Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: blankmind who wrote (17407)	1/28/2002 1:51:18 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

but doesn't that mean that Israel is shooting itself in the foot by not saying that The final eastern border of Israel remains a matter of dispute? Actually, what I believe has always been Israel's unofficial position is that the West Bank, by right of conquest, belongs to them and that they opt to exert their right to fulfill the original terms of the British Mandate, by permitting Jews to settle in ancient Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). If we look at the current borders as compared to what the UN had in mind in 1947 when they decided to further partition the remaining territory of the BM, west of the Jordan river, one sees borders quite comparable to what exists today. There's Gaza and the West Bank, which were originally supposed to be the Palestinian partition. But the British Mandate, as originally stated, was supposed to grant Jewish settlement rights THROUGHOUT all of Palestine, including the West Bank, Gaza, and what is now Jordan. But this was denied to them when Jordan was established, and FURTHER denied to them when Jordan annexed the West Bank after Israel declared independence (Egypt and Jordan can declare independence but Israel can't... go figure). And by settlement, we're talking about Jews settling in previously unused territory owned by the British, and not claimed by established Palestinian ownership deeds. And since absentee landlording was rampant under the Ottomans, when that empire was conquered large tracts of land fell from Ottoman to British control, to be managed and parceled out as the British saw fit (and within League of Nations and later, UN, guidelines). So the Jews were granted the right to settle by the British under the terms of the Mandate. They could "homestead" unoccupied ground, or purchase land from Palestinians directly. And until 1948, this was effectively how the Jewish Yishuv was settled, through land grants and purchases. After the war... the land in Israel previously held by the British and unallocated, reverted to control of the state of Israel. There were, AND ARE, vast tracts of unoccupied and undeveloped land on the West Bank. Many Jewish settlements have been mainly located on high ground, both because this was the only land not previously occupied or claimed by Palestinians, and because it served a strategic military purpose in created a zone of strong points against Jordanian attacks. Look at the maps below and see how much of the West Bank remains unused, and how those current Jewish settlements are set up in "layers" along the roads running North/South (roads which the Jews primarily built and maintained), and acting as defensive "tripwires" that would hold off an invading force until the reserves could be mobilized: lib.utexas.edu lib.utexas.edu lib.utexas.edu Thus, from Israel's point of view is that, since Palestinians have the right to emigrate to Israel and obtain Israeli citizenship, Palestinians have no right to deny Jews the right to settle on the West Bank and Gaza as the Jordanians did during the 20 years they claimed the WB.. (selling land to Jews was a crime punishable by death under Jordanian rule). Seems to me the solution is pretty clear... The Palestinians should have the right to sell their land to whomever they choose, that Jews should have the right settle in the West Bank, (and even Jordan, if they choose), and living under those respective governments. A Palestinian government that is racist at its foundation is nothing but a conflict waiting for a place to happen. I recall that 20% of the Israeli population is non-Jew, yet still receive citizenship and the right to vote. Unless the PA is willing to be a government of ALL people within its desired territory, and not just of Muslims, it's legitimacy will always remain in question. I mean, think about it.. Israel is the "jewish homeland". Yet, 20% of their population is non-Jewish. But the Palestinians want to kick out all Jews from the West Bank and declare those settlements as illegal, despite that being the original intention of the British Mandate for the territory?? Go figure... As I said.. it all depends on the particular perspective one adopts. I look at the entire region as one which held no particular claim to historical sovereignty, and by which every nation that was carved out of the Ottoman Empire is, in fact, artificial.. That's not to say they don't have the right to exist, but that such a right is only maintained by the willingness to fight for it. And that means that Palestinians have one of two ways to assert their independence. Fight for it, or negotiate for it under terms agreeable to both parties. Hawk