Settler violence: Think of it like burning down a Jewish business

http://972mag.com/settler-violence-think-of-it-like-burning-down-a-jewish-business/81133/

 

I like olives, especially on pizza an Greek salad.

 

REFERENCE: Settler violence: Think of it like burning down a Jewish business

Khalil et al,

I almost did not read this, simply because of the title.

Several years ago, I chalked Settler violence and misconduct up to just the normal ambient background crime for the territory. But in recent times, I'm beginning to think there is something wrong with the moral turpitude of the Settler - and - the reputation they have earned.

The Israeli Government and the Occupation Commander needs to investigate and put a stop to this kind of criminal activity. The Settlers need to set the example.

I doubt that very many of the WB Jewish Settlements are going to survive a viable Peace Negotiation. Any of them that plan on staying though the withdrawal (transition to uninterrupted sovereignty), will have to depend on the Palestinian for protection. They need to clean-up their act. This is one - of hundreds - of little stories that need to be looked up and cleaned up.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

On the contrary - over the years - Right Wing hardline Jews have gained considerable power and have at every opportunity increased settlement/colonies with a road network for Jews Only or Priority for Jews. Likud/Ysrael Beitenu/ Naftali Bennets "Jewish Home -Hebrew: הבית היהודי‎, HaBayit HaYehudi) ultra-nationalist Zionist political party - continue carrying on their programs of systematically stealing more of illegally occupied Palestinian lands - deliberate making a final peace settlement impossible.

Zionist never intended to live in peace with non-Jews - all they want is MORE land . - Greater Israel.



......

 

Actually the occupation is legal no matter what hyperbole is used and, Likud is only a temporary government unlike the governments of the Palestinians which is entrenched through civil violence and denial of elections and, has the destruction of Israel as their official position.

Oh, something I came across;

Did Palestinians Destroy Their Own Olive Trees and Then Blame Israel? Settlers Say They Have the Video to Prove it

 

Poppycoque -

The International Court of Justice the UN General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power". The term "Occupying Power" has taken on a precise legal meaning following the International Court of Justice advisory opinion in July 2004 that Israel is occupying this territory in violation of international law.[6]
The Israeli High Court of Justice concurs with this language, and has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation".

International law violations----
The establishment of Israeli settlements are held to constitute a transfer of Israel's civilian population into the occupied territories and as such are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention---

In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Palestine Yearbook of International Law (1998–1999) said "the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime.

They hold that this is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."

2012 UN report on settlements-----

On January 31, 2012 the United Nations independent "International Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" filed a report stating that Israeli settlements led to a multitude of violations of Palestinian human rights and that if Israel did not stop all settlement activity immediately and begin withdrawing all settlers from the West Bank, it potentially might face a case at the International Criminal Court.

It said that Israel was in violation of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention forbidding transferring civilians of the occupying nation into occupied territory.
It held that the settlements are “leading to a creeping annexation that prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” After Palestine's admission to the United Nations as a non-member state in September 2012, it potentially may have its complaint heard by the International Court.

-----

 

Settler/Colonist Jew sets fire to field in Burin


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIjk2YfY9nM

 

Exactly, the occupation is legal, it is some of the activities that are questionable.

 

B S .

I can see further discussion with a closed minded person is nothing more than (a dead mule ).

tata...

 

A prolonged occupation that revokes the rights of the occupied population cannot be considered legal. An occupation must be governed by certain laws that are set out in the Geneva conventions, and Hague regulations. These laws are to protect the occupied population from abuses. But throughout the occupation there have been documented evidence by several human rights organizations of violations of these laws. Amnesty International lists some of these abuses on their page for the "Israel and the Occupied Territories":

It is hard to determine if a state of peace (like a ceasefire) ever exists between Israel and the Palestinians while Israel continues to occupy/colonize the land, and deny the Palestinians their right of self-determination.

 

I can see that further discussion with a person who doesn't understand that belligerent occupation is legal is useless.

 

The breaking of certain laws does not render the entire occupation illegal.

