Zionuts

[Loki]

Israel had over half a century to change the dynamics.

[wiggin]

Honestly they have done so several times, for better or worse. I'd say the 80s were a lost decade, as were the last 22 years. But there have been many changes to the dynamics of the conflict.

[Loki]

A vast majority for the worse. Especially in the past decade.

[Steely Glint]

While I am not a fan of the violent wing of the settler enterprise

I also only endorse respectable forms of ethnic cleansing.

[Aimless]

I also only endorse respectable forms of ethic cleansing.

Very good ťypo

[wiggin]

I also only endorse respectable forms of ethnic cleansing.

Please articulate a reasonable argument why the presence of settlers in Kfar Etzion is a form of ethnic cleansing (rather than, say, the forcible depopulation of Kfar Etzion in 1948). Assuming that you can't, why don't we keep this conversation civil?

[Loki]

Putting settlers in those areas is A) colonialism and B) rules out a peaceful transfer of territory in the future. Again, see Karabakh.

[wiggin]

Putting settlers in those areas is A) colonialism and B) rules out a peaceful transfer of territory in the future. Again, see Karabakh.

Re: a), I chose Kfar Etzion for a reason. Suggesting that is colonialism is stretching the definition past the breaking point (or, if not, arrives at a patently racist definition of colonialism). As for b), see Yamit. And Gush Katif. And any reasonable person's borders in a final status agreement. Also, neither of your points address what I asked Steely.

If we can't have a nuanced discussion that acknowledges the complexity of the conflict, it's pointless to even bother talking about it. Absolute statements like settlers == ethnic cleansing or Palestinians == terrorists are wrong, offensive, and counterproductive.

[Steely Glint]

Please articulate a reasonable argument why the presence of settlers in Kfar Etzion is a form of ethnic cleansing

From the specific to the general

a) Palestinians used to be able to live on the land occupied by that particular and now they can't, so in a very literal way that specific parcel of land has been ethnically cleansed. The construction of many of these settlements is often proceeded by the eviction of Palestinians from the area where the settlement is to be built - this is not subtle stuff.
b) The measures necessary to protect those settlements - road-blocks, segregated roads, check-points, the entire occupation - severely impacts the ability of Palestinians to move around their own land and live their lives. Israel regularly restricts or limits access to water and other vital amenities to make it less viable for Palestinians to live on that land.
c) The entire purpose of the settler movement, and the reason the Israeli government supports them, is to establish a Israeli majority in the west bank and, so one assumes, eventually annex it outright - there really is no other plausible end goal here, unless the settlers envisage themselves living in these fortified outposts in perpetuity, and the Israeli government imagines the occupation to be permanent.

Short of rounding everyone up and gun-point and marking them into Jordan, it's hard to see what Israel could do to make the settler program more ethnic cleansing than it is already.

(rather than, say, the forcible depopulation of Kfar Etzion in 1948)

Also ethnic cleansing.

Putting settlers in those areas is A) colonialism and B) rules out a peaceful transfer of territory in the future. Again, see Karabakh.

C) is a war crime

[wiggin]

From the specific to the general

a) Palestinians used to be able to live on the land occupied by that particular and now they can't, so in a very literal way that specific parcel of land has been ethnically cleansed. The construction of many of these settlements is often proceeded by the eviction of Palestinians from the area where the settlement is to be built - this is not subtle stuff.

Kfar Etzion was built on land that was legally purchased or leased prior to the founding of the State of Israel.

b) The measures necessary to protect those settlements - road-blocks, segregated roads, check-points, the entire occupation - severely impacts the ability of Palestinians to move around their own land and live their lives. Israel regularly restricts or limits access to water and other vital amenities to make it less viable for Palestinians to live on that land.

Kfar Etzion is close to the Green Line and can be readily accessed by roads that do not substantially affect the movement of Palestinians. You may have a broader critique of the occupation (and a valid one), but the marginal effect of adding or subtracting Kfar Etzion does not extend the occupation in a way that it changes the calculus for Palestinians. The same could not be said, say, of illegal outposts deep inside the West Bank that receive roads and utility hookups.

c) The entire purpose of the settler movement, and the reason the Israeli government supports them, is to establish a Israeli majority in the west bank and, so one assumes, eventually annex it outright - there really is no other plausible end goal here, unless the settlers envisage themselves living in these fortified outposts in perpetuity, and the Israeli government imagines the occupation to be permanent.

