#Settlements

[mapsontheweb]

Human Settlements Map for Turkey, 2021

[schraubd]

West Bank Settler Terrorism Continues Unabated

These stories tend be overshadowed by what's happening in Gaza, but they're still happening with all-too-much regularity: At least one Palestinian has been killed and 10 have been injured in an attack by Israeli settlers in the West Bank village of al-Mughayyir, the official Palestinian news site Wafa reports. Footage shows cars and homes torched, allegedly by the settlers, as the IDF fails to gain control over the situation. The settler raid of the Palestinian village comes amid a manhunt for a 14-year-old Israeli boy who has gone missing from a nearby illegal outpost. Palestinians say the settlers have used live fire against them, in addition to hurling stones, damaging dozens of homes and cars. There's a lot of discussion about when and in what contexts we can use terms from Jewish oppression (e.g., "pogrom") to describe contemporaneous acts of oppression by Israel against Palestinians. I won't wade into that debate directly; all I'll say is "child goes missing and locals respond with a wave of violent attacks on local religious outgroup" is a chapter of history I am familiar with. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/zFyUvhn

[unsolicited-opinions]

I am a Zionist. I see no contradiction between being a Zionist and agreeing with John Oliver's fact-supported, well-reasoned condemnation of Israeli West Bank settlements.

He also models how one can criticize Israel thoroughly and effectively without even approaching antisemitism.

The Israeli governments which have subsidized the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in doing so, proved that they were/are not honest partners for peace.

[ancientstuff]

Sounds like a fascinating and potentially quite an important site, with regard to urbanisation.

[eretzyisrael]

By MICHAEL FREUND

A survey conducted by Direct Polls that was released in mid-January found that a whopping 74% of Israelis oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state. Nearly half of those who identify as supporters of Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party expressed opposition to such a state, as did 38% of those who voted for the decidedly left-wing Labor party.

Ka’Chava:

Health...

Sponsored by Ka'Chava

Read More

In other words, there has been a tectonic shift in Israeli public opinion, with an overwhelming majority now against the idea of giving the Palestinians a state.

This is hardly surprising, given what occurred on Oct. 7, as well as the Palestinian Authority’s response to the massacre, which has reportedly included making payments to the families of Hamas terrorists who took part in the slaughter.

The problematic nature of the PA was underlined earlier this week when PA Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said that it is time for the world to forget about the Hamas massacre.

“One should not continue focusing on October 7,” he said at the Munich Security Conference.

While it may be easy for the PA premier to dismiss what Hamas did with a wave of his hand, for anyone with a heart it is not. The trauma of that experience, which saw the largest number of Jews murdered in one day since the Holocaust, will continue to resonate with Israelis until the end of time.

THE WIDESPREAD opposition to a Palestinian state was given expression by Israel’s unity government, which unanimously approved a declaration at a cabinet meeting this past Sunday that was as forthright as it was unambiguous.

“Israel utterly rejects international diktats regarding a permanent settlement with the Palestinians,” the cabinet decision read. “A settlement, if it is to be reached, will come about solely through direct negotiations between the parties, without preconditions. Israel will continue to oppose unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.”

The statement rightfully pointed out that “such recognition in the wake of the October 7 massacre would be a massive and unprecedented reward to terrorism and would foil any future peace settlement.”

This was a courageous and stinging rebuke to all those in the international community who have called for recognition of a Palestinian entity, and it sent an unequivocal message that Israel will not countenance such a move.

[my-funnyvalentine]

Hey Nick, just wondering if you've seen the Sole Survivor around. There's another settlement that needs their help, and they're not responding to any of my texts :(

No, I can't say I have.

[stairnaheireann]

The Viking Age in Ireland

The exact reasons for Vikings venturing out from their homeland are uncertain; some have suggested it was due to overpopulation of their homeland, but the earliest Vikings were looking for riches, not land. Vikings also settled in Scotland and, like Ireland, started to settle with the local population. In Scotland these people became known as The Gallowglasses and would later arrive in Ireland as…

[thestompinggroundshowappropriate]

[iiireflexiii]

During the Great Depression, such settlements were called Hooverville. In this case, it's Seattle...

[djwaglmuffin]

Working vending machines, anyone?

[mando-of-esverr]

Esverr Aesthetic || Cities & Architecture!

[mapsontheweb]

Human settlements that have no settlement further north with a greater population

[schraubd]

