Settlers make water sources a tourist site and bar Palestinians from entering

[Scurrilous]

West Bank Jews are making tourism sites of water sources that Palestinians use for agriculture.

<snip>

"Springwater continues to be vital to Palestinian farmers, but recently, at the settlers' initiative, many springs on the other side of the Green Line have been turned into tourism sites from which the Palestinians are barred. Hebrew-language signs have been posted near many springs; some places have become memorial sites for settlers killed in terror attacks or during military service.

Brown signs dot Samaria's roads bearing the Hebrew name of a nearby spring. This name is likely to appear on the Springs Route's site list on a tourist map of local councils such as Mateh Binyamin in southern Samaria.

Near the settlement of Talmon, which can be entered through guarded gates, a sign points to a site called Tal Springs. While a reporter visited this site, a settler appeared with a herd of goats, claiming he was in charge of the area and every visit must be coordinated with him.

"Thanks to me you don't see any Arabs here," he said. At a nearby spring, which was added to the list of tourism sites, it was made clear that the area's non-Jewish residents are not wanted. A large sign on a building nearby declares "Death to the Arabs."

more

[thereismore]

1. I hope his fucking goats choke on that water. nt

[duhneece]

2. Me, too

This is so unfair, so unjust.

[aranthus]

3. Why should the goats suffer because he's an ass?

I understand the sentiment directed to the jerk, but leave the goats alone. Seriously though; Israel has to deal with its extremists if it is going to survive, or be worthy of survival.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Agreed n/t

[LeftishBrit]

12. Agree (with entire post)

[azurnoir]

5. an idea perhaps the Palestinians should erect a memorial

in every spot where an Israeli has killed a Palestinian, I wonder how much could be claimed on that basis

[Celtic Merlin]

6. The IDF would never allow that to happen.

They'd bulldoze anything the Palestinians erect to memorialize their murdered dead. They bulldoze Palestinian homes, wells, olive groves, graveyards, and American activists - why would a memorial site be any different? It would likely be an even more attractive target than the other things mentioned, as a memorial to somebody that the IDF or a colonist (please use that much-more-accurate term) killed would be very offensive to them.

What the Palestinians REALLY need too do is to declare their state to the UN and declare it to exist from the 1967 Green Line to the Jordan River. At that point, the colonists have the choice of returning to their homeland (Israel) or becoming a citizen of the new Palestinian state. They could use the newly-empty colonies to help house the refugees returning from Syria and Jordan.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[sabbat hunter]

7. What about the old city of jerusalem

which was meant to be an international city? do you think that should belong to Israel or Palestine? I say most of what you say is right, but the old city should be excluded from it. The old city should remain status quo.

[Celtic Merlin]

8. Where the Green Line runs through Jerusalem, there shall be the border.

It must not deviate a single inch for or against either side.

Unless/until both nations agree that the ENTIRE City of Jerusalem shall belong to neither of them and shall instead be administered by something akin to a UN Commission, that line will be the final word on who owns what there.

Old city, new city, red city, blue city - none of that matters - only that Green Line.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[sabbat hunter]

9. so in other words

the old city goes to the Palestinians, as the "green line" is west of the old city, but divided the city in two. Even though it was never supposed to be Palestinian under any partition, and it was 'occupied' by the Jordanians from 48 until 67 when the Israelis took over (and actually allowed all religions to enter, which didnt happen under the Jordanians)

So despite the fact that the official Palestinian line appears to be that the Western Wall is not really a Jewish holy spot (indicating that they might do the same thing as Jordan did and not allow jews to pray there), you think that the green line is the be all and end all to a peace agreement?


The UN abrogated its obligation to have Jerusalem as an international city in 47-48 by not defending it with troops against invading Jordanian armies. And in doing so IMHO gave up any right it had to govern the old city.

But if you really want a UN commission to decide the status of the old city, why not leave it as status quo until then? Why should the Palestinians get any inch of it, as the 'green line' was merely an armistice line, not a true border.

[Celtic Merlin]

10. The Green Line was agreed to by all concerned in 1967 - INCLUDING Israel.

That you don't like that is just not relevant.

The Green Line STANDS.

Access to holy sites on BOTH SIDES of the line must be negotiated in good faith. The Western Wall should, in my opinion, be permitted to be accessed by ALL peoples - not just Israelis, not just Jewish Israelis, not just Jews, not just Arabs, not just Muslims, not just Christians. Everybody. But that is something which must be negotiated with the Palestinians, who I know will be completely gracious about it, despite your insinuations otherwise.