There wouldn't be anyhow considering the basis for the war on Israel still exists as it did in 1948 - the fact that she exists.

 

Its ILLEGAL - No Military Occupation = No Jews stealing Palestinian lands + building settlements/colonies.
.
All Israeli settlements on Palestinian land are illegal, US says

US Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference with Brazil’s Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota in Brasilia on August 13, 2013.



PressTV | Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:8PM GMT



More than half a million Israelis live in over 120 illegal settlements built since Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East al-Quds.


All Israeli settlements on the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal, US Secretary of State John Kerry says.

Kerry made the remarks during a joint news conference with his Brazilian counterpart Antonio Patriota in the Brazilian capital Brasilia, where he arrived on Tuesday after visiting neighboring Colombia.

“Let me make it clear. The policy of the United States with respect to all settlements is that they are illegitimate,” he said.

A day earlier in Colombia, Kerry also said that the US government views the settlements as illegal, but called on the Palestinian Authority “not to react adversely” to Israel’s approval of hundreds of new settlement homes.

“I think that what this underscores, actually, is the importance of getting to the table and getting to the table quickly and resolving the questions with respect to settlements, which are best resolved by solving the problems of security and borders,” Kerry said in Bogota, the capital and largest city of Colombia.

“Once you have security and borders solved, you have resolved the question of settlements,” he added.

On Sunday, Israel announced plans to construct nearly 1,200 new illegal settlement units on the occupied Palestinian land.

Israeli Housing Minister Uri Ariel said that 1,187 apartments had been given final approval.

He added that 793 apartments would be built in East al-Quds (Jerusalem) while 394 others are to be constructed in several neighborhoods of the occupied West Bank, including Maaleh Adumim, Efrat and Ariel.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Tel Aviv regime approved the construction of another 942 settlement units in the occupied East al-Quds.

Al-Quds municipal councilor Yosef Pepe Alalu said that the municipality approved the plan for the construction of the settlement units in Gilo settlement.

Gilo is one of five major settlements in East al-Quds that were established by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. Israel occupied East al-Quds, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank during the war and refuses to withdraw.

The presence and continued expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine has created a major obstacle for the efforts to establish peace in the Middle East.

More than half a million Israelis live in over 120 illegal settlements built since Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East al-Quds.

The United Nations and most countries regard the Israeli settlements as illegal because the territories were captured by Israel in a war in 1967 and are hence subject to the Geneva Conventions, which forbids construction on occupied lands.
-------


No matter which way you wish to disguise it, Its the Israeli military Occupation of Palestinian land which enables Jews to continue building illegal settlements/ Jewish colonies for Jews only / Jew priority , interconnecting road network to continue being built on stolen Palestinian lands .

------

 

Khalil, et al,

An opposing point of view. (In reverse order.)

(COMMENT)

There are two points here that I think are exceptionally important.

First, I tent to agree with you, that it is "hard to determine if a state of peace (like a ceasefire) ever exists between Israel and the Palestinians." And this has a profound impact on the legitimacy of any occupation.

Now there are two components within the "occupation" argument that many people tend to run together.

Is the "occupation" itself, in any way illegal by means of duration. I would argue that if a state of peace (like a ceasefire) Never exists between Israel and the Palestinians, then the typical one year "after the general close of military operations" has not been achieved.

Is there cause for complaint that the Israelis have properly administered the "occupation?" There is no question that, in terms of proper administration, that the Arab Palestinian has a prima facie case on a number of issue that require reparation, restitution, reconciliation and settlement.
​

But these are distinct issues, and normally are the type of issues that are resolved in Peace Negotiations. And the delay of Peace Negotiation is an issue that you did not raise.

(COMMENT)

I believe that any reasonable and prudent individual who examines this statement, would have to agree in general.

(COMMENT)

Ah yes, this is the other half of the equation. Was their "provocation" for the Israeli to take such action as they have. While I agree that the Arab Palestinian has a prima facie case on a number of issue, I also see that the Israeli has a number of just causes for the actions they have taken. Not all the prima facie case are merely compliance oriented violations. There are ample examples of the Arab Palestinian behaviors that justify retaliatory actions and security responses.