The Settler's War and the Biden Response

While the world's eyes are primarily on the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, another spate of violence has erupted in the West Bank, where Israeli settler violence has surged to unprecedented levels. A few weeks ago, I observed that while what's "going on in Gaza is more eye-catching ... the [West Bank] situation is in some ways even worse because there isn't even a colorable claim of self-defense -- it's pure unconstrained terror inflicted by settler extremists on the Palestinian population for the express purpose of subjugation." (Matt Yglesias made a similar point). The Gaza operation can at least in the abstract be defended as a necessary response to Hamas' violence. The violence inflicted upon Palestinians in the West Bank defies even theoretical justification. In terms of familial resemblance, West Bank "price tag" settler terrorists differ from the perpetrators of October 7 only in degree, not kind. Today, the Biden administration announced it would begin pursuing sanctions (such as visa bans) on settlers who engage in or promote violence against Palestinians. It's an overdue step, and I've urged considerably harsher measures than that (last week I suggested identifying violent settler organizations and placing them on the State Department's list of Designated Terrorist Organizations). Nonetheless, it is a welcome one. Extremist violence emanating from West Bank settlers is one of the primary drivers of the current conflict and an existential (and very much intentional) threat to the viability of a two-state (or one-state, for that matter) solution. The fact that these malign actors carry significant support in the highest echelons of the Israeli government is not a reason for the United States to stay its hand. Indeed, their substantial influence and clout makes it more imperative that America decisively intervene to isolate them. This step by the Biden administration will not neuter the criticism it is getting from the left for how it has handled the past month's events (indeed, I first heard about the anti-settler sanctions from at least three social media accounts who flagged it in the course of derisively dismissing the notion that it meant anything at all). But that's the way it goes -- our policy towards Israel and Palestine should be humane and intelligent regardless of whether that earns brownie points with the online activist crowd. This proposal is a good proposal. I hope it is followed up on, and I hope it prompts other pro-Israel Democrats to think more proactively and creatively about what steps America can take to sap the strength of the settler-terror movement. The other big almost-news of the day is the prospect of a ceasefire negotiated by the Biden administration. Initially this was reported as a "tentative deal" having been struck, now the reporting has backed off a little to saying the deal is "close". The details, as they're being reported, would see both sides cease hostilities for five days, the release by Hamas of approximately 50 hostages (approximately 20% of the total number they're estimated to be holding), and the transport into Gaza of significant quantities of humanitarian aid. All I'll say on this is that I'm familiar with the arguments for why Israel's military operation is necessary, and I'm aware that a ceasefire is still part of the middle, not the end. But I'll never be dismayed at the prospect that people suffering tremendously in a warzone will, for some time at least, suffer less. And I'll likewise only feel joy at the prospect that some kidnapped captives will be redeemed to their families. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/qZQuvxF

[madman-of-amargosa]

A settlement that I was working on over the weekend.

[stupidjewishwhiteboy]

The part of the New Yorker article with the settler leader that everyone seems to be focusing on is the part where she says that Israel is entitled to everywhere between the Nile and the Euphrates, which from what I understand is an extremely fringe view even amongst ideological settlers (because many settlers are either Haredim or only living in settlements because it’s cheap). Like, the settlers have much more common terrible beliefs (like that all Arabs should be denied the vote, which the settler leader interviewed also agreed with), it seems odd that this is the focus.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

BY

EUGENE KONTOROVICH

Moreover, Berman confuses opinion for authority in international law. International law is not some kind of geopolitical version of reality shows like Survivor. If it were a popularity contest, Israel, and the U.S. for the matter, would have been voted off the island a long time ago. Recall that in 1975, the U.N. voted for a resolution saying the entire idea of a Jewish state is illegal. Fortunately, international law can only be authoritatively interpreted by duly authorized entities, and nothing in the U.N. Charter makes it a decider of international law.

Similarly, Berman also cites the International Court of Justice, referring presumably to its Advisory Opinion in the Wall case of 2004. But that decision was explicitly not legally binding. It has no more authority than a ruling on the meaning of Romanian law by a U.S. court. It is only entitled to deference based on the quality of its analysis, of which it had none, but rather relied on citing U.N. resolutions that had said the same thing, all solely in the context of Israel. Indeed, the other supposed authorities Berman cites, such as the ICC and ECJ, all merely reiterate the political positions of U.N. resolutions, notorious for their obsessive focus on Israel. They do not even address the primary arguments for the legality of settlements, but rather engage in an endless cycle of circular citation. It is turtles all the way down.

Turning to actual sources of law, Berman cites Art. 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, a treaty that applies to situations of wartime occupation. But he completely skips most of the argument for the legality of Israeli settlements, which is that the territory was not in fact occupied in the legal sense by Israel, making Art. 49(6) irrelevant. The arguments for lack of occupation focus on the lack of Jordanian sovereignty over the territory. The Cession of Vessels and Tugs for Navigation on the Danube case held that territory that was not under the sovereignty of any state could not become occupied. That means that the West Bank, which was not under Jordanian sovereignty, could not be deemed occupied. Danube Navigation was decided before 1967, and would thus reflect the law as it was when Israel took control of the territories, unlike the ICJ and other cases cited by Berman, which were decided decades later.

Moreover one cannot occupy one’s own territory: If Ukraine retakes Crimea from Russia, it will not be an occupation just because it had long been administered by Moscow. As professor Avi Bell and I have demonstrated at great length, under general rules of international law applicable around the world, Israel would have a sovereign claim to the West Bank from 1948 (not so for the Golan Heights). That is because newly created states inherit the borders of the prior administrative units in the territory, in this case, Mandatory Palestine. Berman mocks reliance on mandatory borders, but the very existence of Jordan, as well as most of the borders of the Middle East, are based fully on mandatory borders. There is nothing lawlike about a unique rule of borders just for the Jewish state.

Finally and alternatively, even if an occupation arose in 1967, the 1994 peace treaty would end any state of occupation, as emphasized in a memorandum written in 1977 by the State Department legal adviser under Jimmy Carter.