[DebtDetox]

They are not less than human, but they certainly exhibit some of the worst traits of humanity being the scum they are...

If someone blatantly stole my land in the manner that they have done, then if I lost hope that I would receive justice for that loss, then I too would resist!

[geraint.faughn]

perhaps everyone who "stole" other peoples lands should give it back.

when are The Europeans and Americans going to move out .

[AgindyMinnife]

Not at all, if the Aboriginals stop getting drunk and ask for their land back they can hav e it ...

[Blahhhshsh]

Actually, I'll drink to that!

And the English can **** off while they're at it!

[Anypeny]

yee hah the revolution has begun ... we better all pack our bags..

[inchaaruutaa]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Opening an own thread because I don't want to threadjack another one. Im recalling some things said during the Gaza evacuation. And if subhuman was an exageration, certainly there was a complete absence of sympathy on many peoples part for the settlers, in contrast to the sentiment expressed by Spiffor wrt to Russians in Estonia, which is why i jumped on that.

[neerewed]

not available in CIV 4

[QRhnNSg9]

Everyone get out of here !!

[lipitrRrxX]

keep on the move !!!

[agiopwer]

wow , you mean we a lbrothers and sisters ??


so it odnt matter where we live then , and whoever settles somewhere can hav eit ...

[myhackingtosh_ws]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The land the west bank settlements are on is state land. Being the historian you are, Im sure you know that under the Ottoman empire ALL land was state land, and was allocated for use to farmers through a variety of means, often with a feudatorie/tax collecter over the peasants, but unlike in western europe the Ottoman state went to some trouble to keep these from being hereditary.

At some point, im not sure when, villages gained control over cultivated land. Nonfarmed land, however, remained the property of the state. Vast areas of non-arable or marginal land were still in state hands when the british mandate began, and were in turn taken over by the Jordanian state in 1948. When Israel took control in 1967, she planted settlements on some of this state land. Since the settlers are NOT farmers the fact that they are not on farmed land is not an issues. In general, IIUC, the pal villages are in the valleys, the settlements are on hilltops.

And yes, I have read that the Pals do find this amounts to economic pressure, since in past times a village would expand into nearby non-farmed land and bring it into cultivation, and the state would allocate it to the village. The settlements meant that in some places such expansion was no longer possible. Econonomic pressure, yes. A mark against the overall settlement policy, yes. Land theft, no.

See, its a very good idea to be more informed before making judgements. this is a more complex situation than you may realize. Does any of that have any relevance to the international law banning settlements in disputed lands? NO.

Israel's soverignty over those lands is not recognized by anyone else, certainly not by the Palestinians. Therefore the settlements, whether they were built upon land seized from private Palestinian owners or not (and you must be aware of the study that stated that 40% of settlements are on privately held Palestinian land that israel appropriated without ever compensating the owners) remain illegal under international law, as do settlements in the Golan.

No state gets to try to make "facts on the ground" to deny ownership to another people prior to making an agreement on borders. That is international law.

[offemyJuccete]

sympathy at their plight 'Plight' scarcely applies to a heavily subsidised group of people attracted by generous tax breaks or psychopathic ideologies.

[Keendwainge]

Originally posted by Sandman
'Plight' scarcely applies to a heavily subsidised group of people attracted by generous tax breaks or psychopathic ideologies. Wait, it's okay to shoot at farmers? Sweet

[infelconi]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
...
And yes, I have read that the Pals do find this amounts to economic pressure, since in past times a village would expand into nearby non-farmed land and bring it into cultivation, and the state would allocate it to the village. The settlements meant that in some places such expansion was no longer possible. Econonomic pressure, yes. A mark against the overall settlement policy, yes. Land theft, no.
... AFAIK the growth of the settlements encompasses palestinian farmed land as well.

I heard of palestinian olive groves getting bulldozed to make place for growing israelis settlements.

[Bobobsdo]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


AFAIK the growth of the settlements encompasses palestinian farmed land as well.

I heard of palestinian olive groves getting bulldozed to make place for growing israelis settlements. afaik that relates to other disputes, and is sometimes pure nastiness. AFAIK there are no cases of settlements being founded on uncontested village owned land.

[CialisBestPrice]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



No. Of course not. It was a specific reply to Wernazumas question. In another thread in which Spiff expressed concern for the rights of Russians in Estonia, I asked him if he now supports the rights of settlers. This led to questions about the way Israeli settlers are thought of - I was thinking particularly of the lack of sympathy expressed for them during the evacutation from Gaza. It was very much in the context of the Estonian parallel, and it was NOT about state policy, but about attitudes toward human beings.

Wern decided to make a seperate thread because he SPECIFICALLY did not want to threadjack the other thread, and asked specifically about the land ownership question. To which I responded. Since this thread was started to avoid threadjacking, I suggest you also not threadjack it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Russian colonists in the Baltic states much more integrated into the society whose land they colonised than are Jewish settlers into Palestinian society (from whom they're generally separated by walls and people with guns)? Please note I'm not trying to argue with the basic premise that settlers are people and that it's wrong to blow up settler babies etc. I'm just pointing out that the two situations (while sharing certain similarities) are not wholly comparable.

[Dxwlxqvg]

I'm not at all attempting to argue that the USSR's actions were morally superior to Israel's actions in that sphere. I'm pointing out that it's different to talk about a forced withdrawal when the settlers are well-integrated into the receiving society than when they live encapsulated lives.

[movlabc]

I think that most of the ones in Gaza's pain should be pretty lightly dismissed. Most had not been there even a single generation, and they lived in tiny compounds surrounded by hordes of people who hated them.

I tend to have little sympathy for people who put themselves in precarious situations just to be dicks to other people.

[GlictStiply]

I dont think that was their motivation

They can pretty it up with a "historical right" to live somewhere, but the motivated settlers fundamentally wanted lebensraum for the Jews at the expense of the Arabs.

I call that being a dick.

[b7RKli4l]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


They had it coming to them. How you can find sympathy for the settlers and not the Palestinians they themselves uprooted exposes your deep hypocrisy on the subject... who said I lack sympathy for the Palestinians. I have plenty of sympathy for palestinians, and I hope peace brings them benefits.


But again, Pals havent been uprooted by the settlers. The Pals in the West Bank and Gaza are still there, and suffer under the conditions in those places. Im not sure how they are "uprooted"