|Reviews for Settling the Issue|
| Koshml17 9/9/07 . chapter 1
The situation is a very sticky one as I find all Israeli politics.
I wonder if the Jeneva convention even applies at all in this particular situation. If the Palestenians were not in possession of a county then are the hostilties really considered a war? When Israel was declared independent in '48 they occupied the west bank and gaza areas you refer to now. The former, I understand, was a part of The state of Trans Jordan. Thus rendering it a war. So in truth the issue is one of returning the Palestinians/Jordanians to Jordan via extraction from occupied territory or returning land to the country it was captured from. But I doubt this to be the case as Jordan seems to have no wil to have said land returned. Infact they signed a treaty with Israel of which, I must admit, I have not seen in detal. Now suddenly the issue becomes one of a Palestinian state. On of which never existed but in fact was part of Jordan. So is there an actual state of war at this point in time?
You said, "Because Paragraphs 1 through 5 of Article 49 refer only to forcible transfers, some supporters of Israel may insist Paragraph 6 must do the same. But in Article 42, Paragraph 1 refers to forcible internment and Paragraph 2 to voluntary internment." I find the need for a better definition of the word "transfer." Does this mean that the country declared, for example, "Everyone get aboard the westbank settlement bound buss!" Or rather that they didn't deny access to all who tried to walk into the occupied territory. I think there is a reason the word "transfer" is used as opposed to, say, "admit". By not stopping the populace the government has not transfered them rather simply no kept them out. Transfer, in short, is government sponsored.
I find that here in your statement.
"Returning to discussion of the applicability of Article 49: Israel facilitates the transfer of settlers in sufficient numbers to populate large communities, but they make their decisions individually. Can they be considered as belonging to a group, a "part" of Israel's civilian population?
I maintain that they can. Even though Jews are not a minority in Israel, it's of great significance here that while not all Israelis are Jewish, all settlers are Jewish. Regardless of the motives of individual settlers (some are said to be interested primarily in affordable housing), the settlements themselves have a government-approved political agenda: to force the inhabitants of these occupied territories to accept an ever-expanding Jewish presence, as part of a movement some Jews see as "reclaiming" or "redeeming" the lands in question and leading to annexation by Israel. All settlers, by their participation, are at least acquiescing in this agenda.
If such is indeed the case and Israel is sponsering a large group of people to enter the area is it a fact that they are turning nonjewish Israelis down or they are not applying. I see the government as not denying those who come as opposed to selecting particular persons to be allowed.
I also find here. "In the case of Israeli settlements, the true part-vs.-individual distinction is that Israel has facilitated mass immigration into these territories as a matter of policy, rather than weighing every application for transfer and requiring strong justification consistent with preservation of the territory's integrity."
If you refer to this as a part of Jordan, then, as elaborated on above, I believe it has been abandoned as a part of the country.
If you refer to it as the sate of Palestine then I am yet to see it as it has never been established.
As a final thought I see the section regarding "parts" and so on as not so much applying to Jews being moved, (either forcibly or simply being supported) but to expel unwanted citizens. For example, say Israel decides that they shall expel anyone who claims to be connected with the Palestinian movement who are already citizens of the country to Gaza. Article 6 prohibits such action. And was not intended to stop willing people to move, rather to say the government shall have no part in forcing or organizing such movement.
| No Trust 10/23/03 . chapter 1
Would you oppose the settlements even if they were not "illegal"?
I myself would be opposed to the settlement programs because in reality they are nothing but eminent domain on steroids. I oppose eminent domain on princple.
| James Jago 10/23/03 . chapter 1
I think many people on BOTH sides would heartily agree with Mia-A. Plenty of Israeli and Palestinian people want peace, and have no grudge against the other side. Not every suicide bomber's family is proud of them, and not every Israeli cheers when an apartment building ALLEGEDLY containing Hamas members is destroyed by an F16.
| The Fictionpress Historian 10/21/03 . chapter 1
Both Palestinians and Israelis are idiots. If either side had any half-decent commanders their conflict would have been resolved decades ago. They need to either kill each other and get it over with, or stop wasting their time with this ongoing conflict.
I like your essay though, it does a good analysis of the article. R&R mine?