I cannot disagree with you more here. That is one purpose for some settlers, yes. The reason the Israeli government supports many settlements are complex and varied (and change with time) but have not by and large had anything to do with annexing the West Bank or establishing an Israeli majority in the West Bank (if that would even be possible, which is not outside some fever dreams of right wing demagogues). And again, I chose Kfar Etzion for a reason. Keeping Kfar Etzion Israeli would have little effect on the viability of a Palestinian state, is historically and ethically justified, and could easily be accommodated in a final status agreement that doesn't result in any ethnic cleansing.

i would go so far as to say that demanding that the West Bank remain Judenrein even from people who legally bought land there and lived there during the Mandate actively sabotages any hope of a peaceful solution.

Also ethnic cleansing.

Well, at least we can agree on something here.

C) is a war crime

I intentionally am not discussing the legal question here. I am discussing your argument that all settlers amount to ethnic cleansing (which does not have a clear legal definition).

I don't dispute that much of the Western world treats all Israeli settlement in the West Bank, Golan, and (formerly) Gaza as a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention, and I think a reasonable person could arrive at that conclusion (as have some Israeli government officials, from time to time). I think there's also a reasonable argument to make that applying that specific part of the 4th Geneva Convention to this conflict is complex because of the unclear state of the West Bank and Gaza in the interregnum period between the end of the British Mandate and the beginning of Israeli control (the case for the Golan is much less complex, which is ironic because it is also far less controversial politically both inside and outside Israel). But none of this discussion has any bearing on the central claim of ethnic cleansing, which is distinct from the specific legal debate about settlements. Establishing Israeli settlements could be a part of an ethnic cleansing campaign, but doesn't necessarily need to be one.

[Aimless]

This is what the English call wankery—an admittedly very popular but kinda skeevy pastime.

[Steely Glint]

Kfar Etzion was built on land that was legally purchased or leased prior to the founding of the State of Israel.

It is unclear how or why that would give the State of Israel jurisdiction over the land. Under normal circumstances, the status of the land would be resolved between Israeli citizens who have the deeds and the Palestinian Authority, who have jurisdiction over the land.

If, hypothetically, a Palestinian citizen had prior ownership of land that is now part of Israel, I assume that that would not give them the right to establish an Palestinian-exclusive exclave there, then enforce it with military force and turn all the taps off?

Kfar Etzion is close to the Green Line and can be readily accessed by roads that do not substantially affect the movement of Palestinians. You may have a broader critique of the occupation (and a valid one), but the marginal effect of adding or subtracting Kfar Etzion does not extend the occupation in a way that it changes the calculus for Palestinians.

It still requires an armed occupation to protect it, though, doesn't it? Like, even if it was the only one?

The same could not be said, say, of illegal outposts deep inside the West Bank that receive roads and utility hookups.

They're all illegal, wig.

Keeping Kfar Etzion Israeli would have little effect on the viability of a Palestinian state, is historically and ethically justified, and could easily be accommodated in a final status agreement that doesn't result in any ethnic cleansing.

I mean, the ethic cleansing already happened when the settlement was established, so no it wouldn't require any additional ethic cleansing - in any case, if what you say about the nature of the settlement is true that would need to be hashed out between Israel and the Palestinians in a negotiation of a final settlement, presumably in exchange for some other equally reasonable concession from Israel, not imposed unilaterally by Israel on no other basis than superior arms.

Just think about how weak your position here is - even if I concede every point you're trying to make, we're still left with "Well out of over 100 Israel settlements in the west bank there's maybe 3 or 4 which aren't actually ethnically cleansing or maybe just very light ethic cleansing, #notallsettlers actually" - it's like, great, got me there, well done. They still are trying to ethnically cleanse the west bank, or portions of it, though.

I intentionally am not discussing the legal question here. I am discussing your argument that all settlers amount to ethnic cleansing (which does not have a clear legal definition).

