Israeli committee approves bill legalising outposts

[webfact]

Israeli committee approves bill legalising outposts

 

The draft bill could embolden armed Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank to continue taking over Palestinian homes

 

JERUSALEM: -- Israel has approved a controversial draft bill aimed at authorising Jewish settlements that were built on private Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank without Israeli government permission.

 

The bill must now pass through three readings in parliament and also be ratified by the Supreme Court before it can become law.

 

Sunday's vote was rushed through the ministerial committee for legislation in an attempt to prevent the evacuation of the outpost of Amona in the Israeli-occupied West Bank by the end of the year.

 

Full story: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/israeli-committee-approves-bill-legalising-outposts-161114042637773.html

 

-- AL JAZEERA 2016-11-14

[Jingthing]

Here we go ... 

Keep in mind, it hasn't passed yet.

[JuanCarlos]

Also keep in mind it is still illegal for the internaitonal community.

We  can consider the settlers as illegal immigrants then

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, JuanCarlos said:

Also keep in mind it is still illegal for the internaitonal community.

We  can consider the settlers as illegal immigrants then

You're right they are seen as illegal internationally.

Illegal immigrants, not quite precise that.

It's a disputed border situation as Palestine as a state and it's borders disputed in the region.

I speak as someone that supports a two state solution with reasonably compromised borders for both sides. But we're not there and may never get there. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Jingthing

[JuanCarlos]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're right they are seen as illegal internationally.

Illegal immigrants, not quite precise that.

It's a disputed border situation as Palestine as a state and it's borders disputed in the region.

I speak as someone that supports a two state solution with reasonably compromised borders for both sides. But we're not there and may never get there. 

Why not illegal immigrants? The state of Palestine is recognized as a state by the vaste majority of countries worldwide (too bad those who has weight in the balance don't and interfere). therefore by installing camps inside Palestine territory it seems to me it is an illegal immigration of people and the people of Palestine do not want them there..it kind of rings a bell of the other countries battling with illegal immigration.

A two state solution is the only viable solution for both Israel and Palestine especially if you take into account the natality and what would happen after  a couple of decades of a jewish state with more muslims than jewish.

The problem is both sides do not find a solution and Israel is against an international backed solution...I really think that the "trump effect" is for something in this bill.

[coma]

They are thieves. And the Israeli government are a bunch of criminals for allowing and encouraging such settlements.

[Jingthing]

I wasn't disputing how they might be seen internationally. I clearly and explicitly stated the LOCAL situation. The LOCAL situation must ultimately be resolved at the LOCAL level between the sides that are living there.

 

People that try to blame this situation on only ONE side are missing the reality. The reality is that there is no leadership on EITHER side that is available now that will lead to an agreeable peaceful solution. 

As far as trump, well yes, he is hands off and isolationist on this, so I can understand that more right wing Israelis might be encouraged to be more emboldened in that context. 

 

Speaking of trump --

I know this will sound over the top and I hope in the fullness of history that it turns out to be, but with the takeover of the U.S. republican party and now government by white supremacist fascist forces, there may soon be a large spike in interest from American Jews to make Aliyah in Israel. That would throw the Israel demonizing demographic argument to the birds. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Jingthing

[Itay]

Interesting Law, lets see if it'll pass in the high court.

If yes - it will cause backlash and will bad for them

if not - best outcome for Israel:

as it will increase the legitimacy of Israel as a Democratic state with  a fair court system

[JuanCarlos]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I wasn't disputing how they might be seen internationally. I clearly and explicitly stated the LOCAL situation. The LOCAL situation must ultimately be resolved at the LOCAL level between the sides that are living there.

 

People that try to blame this situation on only ONE side are missing the reality. The reality is that there is no leadership on EITHER side that is available now that will lead to an agreeable peaceful solution. 

As far as trump, well yes, he is hands off and isolationist on this, so I can understand that more right wing Israelis might be encouraged to be more emboldened in that context. 

 

Speaking of trump --

I know this will sound over the top and I hope in the fullness of history that it turns out to be, but with the takeover of the U.S. republican party and now government by white supremacist fascist forces, there may soon be a large spike in interest from American Jews to make Aliyah in Israel. That would throw the Israel demonizing demographic argument to the birds. 

I didn't say the fault was on one side only. However this is not a LOCAL solution as there are lot of international regulation, laws, vetos, etc...which are applied (if not enfoced) by the international community.

We see that for more than 30 years LOCAL solution has beend a dead end. It seems, but I may be wrong, that one side is willing to find help in international community, while the other  clearly wants to continue running head first into a wall.

Palestine has many flaws, and extremism is one of them, but one major problem is the settlements in the West bank. As long as Israel plays with these settlements and let them expand nothing will happen. I am even quite sure it helps the extremists in their rethoric and peace will never happen as long as such laws try to be passed "locally".

Trump clearly stated that he is not in favor of a two states solution and all the right wing israeli are more than happy to have one POTUS who will just veto every initiative which does not make Bibi Happy.

 

 

[Jingthing]

We're probably on the same page about trump. Disaster for the USA and the planet, except for Russia.

[DeaconJohn]

Radical Zionists don't want to coexist with a Palestinian state. The relentless expansion of illegal settlements and land grabs make that perfectly clear.