• Was there then, is there now, probably cause to believe that the Arab Palestinian represents a level of threat, to the sovereignty of the Israeli Nation and the security of the Israeli People, that warrant occupation and quarantine of the Arab Palestinian? Is there an establish past history of lethal criminal behaviors or credible threats that suggest an unrestrained Arab Palestinian would result in excessive harm to the Israeli Nation and the security of the Israeli People?
  • No establish past history of lethal criminal behaviors, then - no just cause for occupation, sequester, and quarantine.
  • No credible threats by the unrestrained Arab Palestinian, then - no just cause for occupation, sequester, and quarantine.

Imbedded in your commentary is the claim that the Arab-Palestinian was denied their right of self-determination by the Israeli. I question whether or not there is evidence of that. From the very beginning - until the Declaration of Independence, some other authority had control of the territory. After the Declaration of Independence, and the Armistice of 1949, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were under foreign Arab Occupation until 1967. After 1967, Israeli Occupation did not prevent the Arab Palestinian the right of self-determination in their own Declaration of Independence in 1988 which initially established the Arab State of Palestine; using the same authority (which they opposed and rejected) that the Jewish Agency used in 1948.

• What specific action did Israel take that prevented the Arab Palestinian from a specific right of self-determination?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

You do realize why people call it an illegal occupation right? The laws of occupation are only defined as ways to "regulate" the occupation - in order to protect the rights of the occupied people. Thus, consistently violating these laws, Israel indeed is carrying on a prolonged illegal occupation. As I previously quoted, Amnesty International has outlined some of these violations:


"Human rights violations by Israeli forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) have included, but are not limited to, home demolitions and the forced eviction of Palestinian families; punitive arrests, unfair trials, ill-treatment and torture of detainees and the use of excessive or lethal force to subdue nonviolent demonstrations as well as the use of restrictive legal means. In contravention of international law, Israel continues to build parts of the wall/fence in the OPT, expand settlements and use draconian restrictions on the movement of Palestinians with some 600 roadblocks and checkpoints. Amnesty International is also concerned about discriminatory policies affecting access to water for Palestinians."


The Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a statement to the Security Council on March 12, 2002, called on Israel to "end the illegal-occupation".

I don't believe the drafters of the Hague Convention expected a prolonged occupation, rather it would only be a short period of time.

Israel is against the creation, or existence, of a Palestinian state. Otherwise it wouldn't be confiscating Palestinian lands and settling its own population on them. It's quite the double standard to claim that the Palestinians are "against the existence of Israel" when the Israeli government is working hard at making sure that a viable Palestinian state will never exist.

The Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations recently wrote that:

"While Israel continues to "steal" Palestinian land by constructing thousands of new settler units, Palestinian families are being forcibly displaced ... [he] urged the international community to condemn Israel's plans to displace over 15,000 Palestinians from East Jerusalem, an act he called "ethnic cleansing" aimed at transforming Jerusalem into a Jewish city."
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=643466

 

Some consider the settlements illegal but the occupation is not. They are not the same issue.

 

Well you seem to get it, the occupation is legal however the actions carried out while occupying are sometimes considered counter to law. Meaning theat Israel is legal in occupying the land but their actions are seen by some to not be in keeping with agreements and various conventions.

A completely separate argument as the occupation is a legal one but the above actions run counter to what agreements are in place for the duties and responsibilities of an occupying entity.

And so have many here on these forums. Point please?

Indeed, one would think that the Palestinians would have worked harder for peace rather than continue the struggle to destroy Israel that they started in 1948.

Actually Israel is all for a Palestinian state however it must be workable and the onel they have now is certainly not. In order for a Palestinian State to be viable it has to have the land to go with it, land that Israel now occupies and, will be returned to the Palestinians once they agree to peace rather than continue their position to destroy Israel.

He, like you is mistaken and merely reciting hyperbole for the hoped for consumption of the liberal public. If Israel were 'stealing' anything they would be annexing it however, I have shown that once peace is achieved, Israel boots the settlers off the land as they did in the Sinai and Gaza.

