea of leaving Gaza (and the West Bank).

But the majority clearly don't want to stay in Gaza, nor have the majority ever wanted to.

 

[plindboe]

Re: Re: Gaza pullout question

I started this thread to hear other people's viewpoints, as my knowledge on this issue is not as extensive as I would like, so I'll refrain from participating in any intensive debating myself, and will just lean back and read what people have to say. Hope that's alright.