A PALESTINIAN STATE FREE OF JEWS?

[shira]

....But neither actually addressed the central issue that Netanyahu raised: why it is legitimate for the Palestinians to ask for a Jew-free state?

When pressed, defenders of the Palestinian position characterize the demand as no settlers rather than the uglier-sounding no Jews. The claim is hard to take at face value, as the Palestinians have never objected to Israeli Arabs settling across the Green Line, as they have in significant numbers. But, granting its sincerity, what does international law say about the demand to remove settlers as part of a solution to a territorial conflict? To answer this question, as part of a larger research study on settlements, I examined the fate of settlers in every occupation since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions—eight major situations in total. The results highlight how extraordinary the Palestinian demand is.

There is simply no support in international practice for the expulsion of settlers from occupied territories. In the many situations involving settlers around the world, the international community has never supported expulsion, and consistently backed plans allowing the settlers to remain in a new state.

Settlement activity is the rule rather than the exception in situations of belligerent occupation around the world. In places like Western Sahara and northern Cyprus, the settlers now make up a majority of the population. In most other places, they account for a much higher percentage of the territory’s population than Jews would in a potential Palestinian state. In all these cases, the arrival of the settlers was accompanied with the familiar claims of seizure of land and property, and serious human rights abuses. Unlike the Israeli situation, it was also accompanied with a large-scale expulsion of the prior inhabitants from the territory.

more...
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/213597/a-palestinian-state-free-of-jews

[shira]

1. More from OP...

In internationally-brokered efforts to resolve these conflicts, the question of the fate of the settlers naturally arose. The answer, across all these very different situations, has always been the same: the settlers stay. Indeed, the only point of dispute has typically been what proportion of settlers receive automatic citizenship in any newly-created state and what proportion merely gets residence status. Thus, when East Timor, for example, received independence in an internationally-approved process, none of the Indonesian settlers were required to leave. The current U.N.-mediated peace plans for Western Sahara and Cyprus not only presuppose the demographically dominant settler population can remain, it gives them a right to vote in referenda on potential deal.

This is not because these settlers are beloved by the surrounding population. The opposite is true. In the Paris peace talks to end the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, representatives of the latter tried to raise the possibility of expelling the nearly million Vietnamese settlers. Their arguments were familiar: the settlers remind them of the occupation, rekindle ancient hatreds, and destabilize the peace. Yet the Cambodian demands for the mass removal of ethnic Vietnamese was rejected outright by diplomats: One simply cannot ask for such things.

Indeed, uniform international practice shows that the removal of settlers is an obstacle to peace. In those occupations that have been resolved—East Timor, Cambodia, Lebanon—such demands would have been a complete deal-breaker. And those still subject to international diplomacy, however slim the chances of resolution, there would not even be a pretense of negotiation had demands similar to the Palestinians been made.

In short, the Palestinians couching their objection as one about removing “settlers” rather than Jews does not change the harsh reality. There is simply no precedent in international practice for the demand. Whatever term one uses for such a demand, Netanyahu was clearly right to call attention to the extraordinary nature of the demand. It is also disappointing that, instead of exercising moral leadership on this issue, the ADL went against its mission by seemingly excusing singular treatment for Jews.

[shira]

2. There is perhaps no better proof of antisemitism WRT settlers than this. n/t

[Little Tich]

3. What happened to the Israeli settlements built on Egyptian territory?

Yamit
Source: Wikipedia

Yamit (Hebrew: ימית?? was an Israeli settlement in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula[1] with a population of about 2,500 people. Yamit was established during Israel's occupation of the peninsula from the end of the 1967 Six-Day War until that part of the Sinai was handed over to Egypt in April 1982, as part of the terms of the 1979 Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty. Prior to the return of the land to Egypt, all the homes were evacuated and bulldozed.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamit

"No precedent"? - I beg to differ. The author of the OP is definitely not one of the sharpest knives in the drawer...

[shira]

4. There is no precedent other than Jews needing to be expelled.

Only Jews. That's due to discrimination, bigotry.

It's also due to the fact Jews wouldn't be safe or protected. They'd be slaughtered mercilessly.

[Little Tich]

7. Do you have a real source to back up your argument?

The author of the OP is either deliberately misleading or not very smart, so I would prefer a reality based source...

[shira]

8. A source for what? That settlements actually exist elsewhere in other occupied territory?

Does that need to be proven first, or do you concede such settlements exist in other parts of the world? If you concede, we can then move further....

[Little Tich]

9. Kontorovich's claims seem to be completely incorrect,

and his article has an almost CAMERA-like quality to it. It's quite inconceivable that he had no idea that Israel had settlements in Egypt, and that they were removed as a part of the withdrawal.

