UBS tax evader cites Holocaust "survival behavior"

[basketcase]

I'm talking about the settlements built on land that Israel captured in the 1967 war. Are you saying they existed prior to that?
...

There were a number of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza before 1948 on land that was legally purchased from the Ottoman era owners. Some of them were abandonned because they were on the wrong side of the partition. Others like Gush Etzion were taken by the Jordanian army after slaughtering the residents (like they also did in the old city of Jerusalem). Hebron also had more than 1000 years of having continuous Jewish residents until they were forced out by the Arabs under the British Mandate.

That being said, the settlers are for the most part a set of kooks trying to impose their vision on the region. Even though I see there being some legal justification for some of those settlements, they are for the most part a roadblock to peace. The idea of land swaps in the plan under Clinton seem like a reasonable middle ground where significant Jewish settlements contiguous with the '67 border could be traded for a land route between Gaza and the West Bank.

 

[fuji]

There were a number of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza before 1948 on land that was legally purchased from the Ottoman era owners. Some of them were abandonned because they were on the wrong side of the partition. Others like Gush Etzion were taken by the Jordanian army after slaughtering the residents (like they also did in the old city of Jerusalem). Hebron also had more than 1000 years of having continuous Jewish residents until they were forced out by the Arabs under the British Mandate.

Absolutely true. Refugees fled in both directions. There were massacres of Palestinians in Israeli territory. There were massacres of Jews in Arab territory. There were many persecutions on both sides, large and small, the end result of which was the two populations fled in opposite directions and wound up separated by the border that existed up until 1967. That line formed (and still forms) the basis of negotiations aimed at ultimate reconciliation. Unilaterally crossing over that line and annexing territory was an inflammatory action that complicated the peace process--unilaterally!

Israel did not unilaterally seize land taken from Jews while returning land taken from Palestinians. It was a unilateral move to annex land that was clearly recognized as being on the Palestinian side of the line established in 1948. It was a very one-sided event.

Moreover if the Palestinians treated Jews in their territory unfairly that is really none of Israel's business: It is an internal Palestinian matter. Does the persecution of Jews worldwide give Israel some sort of right to annex land from other countries? I don't think so. Protest, sure. Apply sanctions, why not. Annex territory? No.

My opinion is that any Jews living on the Palestinian side of the 1967 line are subject to Palestinian Authority jurisdiction and not Israeli jurisdiction just as Palestinians living in Israel are subject to the jurisdiction of the Israeli state.

 

[basketcase]

...
Moreover if the Palestinians treated Jews in their territory unfairly that is really none of Israel's business: It is an internal Palestinian matter....

Aside from the irrelevance of the 1948 line which the Arab states went to war over...

I seem to recall the West saying the same thing about the Holocaust (just to bring the discussion back to the original topic).


I do agree that after a peace deal, any settlers who want to stay in Palestinian territory are on their own. Hopefully the PA will give them the same kind of rights that Israel gives it's Arabs. It's a moot point though because Jews living in Palestine would be more of a deal breaker for the Palestinians than the refugees or Jerusalem.