It seems that ninety percent of Israeli settlements "sprawl beyond their official boundaries despite the large amount of unused land already allocated to them."
« Morals and Medicine | Main | The Antipoliticals »
Settlement Sprawl
06 Jul 2007 04:21 pm
Comments (31)
This is the bizarre sort of nit-picking that was also incidenced a few months ago when it was 'revealed' that many Israeli settlements were not 'legitimately obtained through purchase' from Palestinian arabs. These sort of comments suggest that if the Jewish settlements did not sprawl beyond their official boundaries and were, in fact, on land 'legitimately obtained through purchase' that would be fine, indeed that these sorts of complaints are the main problem with them. No: the main problem with the settlements is that they constitute racist colonialism, a real and indefensible demonstration of Israeli Jewish chauvinism (and that of the US) towards arabs.
Here come the insults: Self-hating Jew; Anti-Semite; Lover of Hegel and Whole Foods.
Per Otto, see this sad post by Brian Ulrich on Israeli land use patterns. Its not about specific acts, its about a mindset.
Hey ILP,
Fuck your mother.
How long before Roger Ailes (the good one) or TBogg adorn their site with "Lover of Hegel and Whole Foods?"
Snap that one up now, Matt!
Mike,
I see you've moved over here to give us your insightful commentary.
I believe a proper response is "Cus Emek".
But then again, since you can't even understand English, I don't think you'll really get that one.
ILP, you seem to be implying that criticising this (or, more accurately, publicizing it) is inappropriate. Perhaps you'd deign to favor us with an explanation.
What Otto said. This is like expressing concern that the rapist isn't always using a condom. Yeah, if he did, everything would've been fine and dandy.
This is like expressing concern that the rapist isn't always using a condom.
No, it's like treating the refusal to use a condom (which the victim would always insist upon whenever she had consensual sex) as evidence of rape
Hmm, rea, but the indigenous people there don't want any Israeli settlements, sprawling or non-sprawling; and all settlements - sprawling and non-sprawling - are illegal, even if the sprawling ones are worse, I suppose. I don't really get your point there.
First off, it might be worth taking this data on settlement sprawl with a grain of salt.
Even if it’s accurate, however, it strikes me as legitimate for the Israelis to expand the areas under their direct control—both for their protection and as a means of applying pressure to the Palestinians.
Elias,
That's great that it strikes you that way--but FWIW, your utterances do not constitute anything resembling an argument.
Re Mike
Mr. Mike is just jealous of Mr. ILP because Mr. Kike has to write a mothers' day card to a test tube in Illinois.
Re abb1
Settlements today, settlements tomorrow, settlements to the far horizon. From the Euphrates to the Nile? No, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Rickm,
Of course, that’s not an argument, either. It’s just an assertion of opinion, like the one I made—and like most people in the thread are making. Which, by the way, is entirely appropriate for a comments thread, especially one proceeding from a MY post that wasn’t even an argument.
FWIW.
What Otto said.
Nevertheless, it's worth pointing out that a "problem with the settlements" is that this process of expansion (really incremental colonization) creates everyday new “facts on the ground”, intended to make any final “peace settlement” a daydream.
The complicity of our own government in this travesty alongside the hypocrisy of continung to talk about the chimera of a "roadmap" is what we should be exposing and loudly condemning.
Frankly I don't have any problem at all with Jews living in the West Bank. Jews (and Arabs) live all over the world in pretty much every developed country. For that matter, plenty of Arabs live in Israel proper.
Where the whole mess goes astray is when Israeli Jews are granted a whole host of special privileges to live in the Palestinian territories. Special roads, schools, courts, police, etc. etc. If Israeli Jews wanted to migrate to the West Bank, buy property from the legitimate owners, and live under the same laws as all other Palestinians then what's the big deal? That's what immigrants do the world over. That's what my Mexican neighbors are doing.
Of course I doubt you'd see many takers if Israeli Jews moving to the West Bank actually had to live under the same local laws as all other Palestinians.