As for the removal of other settlements, Italian settlers were removed from Libya, and German settlers in "Ostland" were removed after WW2. French colonists were removed from Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. There are obviously plenty of examples that make the argument in the OP completely baseless.

Kontorovich is hoping that people reading the OP won't bother with checking the facts.

[aranthus]

10. All because of political expedience.

The victors in war removed them. Not because there was any legal or moral duty that they be moved. Now if you want t try t argue that the Palestinians won't make peace unless the Israelis remove all the settlements, have at it. There's an argument at least as good that they won't make peace even if that happens. But trying to claim that there is some moral or legal obligation to remove them just proves that you don't have a clue how the world works.

[Little Tich]

11. Interestingly, I think the settlements should be allowed to stay.

In spite of any legal argument, it doesn't feel right to remove one group of people to make place for another. It's like Umm al-Hiran, but bigger. However, that also means that a Palestinian state is impossible.

I do have a definite problem with the OP on purely factual grounds - it's written in bad faith and deliberately misleading.

[aranthus]

13. Interestingly, I think that they may need to be moved.

Not because there is any legal or moral duty to do so, but because it may be politically necessary to allow for the creation of a Palestinian state. But we are a long way from having to deal with that.

[shira]

15. I agree with you. Best case scenario, pretend there's actual peace & 2 states...

I don't see how Jews could live under Palestinian leadership without being massacred.
Even if the PA/Hamas tried, they couldn't protect them.

[Little Tich]

16. For me, it would constitute Apartheid to remove an ethnic group in order to make place for another.

It doesn't matter if it's about Jews or Palestinians.

[shira]

20. Do u think it's legal to ethnically cleanse Jews from the W.Bank?

I would imagine your answer is no, based on your response equating it to Apartheid.

Further, was the Gaza pullout in 2005 or the pullout of settlers from the Sinai an example of apartheid / ethnic-cleansing in your opinion?

[Little Tich]

21. Just removing civilians is in itself not Apartheid, IMHO.

It's bad enough, but it's conceivable that a democracy could do that. For the Apartheid part, there must be an element of replacement of one ethnic group with another, and I'm not sure that the cases you mentioned actually have that element. However, the wisdom in Israel tranferring its own civilian population into occupied territory in the first place can be seriously questioned. It would lead to an Apartheid system if the civilians under occupation aren't given civil rights.

Just like Umm al-Hiran, it would be considered Apartheid IMHO to remove one ethnic group in order to replace it with another in the West Bank and Jerusalem. I don't particularly like the settlers, and I think their presence will create a bi-national state, but in spite of all that, I find no reason to make them as a group culpable for the wrongdoings of their leaders.

[aranthus]

14. You keep saying the author's claims are factually untrue, without pointing to specifics.

What claims are you talking about, and why are they untrue?

[Little Tich]

17. I could find six other examples of settlers being removed after occupation

- in the Middle-East, and without even having to think too hard.

"I examined the fate of settlers in every occupation since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions—eight major situations in total." That's such a bogus claim that I call hasbara on the OP. But as I've mentioned before - if the OP wasn't bogus, there would be other sources backing it up.

[shira]

12. Aranthus is right, you're wrong. With your 1st example, Gaddafi expelled Italians...

Last edited Thu Dec 1, 2016, 09:35 AM - Edit history (3)

How does that show any legal precedent for the expulsion of Jews from their ancestral homeland? If you're trying to give legal precedent to forced expulsions, it's you who are arguing in bad faith, being deliberately misleading....not Kontorovich.

If you want to convince people you're right and Kontorovich is wrong, simply point to a situation in which some binding agreement was made within the past century where settlers had to go. An agreement between 2 sides. Not some 1-sided illegal mass transfer / expulsion.

[Little Tich]

18. Perhaps you should ask Kontorovich about his view on the removal of settlers in the six other cases

I've mentioned, and why he thinks they're not worth mentioning...

You obviously have your own theory about why those other cases weren't mentioned, but it would be better to know what the self-appointed expert has to say.

[shira]

19. What 6 other cases? Be very clear please. I'll tackle 2 at a time if you want. n/t

[leftynyc]

5. No surprises in there

Israel and the Jews have always been held to a different standard than everyone else. I sure don't see any DUers trashing Great Britain every single fucking day for continuing to occupy Ireland, or China/Tibet. Nope, only Israel is evil to these clowns.

[shira]

6. Israel is evil to clowns who support Chavez, Castro, Hamas....

Last edited Wed Nov 30, 2016, 11:56 AM - Edit history (3)

America is seen as evil too, but Israel even more. A free, liberal (Jewish) democracy hated & reviled while brutal, regressive, totalitarian regimes are preferred or supported outright.

Only 1 reason for that and you only get one guess...