You literally argued that Kfar Etzion was justified because the land was legally purchased under the British mandate.

I don't dispute that much of the Western world treats all Israeli settlement in the West Bank, Golan, and (formerly) Gaza as a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention, and I think a reasonable person could arrive at that conclusion (as have some Israeli government officials, from time to time). I think there's also a reasonable argument to make that applying that specific part of the 4th Geneva Convention to this conflict is complex because of the unclear state of the West Bank and Gaza in the interregnum period between the end of the British Mandate and the beginning of Israeli control (the case for the Golan is much less complex, which is ironic because it is also far less controversial politically both inside and outside Israel). But none of this discussion has any bearing on the central claim of ethnic cleansing, which is distinct from the specific legal debate about settlements. Establishing Israeli settlements could be a part of an ethnic cleansing campaign, but doesn't necessarily need to be one.

It's not just 'much of the western world' it's pretty much every other country in the world, other than Israel including otherwise strong supports of Israel like the US, and there's a pretty good reason for that, which is that Israel's position is absolutely ridiculous. If the West Bank and Gaza actually were actually of unclear status - there's no real reason to think that they are, but if they were - that does not somehow equate to Israel being able to import it's own population on the land, or occupy it indefinably.

Also, there is no plausible resolution of this hypothetical unclear status of the west bank that would result in Israel having the right to built settlements there, so they're basically just applying this alleged limbo status to apply the principle of finders keepers.

[wiggin]

It is unclear how or why that would give the State of Israel jurisdiction over the land. Under normal circumstances, the status of the land would be resolved between Israeli citizens who have the deeds and the Palestinian Authority, who have jurisdiction over the land.

Private citizens own the land and they live on it, under the law prevailing at the time it was purchased and the current prevailing law. What is the issue? I should note that the Palestinian Authority does not, and never has had jurisdiction over that land. It didn't exist when Kfar Etzion was founded (in 1927, 1933, 1943, or 1967, pick your date), and never had any agreed jurisdiction under Area C. One might argue that a notional Palestinian state has jurisdiction over the land, but the connection between the Palestinian Authority (whose existence and legal legitimacy is based on the Oslo Accord) and this nebulous theoretical entity is vague at best.

If, hypothetically, a Palestinian citizen had prior ownership of land that is now part of Israel, I assume that that would not give them the right to establish an Palestinian-exclusive exclave there, then enforce it with military force and turn all the taps off?

I'm not sure it would give them the legal right, but I think a Palestinian who was pushing for the right to live peacefully on the land they were evicted from has some reasonable arguments and should be afforded a respectful hearing of their views rather than calling them 'terrorists' just because other Palestinians would like to wage a campaign of terror to murder all of the people who are vaguely related to that eviction.

What do you think the 'Palestinian Right of Return' is? It's obviously a non-starter for Israel from a practical perspective, but my point is that it's a reasonable position that should be afforded a fair hearing rather than lumping all Palestinians (or all settlers) in a giant group and dismissing them entirely.

It still requires an armed occupation to protect it, though, doesn't it? Like, even if it was the only one?

Every Israeli civilian requires an armed presence to protect them, whether or not they are in Green Line Israel. Practically, Kfar Etzion is not an armed camp and does not face major security threats compared to settlements in other areas of the West Bank.

They're all illegal, wig.

You know as well as I do that I was referring to outposts that are illegal under Israeli law, which takes a different view of how Geneva IV applies to the West Bank.

I mean, the ethic cleansing already happened when the settlement was established, so no it wouldn't require any additional ethic cleansing - in any case, if what you say about the nature of the settlement is true that would need to be hashed out between Israel and the Palestinians in a negotiation of a final settlement, presumably in exchange for some other equally reasonable concession from Israel, not imposed unilaterally by Israel on no other basis than superior arms.

Just think about how weak your position here is - even if I concede every point you're trying to make, we're still left with "Well out of over 100 Israel settlements in the west bank there's maybe 3 or 4 which aren't actually ethnically cleansing or maybe just very light ethic cleansing, #notallsettlers actually" - it's like, great, got me there, well done. They still are trying to ethnically cleanse the west bank, or portions of it, though.