SLC,
Check your spelling. I'm sure that was a typo. I'm talking about the word before, "has to write...."
And I know you're a rabid fascist when it comes to anything Israel, which is pathetic of course, but aren't you some kind of leftist on other issues? Should't it give you pause when you're sucking up to scum like ILP?
And are you quoting George Wallace with the "today....tomorrow...." quote? Sure sounds like it. Do you really think settlements forever is a good policy, for anyone?
so if the entire West Bank and Gaza eventually become a real soverign Palestinian state in a 2-state solution, do those Jews in the illegal or unofficial settlements get to argue for a "right of return"?
Even if it’s accurate, however, it strikes me as legitimate for the Israelis to expand the areas under their direct control—both for their protection and as a means of applying pressure to the Palestinians.
"for their protection" from...the violent response to the constant settlement building and land theft. Good thinking, there.
As for using the systemic violence of settlement/colonization "as a means of applying pressure to the Palestinians," in addition to being an argument in favor of collective punishment, this is rather similar to Islamic Jihad's justification for terrorism. (Though, to be fair, the human cost of Palestinian terrorism is nowhere near that of Israeli colonization.)
"for their protection" from...the violent response to the constant settlement building and land theft. Good thinking, there.
Unless by “land theft” you’re referring to 1948–9, then I’d respond that the assault on Israel predated the settler movement. Indeed, the fact that terrorist attacks have continued suggests that Israeli policies may have been insufficiently punitive.
[I]n addition to being an argument in favor of collective punishment, this is rather similar to Islamic Jihad's justification for terrorism.
Yes, we should be receptive to the idea of meting out collective punishment—or threatening to mete out collective punishment—when doing so will save lives. Except for this narrow and rare circumstance, we all can agree that collective punishment is to be avoided and is properly forbidden by international law. But we shouldn’t overlook what we might call the “humanitarian side” of collective punishment: sometimes collective punishment can curtail violence. In this Hobbesian world of ours (and especially in the Hobbesian Israeli–Arab conflict), that’s nothing to sneeze at. One could plausibly argue that the greatest humanitarian shortcoming of Israeli policy is that it’s been too merciful. Maybe if Israel were tougher, then Israelis and Palestinians would be better off.
One difference—an important one—between Israel and Islamic Jihad is that Israel doesn’t deliberately murder innocent civilians. But if Israel, say, temporarily seized some land, or threatened to permanently annex it, that might be to the good. It might induce the Palestinians to (finally) agree to a lasting peace settlement. Which is what we all want.
And 99% of all American cities sprawl to a preposterous extent. Tie-in to the Middle East? Suburban sprawl = more gasoline use.
" don't really get your point there."
It's a confirmation of the illegitimacy of the settlements that they won't obey even Israeli laws governing them . . .
Since the knee-jerk Israel-hating crowd here will not give Israel credit when it removes settlements("It's all a big Zionist conspiracy"), why should Israel give a damn about this type of petty criticism ?
...the “humanitarian side” of collective punishment: sometimes collective punishment can curtail violence...
If we are to accept this justification for terrorism, then, it seems to me, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have a far better case for it. After all, they represent the indigenous population that's being systematically oppressed, expelled, plundered and killed by foreign invaders.
Posted by abb1 | July 6, 2007 5:58 PM:"but the indigenous people there don't want any Israeli settlements, sprawling or non-sprawling"
The Arabs of Palestine are in so sense an indigenous population - assuming that you could define such a thing anyway. The closest that the region comes, if you reject the Jewish claim, are the Samaritans followed by the Arab speaking Jews and Christians. The Muslim Palestinians are often extremely proud of their non-indigenous origins like the Khalidi family.
So perhaps we need to restrict the question to the Samaritans and Christians?
Posted by Justin | July 6, 2007 7:56 PM:"Nevertheless, it's worth pointing out that a "problem with the settlements" is that this process of expansion (really incremental colonization) creates everyday new “facts on the ground”, intended to make any final “peace settlement” a daydream."