 

Utter rubbish - without Israel 's military occupation there'd be no possibility for Jews to continue stealing Palestinian lands to building illegal settlements for Jews. + ts interconnecting road network for Jews only.


....

 

Sigh. Nobody has stolen anything Marlowe.

 

Now I understand what you’re saying. And it’s not far off from what I’m saying. When I say illegal, I'm talking about Israel’s refusal to accept its obligations that the status of an occupying power holds.

So explain to me this: What exactly must the occupying power do in order for the occupation to become illegal?

How is it a separate argument? I was quoting how Israel is violating human rights in the occupied territories. These happen to be examples outlined by Amnesty International. There is nothing in international law that can say an occupation is legal or illegal. But there are laws in which to govern such an occupation, and when these laws are violated consistently, and then it only makes sense that the occupation is an illegal one. Since it’s not governing the population, but rather exploiting them.

For arguments sake, let’s say that occupying another territory for decades long is legal, or moral. Well either way, Israel is committing crimes, and violating international law. By putting the indigenous population under a constant human rights abuses, and put them under a regime of inequality.

Honestly, I don’t see much difference in saying the “occupation is illegal” or “the occupying power is not upholding its obligations to the occupied people, as defined under international humanitarian law”. If Israel colonizes the land, refuses to withdrawal, and continues to abuse its power, then Israel’s presence in the territory must be illegal.

At least I’m glad we come to this conclusion: We both agree that Israel is violating Palestinian rights.

You claim the occupation isn’t “illegal”, I’m not even sure if you recognize that Israel committing crimes within the occupied territory. And you think I should believe you over the Secretary General of the United Nations why?

By saying “indeed” I’m assuming that you too believe that the drafters of the Hague Regulations intended for occupation to be temporary, not indefinite.

The Zionists already had plans to destroy Palestine and turn it into their own country, long before any wars. If Israel wanted peace, they wouldn’t continue colonizing Palestinian lands.

If Israel is “all for a Palestinian state” then they wouldn’t be settling their civilian population in the West Bank, and displacing Palestinians from the same land.

Moreover, in 1996 Yassir Arafat said he planned to declare Palestine a state, but Benjamin Netanyahu threatened that if he did, Israel would reoccupy sectors of the West Bank that were under PA administration under their agreement in 1993. Israel would never allow a Palestinian state to be created, until after an agreement. This proves that Israel is against the existence of a Palestinian state. You’d think the first step would be mutual recognition of each state, but not for Israel. Since Israel wants Palestinian statehood to be restricted under terms of a negotiation with Israel, which could have constraints on Palestinian freedom of action – for example Israel keeps demanding an unarmed Palestinian state.

Nonetheless, it’s hard for anybody to claim – as you did – that the West Bank will be returned to the Palestinians after an agreement is made. Because how much of the West Bank? When? After the settlement expansion consumes most of the West Bank?

Honestly, if anybody wants a state where they can fully exercise their right to self-determination, it is the Palestinians.

Now please answer me this: Do you recognize that Israel is displacing Palestinians off their lands, while at the same time, settling their own settler population?

 

Khalil, With all your hatred towards the Israelis, will you accept full peace and 100% end of conflict if Abu Adolf Mazen signs a
peace agreement ?
Will you stop teaching your kids that Israelis are pigs and monsters ?
Your Gazan brothers sure did not. All they do is fire rockets and build terror tunnels.

 

Declare or not declare war and then invade and hold land that is not theirs. In this case Israel was invaded and had war declared on her and a state of war still is in place after 65 years so the occupation is quite legal.

An occupied people are not equal. They are by sheer definition an occupied people who have no rights save to be given food and water and the basics of life.

Bring forth the responsibilities of the occupying power and you will see that they are being adhered to.

No. You will find if you actually read what I wrote that I have stated that some say and such, not that they have. As I just explained occupied people are people who are occupied in war and therefore have no actual rights beyond being given the basics of life.