This is obviously hyperbole so I won't bother addressing it in detail (though how ethnic cleansing happened at this site prior to the establishment of the settlement is unclear to me? Unless you mean ethnic cleansing of Jews from Jordanian occupied territory). However, very briefly, the vast majority of settlers live in major settlement blocs near the Green Line that have little to no bearing on the shape of a final status agreement. Jerusalem will be tricky, but it was going to be tricky no matter what. Ariel will also be tricky and will probably have to be evacuated, though some sort of alternative arrangement might be possible. Most settlers living in these blocs are not hard core idealogues and live there just because it's relatively affordable housing close to the center of the country. Some of them settled there specifically on the government's urging as a security measure (particularly Ariel, unfortunately) and have little to no religious affiliation. The portion of settlers interested in ethnic cleansing in any way, shape, or form, is confined to a small minority that should be appropriately reviled (and kept far away from the Knesset, which unfortunately is no longer the case).

I've said it before, but if Israel was interested in ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, they're doing an awful job of it. One can make a reasonable argument (as Pappe and others have done) that the nascent state of Israel embarked on a campaign of ethnic cleansing during the 1947-1949 war of independence (with reciprocal-and rather more complete-cleansing by Jordan and Egypt, not to mention the eventual eviction of hundreds of thousands of Jews from most of the Arab countries), but since 1967 that has not been the case in any reasonable reading of their policy.

You literally argued that Kfar Etzion was justified because the land was legally purchased under the British mandate.

The question there - were Palestinians evicted from the land upon which Kfar Etzion was founded - had a straightforward legal answer (no). The question I have been engaging with here - are all settlers ethnic cleansers - does not have a straightforward legal answer (ethnic cleansing is not defined in international law), and broader questions about the international legality of Israeli settlements are at best a sideshow to my point.

It's not just 'much of the western world' it's pretty much every other country in the world, other than Israel including otherwise strong supports of Israel like the US, and there's a pretty good reason for that, which is that Israel's position is absolutely ridiculous. If the West Bank and Gaza actually were actually of unclear status - there's no real reason to think that they are, but if they were - that does not somehow equate to Israel being able to import it's own population on the land, or occupy it indefinably.

Also, there is no plausible resolution of this hypothetical unclear status of the west bank that would result in Israel having the right to built settlements there, so they're basically just applying this alleged limbo status to apply the principle of finders keepers.

As I said above, I am not debating legal rights. I am asking whether your ridiculously broad lumping of all settlers into the 'ethnic cleansing' bucket is justified when there is such a wide spectrum of the ethical, historical, and ideological basis of different settlements (and settlers). I further think that this dismissive grouping is ahistorical and makes rational policy measures and peace efforts more difficult.



I strongly suspect we have gotten to the point that further back and forth would just be repeating ourselves. Clearly you haven't done even the basic level of research on the example I provided to discuss it intelligently, nor do I think you are inclined to understand the complexities inherent in this conflict.

[Steely Glint]

Private citizens own the land and they live on it, under the law prevailing at the time it was purchased and the current prevailing law. What is the issue?

Uh, what currently prevailing law would that be?

I'm not sure it would give them the legal right, but I think a Palestinian who was pushing for the right to live peacefully on the land they were evicted from has some reasonable arguments and should be afforded a respectful hearing of their views rather than calling them 'terrorists' just because other Palestinians would like to wage a campaign of terror to murder all of the people who are vaguely related to that eviction.

And who would decide the outcome of this hearing? Because right now, what I'm looking at in the West Bank is, there is no 'hearing', no one is applying for a visa or right of abode, or anything like that, there are just these settlements going up on Palestinian land, evictions, road blocks, checkpoints with no so much as by-your-leave.

What do you think the 'Palestinian Right of Return' is? It's obviously a non-starter for Israel from a practical perspective, but my point is that it's a reasonable position that should be afforded a fair hearing rather than lumping all Palestinians (or all settlers) in a giant group and dismissing them entirely.