In the comment to which I'm responding, you capitalized Palestinians, Jordanians, Israelis, Western Wall, Jewish, Jordan, and UN... but you didn't capitalize "jews". I am asking you here and now to show the Jewish People the respect they deserve by capitalizing "Jews" and all other forms of that title if you wish to continue any conversation with me henceforth. I do not tolerate snide disrespect of ANY group of people in that manner, be they Jews, Arabs, Christians, Muslims, or Americans - and I will not tolerate that from you. Jews deserve all the respect one would show any other group of people. Don't pull that shit with me again, or you go straight to my "ignore" list and will have the dubious honor of being the first person on it.

The UN had no standing army of any respectable size (and of quite paltry armament) in 47-48 that I know of. They'd have been ineffective against ANY show of genuine military force at that time. UN Resolution 181 proposed making Jerusalem an International city and, frankly, it should be so. This also means that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians should have a majority population there - which is only fair to both sides. What should happen is that both sides should evacuate all their citizens and the UN should turn the entire city (on BOTH sides of the Green Line) into an area devoid of partisan bullshit. If people wish to live there, they become wards of the UN supported by money from their former countries, subject to very strict rules regarding peaceful conduct, and no nation shall represent more than 10% of the city's population. Further, there shall be no "Jewish" neighborhoods, "Arab" neighborhoods, "Swedish" neighborhoods, etc. All nationalities, religions, races, etc. shall be mixed in each neighborhood, on each block, and in each apartment building, etc. Those who can not live there in peace with their neighbors shall be ejected from the city. For the most part, it should be limited to being a center for research and conflict resolution.

UN Resolution 181 also did not give Israel the right to govern that city. It did not even establish any part of the new Israeli state around Jerusalem. Look at the borders it established. If you wish to go back in time, let's go back to that document establishing the State of Israel and use THOSE borders. Those are the original borders and perhaps those are the ones that people should live with instead of my stupid Green Line.

The status quo is wrong and you know it. Arabs are regularly forced out of homes to which they hold legal title so that Jewish claimants can live there. Arabs are denied the right to build on their own property. Arab neighborhoods are bulldozed into extinction to make room for Jewish-only housing. The status-quo is morally and legally wrong. Suggesting it is ridiculous and offensive to people who wish to engage in constructive dialogue. Don't do that again. It makes you look ignorant of the facts.

Finally, the Palestinian claims to Jerusalem are every bit as valid as the Israeli claims. You ask, "Why should the Palestinians get any inch of it?" as though they are invaders in their own land. Why should Israel get any inch of it? Because they rolled tanks into it? Sorry, but UN Resolution 242 specifically, explicitly, and definitely forbids military conquest as being a legal way to gain territory - defensive action or not. Don't question Palestinian rights to territory in that city if you're serious about discussing these issues with me. You should know better than that. If you don't, learn about BOTH sides of this conflict and get back to me when you're up to date. The Green Line was agreed to by all parties and it is the line which is still internationally recognized as the eastern border of Israel. It must be respected by both sides.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[sabbat hunter]

11. I was raised Jewish

And any lack of capitalization was an oversight. I will often accidentally not capitalize proper nouns here and on other boards in my effort to make a quick post. So do not dare to assume that I have a prejudice.

As you probably know UN Resolution also calls for Israel to have safe and defensible borders, and some argue by withdrawing to the green line in whole is in violation of that.

and as you said that UN resolution 242 forbids a country from gaining territory thru war, then Jerusalem should not be Palestinian, as it was land conquered by Jordanian forces in a war.

Tell me what did the UN do at all to remove Jordanian forces from Jerusalem? They had no UN army but they had the power of the member nations behind it, yet it did nothing. and it continued to do nothing up until Israel took over control in 1967 after the 6 day war.



Jerusalem was never Palestinian land (there was never an independent country of Palestine, just like there never has been an independent country of Kurdistan). So Jerusalem was not conquered from the Palestinians, thus they have no true claim to it. Anyone living there should be given Israeli citizenship (if they do not already hold it) and no homes Jewish or Arab should be destroyed.



However it was only under Israeli control that all peoples were allowed to visit. Why should that change? What guarantee can you or anyone else make that if Palestine gets political control over Jerusalem that all people will still be allowed to visit? Hell the Palestinian leadership claims that the Western Wall is not a Jewish holy site.

Do you really think that forcing hundreds of thousands of people to move from Jerusalem is an answer to the problem? That will only cause far more problems. Most of the people who have lived in Jerusalem do not have 'a former country' to help support them. They are natives to Israel.

I do not trust the current Israeli leadership as far as i can throw them, and I trust the current Palestinian leadership even less, given some of their rhetoric.