The bloody reality  is one state - Israel/Palestine.

The Pottery Barn of the Middle East...  You broke it - now you own it.

Eretz Israel, your history is just beginning.

[Jingthing]

Radical Zionists don't want to coexist with a Palestinian state. The relentless expansion of illegal settlements and land grabs make that perfectly clear.
The bloody reality  is one state - Israel/Palestine.
The Pottery Barn of the Middle East...  You broke it - now you own it.
Eretz Israel, your history is just beginning.

Not all Zionists are the same. Many are even leftist.

[DeaconJohn]

42 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not all Zionists are the same. Many are even leftist.

That may be so, but it's the meshugas who make the most noise and seem to be running the show in Israel.

[Jingthing]

That may be so, but it's the meshugas who make the most noise and seem to be running the show in Israel.

Yes the right wing is dominant there. But trust me there are plenty of meshugas on the left wing and on the Pally side too.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Itay said:

Interesting Law, lets see if it'll pass in the high court.

If yes - it will cause backlash and will bad for them

if not - best outcome for Israel:

as it will increase the legitimacy of Israel as a Democratic state with  a fair court system

 

I doubt anything good will come out of this, as far as Israel's image is concerned. The headline is there and will stay there until (if one is optimistic) the law proposed will be trashed by the Supreme Court - could be months from now. 

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

7 hours ago, JuanCarlos said:

Why not illegal immigrants? The state of Palestine is recognized as a state by the vaste majority of countries worldwide (too bad those who has weight in the balance don't and interfere). 

 

Recognized, or not, right now it is nothing but imaginary. There are no legal borders, so how can Israeli settlers be "illegal immigrants"? That won't work.

[Morch]

This directly connects to the latest related topic, which dealt with Netanyahu's apprehension of possible end of term actions by the Obama administration.

 

Initially, I think the likelihood of Obama going for something of the sort wasn't high, but given the Israeli government's conduct, and HRC losing the elections - perhaps not that far-fetched anymore. Could take the form of a statement by the President or the Secretary of State. Could be a vote on the UNSC.

 

Everyone involved was aware of the timeline - nothing major was to happen before the elections, and preferably not before the inauguration. The Palestinians were discouraged (mostly by Arab countries) from taking diplomatic actions in the UN, and Netanyahu was trying to dodge decisions related to the illegal settlements. On both sides, these delaying measures were met only with partial success, mainly due internal rivalries between various and factions, often in a bid to challenge the current leadership.

 

With regard to Israel, and the OP,  while Trump's victory indeed boosted the right wing's feeling that things could be "easier" (as far as US criticism goes), the backstory is more to do with the ongoing political struggle within the coalition,  between Netanyahu and Bennett (the latter's party promoting more extreme positions). The vote mentioned in the OP took place against Netanyahu's wishes, with even some of the ministers from his own party breaking ranks. The main reason is simple - come elections day, non of them wants to look as "weak" or as non supportive in the eyes of potential voters. Basically, Bennett jumped the gun, risking diplomatic reprisal from the outgoing US president, in order to score a political point. That's pretty much how Israeli foreign policy decisions are made.

[yardrunner]

So the Junta has opened a new branch in Israel with new laws that are not accepted by the international community

[yardrunner]

11 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Recognized, or not, right now it is nothing but imaginary. There are no legal borders, so how can Israeli settlers be "illegal immigrants"? That won't work.

Because they started the settlements when it was against the Israel governments own policy and laws as well as international law and changing the law retrospectively does not make it legal

[Ulysses G.]

 

Incorrect. The settlement policy was started in 1967 by the Labor government. It was NOT against Israeli law or policy.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, yardrunner said:

Because they started the settlements when it was against the Israel governments own policy and laws as well as international law and changing the law retrospectively does not make it legal

 

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Incorrect. The settlement policy was started in 1967 by the Labor government. It was NOT against Israeli law or policy.

 

There was no official Israeli policy advocating settlement in the West Bank immediately after the 1967 war, and not for years later on. To begin with, settlements were set up with overt and unofficial government support from some quarters, often at odds with orders to military forces in the area. It was obvious, from the start, that there are legal issues involved, both with regard to Israeli and international law. This is still so.

[Ulysses G.]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

There was no official Israeli policy advocating settlement in the West Bank immediately after the 1967 war, and not for years later on. To begin with, settlements were set up with overt and unofficial government support from some quarters, often at odds with orders to military forces in the area. It was obvious, from the start, that there are legal issues involved, both with regard to Israeli and international law. This is still so.

 

The Allon Plan under PM Levi Eshkol seems pretty official to me.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allon_Plan

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

The Allon Plan under PM Levi Eshkol seems pretty official to me.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allon_Plan

 

Partially conceded. I should have been clearer.

The Allon Plan's outlook was security based, and so did not advocate Israeli settlement in populous Palestinian areas. The main idea was to hold on to the less populated areas, while finding a solution (autonomy or Jordanian control) for the Palestinians.

 

Most of the issues involving the illegal settlements refer to settlements created in areas other than specified by the Allon Plan. Creation of these had more to do with post 1967 religious-messianic-right-wing ideology. As was referenced by the previous post, government support was more of an ad hoc thing, subject to various pressures and ideological leanings.