His view on this is just as valid as the janitor on the fourteenth floor of the UN. Both are employees of the organization and not voting members of the Security Council who actually make chapter seven resolutions.

I do.

Those dirty rotten joos. And the Palestinians from day one knew they would be strapping bombs to their kids too.

Well they do want peace but recognize that the primary reason for turmoil has never once been removed even when they were not occupying land so this is hardly a valid point.

As we know, settlers are not servants of the state and are not being moved against their will but rather because they wish to as individuals knowing that if there is a peace treaty they will be evicted and returned to Israel against their will.

Restricted? It has no land as it stands now so how is Israel restricting the Palestinians when all they want is a viable state next to them, not a ghetto. Israel wanted full peace with defined borders and a sustainable neighbor but no, the Palestinians wanted to keep the official position of destroying Israel and be recognized as a state more than real peace.

When the official position of the Palestinians to destroy Israel is removed from their respective Charters. That would be a start anyhow.

I can tell, that's why they settled for a sliver of slum rather than an entire nation in turn for acknowledging Israel's right to exist.

Nope. As history shows they kick settlers off occupied land when peace treaties are made so nobody expect this to be permanent except the left wing and mantra chanters.

 

I really HATE talking about my BABYSITTING ESCAPADES in this part of the world but after reading this I am compelled to do so.

I have been ASKED FOR by both sides to be a babysitter or referee depending upon how you look at it....while both sides talk in secret as a precursor to larger talks and I can tell you doing so is worse than babysitting two twins who are fighting over a toy and attention.

I will now tell the membership how the entire Israeli/Palestinian issue can be resolved in 1 MONTH.

The Palestinian Authority FORCES all aspects...Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah Operatives and KICK ISLAMIC JIHAD OUT OF PALESTINE.....and then go and RECOGNIZE ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST.

If they did this the United States WOULD FORCE ISRAEL TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A PALESTINIAN STATE.

Then the Palestinian Authority would grow up and grow a pair of balls and make damn sure no one attacks Israel...and the Israeli Military would make damn sure no Jewish Extremists or Settlers would attack Palestinian's.

The disputed areas would be decided by a system of ARBITRATION and the arbitrator would be chosen by both Palestinian's and Israeli's.

Both sides would sign an agreement that the decision of the Arbitrator was FINAL.

And then if neither side held up it's end of the bargain....the U.S. would cut of ALL AID to whatever side violated any agreement.

This would resolve the entire issue.

AboveAlpha

 

Thieves are accomplished liars + rarely admit /confess to their ill-gotten gains.

... History of Israel: - Stolen Land of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

[video=youtube;dKGA48MptIY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKGA48MptIY[/video]

Ilan Pappe was once brainwashed by Zionist propaganda. He learned the truth about the Zionist entity that is israel and now speaks about the truth of israel. In this lecture he clears up myths about israel and exposes israel. Keep in mind he is a Jew.

....

There are several other Jewish historians who had the courage to speak out + expose Zionists lies.


,,,,

 

In 1967 Israel first declared war on the Arab countries launching an attack. The Egyptian actions were precautionary measures due to Israeli threats against Syria. Since most of the problems were on the Syrian and Israeli frontier, because of Israel’s violation in the armistice agreement by cultivating, constructing, and settling its civilians, as well as military in the demilitarized zone – which further proves, Israel expected to expand. After the fight on April 4 when Israel launched a high scale attack against Syria, Nasser, and many of the other Arab states pledged their support for Syria. Throughout May Israel was threatening to engage in a large scale strike against Syria. Not to mention Israel’s previous massive action on Nov. 13 1966 taken against Jordan on the village of Al-Sammu. All of these were acts of war.

Moreover, the reason that a state of war continues to exist, is due to the occupation. Take away the occupation and its more feasible to claim there is as ceasefire, or lull in violence. Which is strange to say the least, since the official Israeli position on the matter is that the West Bank is not occupied territory. If you take Israel’s claim, then Israel’s presence in the territory is an illegal one.