Well "facts on the ground" in an interesting sound bite but what does it mean. A dead child in Sederot is a lot more concrete "fact in the ground" than a settlement. Settlements can and will be dismantled. As they were in Gaza. Dead children will not rise again. Yet you do not consider the murder of Jewish children to be an impediment to peace but you do consider the expansion of settlements. Why? Why do you believe what you believe?
Moreover how is this an impediment to peace? The Israeli government is building a Fence is in the worst case scenario is going to define the new temporary ceasefire line. That would leave a lot of room for a viable Palestinian state in so far as the landlocked West Bank is ever going to be viable. Arafat was offered some 94 percent of the OTs and that wasn't enough for him. Perhaps it is not settlements that are the problem?
Posted by Justin | July 6, 2007 7:56 PM:"The complicity of our own government in this travesty alongside the hypocrisy of continung to talk about the chimera of a "roadmap" is what we should be exposing and loudly condemning."
I agree. The roadmap is dead and until there is a partner for peace on the other side there is no point even talking. The mistake was to allow the PLO back into the OTs. Terrorism has leapt ever since. They should have been left to die on the vine in Tunisia.
Wow, the hasbara brigade is really out in force today.
Re Mike
1. Mr. Mike is correct; the replacement of M with K in his name was a mis-type (although some will claim that it's a Freudian slip).
2. I don't believe I said settlements forever. The issue as to which settlements, if any, will remain after a negotiated settlement (which will happen when the Palestinians stop insisting that the Government of Israel go out of business) is a matter of negotiations.
3. If Mr. ILP is scum, then so are Mr. abb1 and Mr. otto, both of whom deny the legitimacy of the State of Israel and who support terrorist activities against it.
If we are to accept this justification for terrorism . . . .”
I’m not attempting to justify “terrorism”; I’m arguing that, under narrow circumstances, collective punishment may be justified in the face of unrelenting terrorism. People become more docile when they have more to lose. Maybe Israel should raise the stakes.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad . . . represent the indigenous population that's being systematically oppressed, expelled, plundered and killed by foreign invaders.
Finally, what this thread needs: some comedy! These “foreign invaders” of whom you speak, are they by any chance Israel? It seems like a stretch to call Israelis protecting Israel a “foreign invasion.” (I assure you that the activity of the IDF is a quite localized phenomenon.) And the notion that Israel, but not Islamic Jihad, is “foreign” is spittingly absurd. As Professor Wikipedia teaches us, Islamic Jihad “is based in the Syrian capital, Damascus, and its financial backing is believed to come from there and Iran.”
I’m also not sure that the Palestinians have a unique moral claim to indigenousness. Generations of Israelis have now been born in Israel. Tel Aviv was founded what, almost 100 years ago? Doesn’t that count? Isn’t that enough time? If not, why not? (Of course, Jews have lived continuously in the area for thousands of years, well before Islam. If we take your argument about indigenousness seriously—which I don’t—then maybe it’s the Palestinians who should be considered foreign interlopers.)
I’m not attempting to justify “terrorism”
But of course you do.
As Professor Wikipedia teaches us, Islamic Jihad “is based in the Syrian capital, Damascus, and its financial backing is believed to come from there and Iran.”
It doesn't matter where it's based and how it's financed, it only matters whom it represents. It represents a portion of the indigenous population of Palestine.
Israel, in contrast, represents a group of European colonists. It doesn't matter if there are generations of Israelis, it was the same in the Americas and in South Africa, so what.
And 99% of all American cities sprawl to a preposterous extent.
Well, given that Israeli town planning is basically New Jersey on the Levant, it's no surprise to find settlement sprawl.
I’m not attempting to justify “terrorism”; I’m arguing that, under narrow circumstances, collective punishment may be justified in the face of unrelenting terrorism.
Shorter Elias:
IOKIYAJ.
Comments closed July 20, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Well, here goes Matt again. Bad Israelis. Bad Israelis.
Posted by ILP | July 6, 2007 4:29 PM