And i meant the status quo of the old city (sorry if i was not clear on that), no homes are being bulldozed in the old city. There are some areas outside the old city walls, which should stop IMHO.
and if you want to use old documents, why stop with UN resolution 181, why not go back further, to earlier documents which granted the entire mandate to a future Israel (which IMHO is wrong and should never happen, but i am playing devil's advocate here). Not to mention the fact that 181 was never implemented due to invading forces trying to destroy Israel.

[Celtic Merlin]

13. Guarantees and Resolutions and History

Let us take these issues in order, shall we?

Perhaps you've never encountered the type of asshole who WILL intentionally "forget" to capitalize Jew and/or Israel and/or Palestinian and/or the proper nouns of those they hate. Perhaps you've never run up against this level of bigotry and just write it off to laziness or typos or accident. I've seen far too much of that bullshit in my 50+ years on this planet to let it just slip on by - especially when the forgotten capital letter belongs on the only reference to that word which exists in a message/comment/post I'm reading. That I "dared" to assume you had a prejudice had perfectly sound basis. That I defended a group to which you now (and not before now, to my knowledge as I've not encountered you before) claim membership SHOULD have given you cause to appreciate my admonition, not get all pissy at me over it.

The Green Line is just as defensible as any other line. "Some" argue alot of things which are nonsense. "Some" argued that the terra-ists hate Americans for our freedoms. "Some" argued that Saddam had WMD's. "Some" argue that there'd be peace in the Middle East if we'd just move Israel to another continent. "Some" certainly do argue alot of things which are nonsense. Considering Israel's vastly overwhelming military superiority compared to all of its neighbors COMBINED, Israel could easily defend any border drawn by you, me, or anybody else. Israel's air power alone is enough to halt an advance while she gears up her armor and artillery and infantry.

Jerusalem was not taken from Israel by Jordan, hence it is not Israel's to take back. Israel's borders have been defined and re-defined over the decades and they have ALWAYS expanded Israeli territory. The UN recognizes the Green Line. So should Israel. That Jordan conquered Jerusalem means that it is not legally Jordanian territory, but that has NO bearing upon the Palestinians - who are not Jordanians. The Palestinians have been living in that city and on that land throughout all of the conflicts. They've suffered through the military conflicts which have moved through their land and they have remained. They are entitled to live there and they are entitled to the same thing that the Israelis enjoy - a nation of their own.

Your position that there has never been a country called "Palestine", therefore the Palestinians can't own any of Jerusalem is no more valid than the argument that there was never a recognized nation called Israel, hence Tel Aviv isn't an Israeli city. The Palestinians claims to all territory east of the Green Line are just as valid as Israel's claims to all territory west of that same internationally-recognized border. Any argument otherwise would be wrong.

Under Israeli control, no West Bank Palestinian has been permitted to visit the Western Wall for many years. No Palestinian from Gaza has been allowed to visit. Don't give me this "all peoples allowed to visit" garbage. I know better than that. Hell, I haven't checked, but can you seriously claim that Arab Israelis get to just walk onto that site? Please!

Everybody moves to the side of the Green Line they want to live on. If all concerned are willing to make Jerusalem a UN-run city, moving everybody out and permitting entry in the manner I described will be the only way to make it work peacefully. If it is to be UN-run, then those who wish to live there must be made to understand that nobody has claim to the land any longer and that one may live there only under the new rules of UN administration of that city. This will not cause more problems. It will cause peace - which would be a welcome change. The "former country" idea includes Israelis. If an Israeli wishes to live in Jerusalem under UN rule, then they shall be supported by Israeli payments to the UN for their housing, etc. That few people trust the current leadership of either side is telling that neither can be or would be fair to all in their administration of that city.

Why stop with 181? Because before that, there was no Israel. Israel did not come into existence until 181 was adopted. It is the starting point which the entire planet recognizes.

I believe that that about covers your comments. Now:
If we use the Green Line as the border between Israel and (let's call this new state) Palestine, who has a problem with this and why should anybody raise a fuss over it? Defense? Laughable. Legality? Not an issue. The only people I've seen bitch about the Green Line are those who (like Sharon and Netan-Yahoo) envision a Greater Israel extending from the Med to the Jordan River. We've seen how Israel treats the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If one can take that as an example of what would happen in the future, Greater Israel would be a criminal act.

The Green Line - precisely because not everybody would be entirely happy with it - is the perfect solution. The only other way I see as being fair to both sides in this is to have Israel draw a new line and then let the Palestinians choose who lives on which side of it. Which would mean that if the Palestinians choose to live west of the new line, Israel has alot of people to move to the east of that same line. Ridiculous? Yes! No less ridiculous than permitting one side to draw a line where it chooses to have that line and then forcing the other side to live with it.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

P.S. Any typos found above are unintentional. :0)