Yeah, why is the right of return for Palestinians who were forcibly evicted during the turmoil in the forties a 'non-started from a practical perspective' for Israel, but the right of Israeli's who lost land in the same period is now being enforced on the Palestinians without them getting a say in any of it, and a who lot of practical problems to go with it? Can you run that one by me?

You want Israeli's to have the rights to resettle the land they lost, but you don't reciprocate.

Every Israeli civilian requires an armed presence to protect them, whether or not they are in Green Line Israel. Practically, Kfar Etzion is not an armed camp and does not face major security threats compared to settlements in other areas of the West Bank.

Protecting Israeli citizens of the other side of the green line doesn't require the IDF to occupy non-Israeli territory.

You know as well as I do that I was referring to outposts that are illegal under Israeli law, which takes a different view of how Geneva IV applies to the West Bank.

Actually, I didn't know that, because otherwise it would not have made sense to claim that only the settlements which are illegal under Isreali law are the only ones causing problems for Palestinians or would cause a problem for a hypothetical peace settlement.

The portion of settlers interested in ethnic cleansing in any way, shape, or form, is confined to a small minority that should be appropriately reviled (and kept far away from the Knesset, which unfortunately is no longer the case).

And most people who migrated to the New World from Europe weren't interested in personally murdering every single native American on the continent with small pox or taking literally all of the land - that doesn't mean they weren't participating in a colonialist project, where pretty much exactly that ended up happening. It's the way of the world that you can very easily end up complicit or an active participant in some very nasty business without being a bad person or even, particularly, meaning to. See? ~*~ Nuance ~ * ~

Actual nuance that is. Not, you know, thin excuses for war crimes.

[wiggin]

Ok, I'll let you have the last word. This conversation is going nowhere.

[Aimless]

The yum has been thoroughly yucked

[LittleFuzzy]

Please articulate a reasonable argument why the presence of settlers in Kfar Etzion is a form of ethnic cleansing (rather than, say, the forcible depopulation of Kfar Etzion in 1948). Assuming that you can't, why don't we keep this conversation civil?

. . . in what respect is it NOT the culmination of the events in '48, Wiggin? The fact that Israel didn't get around to that parcel until more recently doesn't introduce any kind of cut-off. It might be different if they'd allowed the lawful residents to return but they have never agreed to let them back in to resettle so. . .

I will further add that specific legal niceties and ownership claims for specific sites parcels have all been quite thoroughly voided by both parties resort to expulsion and territorial claim by force in general warfare. This is not and has not been about real estate and residency law since '48-49. Israeli settlement policies have certainly rendered moot any such claims that might have been made. This is now public policy. Which has been one of de facto annexation on the back of ethnic cleansing.

[wiggin]

For the love of God Fuzzy, look up the history of the town I cited. It was a Jewish town forcibly depopulated by Arabs in '48. There's a massacre named after it.

[Steely Glint]

Fuzzy, google 'Kfar Etzion 48 massacre' and get yourself up to speed but do not google 'Gush Etzion state land', as doing so would lack nuance.

[LittleFuzzy]

For the love of God Fuzzy, look up the history of the town I cited. It was a Jewish town forcibly depopulated by Arabs in '48. There's a massacre named after it.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

I will further add that specific legal niceties and ownership claims for specific sites parcels have all been quite thoroughly voided by both parties resort to expulsion and territorial claim by force in general warfare. This is not and has not been about real estate and residency law since '48-49.

It is West Bank territory, yes? It would not have been part of Israel-proper even if the Arabs had never tried to get rid of the nascent Israeli state? Using local enclaves of "your" people (or former enclaves of "your" people) to justify ones moves is kinda right out of the ethnic cleansing playbook, Wiggin.

[wiggin]

It. Doesn't. Matter.

Fuzzy, I am wondering if I mis-parsed your original post. It certainly sounded like you had not looked up the town I cited and assumed its original residents were Palestinian Arabs, which made the rest of your argument about the history pre-1949 armistice being irrelevant as... somewhere between puzzling and ridiculous. Now perhaps I can read that when you said 'It might be different if they'd allowed the lawful residents to return but they have never agreed to let them back in to resettle so. . .' you were referring to 'they' as some notional Palestinian state agreeing to let Jewish residents of Kfar Etzion resettle? If that's the case, I apologize for my tone. I disagree with you, but I should not have been so harsh.