Wrong again, under international law they are denoted as “protected persons” and the occupying power must follow up on its obligations. Providing information on the rights of occupied people, the International Committee of the Red Cross states on their website that:

“ This has important consequences for people living in occupied territory, in particular because the occupying power must meet a number of obligations set out in the Convention. These include ensuring public order and safety, providing the population with food and medical supplies, maintaining medical services and attending to many other matters that are of the utmost importance to people's everyday lives.”

On another article found on their website they outline some of the important governance laws that the occupying power must not violate:

“ The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-7, as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. .

The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:
• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
• The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
• The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
• To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
• The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
• Cultural property must be respected.
• People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
• Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.”

Can you rightfully say that Israel is upholding its obligations? No, Israel has violated most of them – many times.

Just brought them up above, and these needs/responsibilities are not being adhered to. There are countless reports by human rights organizations to prove this. You know it, and I know it.

So you deny that Israel continues to violate Palestinian rights? Or are you saying that Israel is indeed abusing Palestinians, but it’s because you believe Palestinians have no rights? Word it however you like I suppose…

And by the way, occupied people do have rights, it’s defined in the fourth Geneva convention.

So you do agree that the drafters of the Hague Regulations intended for the occupation to be temporary, and not indefinite. If you agree with this, then why do you believe Israel is justified in occupying the land for an indefinite period of time – as Israel violates the very laws and occupation must be administered by?

Seems to me that you agree, but you just continue to spit no.

Day one? The first suicide bombing was in the 1990s. If there was no brutal occupation, which abuses the rights of Palestinians, there would be no bombings. Moreover, they aren’t strapping kids to bombs as you claim… When have you seen in the headlines “five year old Palestinian suicide bomber”? You don’t.

Now as I was actually saying, Israel literally destroyed Palestine creating its people into bitter refugees.

Settling hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers into occupied territories is colonizing – not asking for peace.

Who said servants? The government has created programs to entice settlers in moving there. Such as the government giving them tax-breaks, or paying of mortgages for their houses etc. The Israeli government supports the settler program. It is the Israeli government which supplies them with the needed resources as well, along with protection.

The settlers do not realize that if there is a peace treaty that they will leave. Please prove that. The Israeli government doesn’t even believe that. In fact that’s why in negotiations we have seen that Israel is completely unwilling to dismantle the settlements and rather annex most of the territories.

Let me ask you this, who created the ghetto? Why do we have a humanitarian crisis in the West Bank. And even Gaza?
What kind of viable state, a state that is intertwined with Israeli settlements?

If anything, Israel is the reason there will probably be no “viable” Palestinian state. For example, an extensive report by the EU stated that Israel is responsible for “closing the window” for a two-state solution. Summed up by theIndependent who saw the document write:

“ The 16-page document is the EU's starkest critique yet of how a combination of house and farm building demolitions; a prohibitive planning regime; relentless settlement expansion; the military's separation barrier; obstacles to free movement; and denial of access to vital natural resources, including land and water, is eroding Palestinian tenure of the large tract of the West Bank on which hopes of a contiguous Palestinian state depend … the report says ‘the window for a two-state solution is rapidly closing with the continued expansion of Israeli settlements and access restrictions for Palestinians in Area C [which] compromises crucial natural resources and land for the future demographic and economic growth of a viable Palestinian state’ … [Also] The report says the destruction of homes, public buildings and workplaces result in "forced transfer of the native population" and that construction is effectively prohibited in 70 per cent of the land – and then in zones largely allocated to settlements of the Israeli military http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-for-a-viable-palestinian-state-6288336.html ”

Some viable state Israel wants right? I ask you again: If you believe the West Bank will be returned after an agreement is made, how much? When? After it’s already too late?

As the negotiations show, Israel is unwilling to rid the settlers currently residing in the West Bank. This is undeniable fact, proven by actions made during negotiations by the Israeli government.

There is a huge difference between nearly 600,000 settlers and about 8,000 settlers.

Again, don’t ignore it, if Israel settles hundreds of thousands of its people into the West Bank with the intent to only kick them off later, then why do it at all? Again your logic is flawed.