[LittleFuzzy]

I hadn't though I did note you'd made the assertion and operated from that premise (and having looked at it I'm skeptical of the claim that those kibbutzim were completely free of Palestinian population or land claims even back then, considering the tumultuous early attempts to create Etzion bloc.). Both sides engaged in ethnic cleansing. Deliberately and incidentally as a side-effect of peoples' general reaction to the regional fighting. Multiple waves of it, mostly on the Palestinian side before Israel's creation, thoroughly mutual in the first war, mostly on Israel's side since. Specific parcel land claims are consequently thoroughly conflicted and impossible to legitimately resolve. There was no sovereign authority capable of preserving and fairly adjudicating them for all parties. Which takes us back to public policy and formal legal borders.

[Loki]

And to Karabakh.

[wiggin]

I hadn't though I did note you'd made the assertion and operated from that premise (and having looked at it I'm skeptical of the claim that those kibbutzim were completely free of Palestinian population or land claims even back then, considering the tumultuous early attempts to create Etzion bloc.). Both sides engaged in ethnic cleansing. Deliberately and incidentally as a side-effect of peoples' general reaction to the regional fighting. Multiple waves of it, mostly on the Palestinian side before Israel's creation, thoroughly mutual in the first war, mostly on Israel's side since. Specific parcel land claims are consequently thoroughly conflicted and impossible to legitimately resolve. There was no sovereign authority capable of preserving and fairly adjudicating them for all parties. Which takes us back to public policy and formal legal borders.

Fuzzy, thanks for your clarification. I think we agree on your essential point - that a resolution will not be achieved by resolution of each individual grievance, but by a broader political settlement. I would quibble with your historical characterization (and the specific conflation of Etzion bloc with Kfar Etzion) but that's not really germane to your main point.

My only point in this whole fiasco has been that tarring all members of a group as synonymous with the actions of the most extreme members of that group is not helpful for achieving a political settlement (nor is it just). I thank you for your clarification and apologize again for jumping to conclusions.

[Loki]

Netanyahu got the war he desperately wanted. Hamas is obviously a POS, but no sane person would expect them to not do precisely what they're doing. Of course, both will be strengthened domestically as a result.

[Being]

If Trump were in office, this would have never happened.

[Hazir]

I think it's more than a little bit silly to talk about the legality of a settlement, where it's very obvious what it's really about is which entity has sovereignty over where the settlement is. Even when I think that Israel would be mad to accept any solution that falls short from Israel being within safe borders, I lost any believe I may have had in the recent Israeli governments wanting a solution at all.

I can't say Hamas/PA have ever disappointed me in my low expectations.

I'm kind of shocked though that the Israeli armed forces had such an ineffective response to the attacks today. Hitting back in retaliation may give some satisfaction but it can't cover up that there were so many dead and wounded and that Hamas had so much freedom of operation inside Israel.

I dread to see the pictures on TV over the next few days.

[Loki]

Thanks to Netanyahu and his enablers, combat readiness and morale are the lowest they've been in who knows how long. There have been numerous warnings about the Palestinian situation being one giant powder keg. But Netanyahu chose to focus on ridding himself of domestic enemies, real or perceived.

[Aimless]

Thanks to Netanyahu and his enablers, combat readiness and morale are are the lowest they've been in who knows how long. There have been numerous warnings about the Palestinian situation being one giant powder keg. But Netanyahu chose to focus on ridding himself of domestic enemies, real or perceived.

Somehow everything always ends up working in his favour, even his weakness and idiocy.

With 200+ dead on the Israeli side, I expect total civilian casualties will number in the thousands before this settles down.

I wonder what impact—if any—this will have on the Israeli-Saudi rapprochement.

[Steely Glint]

I'm really staggered at the depths of the intelligence failure this represents. These attacks, clearly lovingly prepared, with multiple moving parts - co-ordinated air-land-sea attacks - would have involved significant preparation, planning and communications which should have left a fairly large intelligence footprint for Mossad or Shin-Bet or whomever has responsibility for the Palestinian territories to pick up on, but I guess not.