Hacker News Reader

Comment by underseacables | Hacker News Reader

Peace is unlikely as long as settlers continue to claim Palestinean land and force them out of their own homes, considering what an obvious mockery this makes of any kind of negotiations even for those Palestineans who do actively want peace.

As my original comment was immediatly flagged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Jarrah_property_dispute

There was a court case that ruled that they have to be evicted because of not paying rent.

"In response, the owners of the property (a private Israeli NGO, Nahalat Shimon), claim they have the legal title to the property in question and that, in the absence of rent being paid by the tenants, the tenants ought to be evicted for breaching the law."

So it's not some hayfork/violent spur of the moment thing. Ownership is somewhat regulated and can be fought in court.

Quite a good article about the issue.

"The Sheikh Jarrah property dispute (as described by the Israeli government and their supporters) or the Expulsion of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah (as described by Palestinians and their supporters) is a long-running legal and political dispute between Palestinian refugees and Israeli Jews over the ownership of certain properties and housing units in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem that has been called a microcosm of the Israeli–Palestinian disputes over land since 1948. Israel's laws allow Jews to file claims over property in East Jerusalem which they owned prior to 1948, but reject Palestinian claims over property in Israel proper which they owned. In this specific case, the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah were refugees who got plots, previously owned by Jews, in UNRWA lottery, relinquishing in return their refugee documents and accompanying rights. They have no right under Israeli law to repossess their pre-1948 homes in Haifa, Sarafand and Jaffa."

This specific case has little to do with most illegal settlements, which have no dispute over ownership and are generally acknowledged as illegal by the Israeli government (but are de facto tolerated and sometimes even actively protected by the army from angry Palestineans).

And similarly peace isn't possible while the wall is there. Although the reason it was built was because there wasn't peace. And so on about a thousand years back.

The most obvious thing that motivates Palestineans to actively be violent rather than living in misery (and people can take a lot of misery) is that ongoing settlement and similar measures make it clear that the Israeli government wouldn't actually let them live in peace even if they wanted it.

Or, in other words, I believe that Hamas would have much less pull if it was just walls and not all the other stuff too.

If only they used all that money to build up instead of down..

Peace is not possible on occupied land or in an apartheid state.

Technically, it is (in some circumstances): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement#F...

Those circumstances are pretty unlike these ones, though, in that they involved (among other things) the UK being badly over-strained in every possible way in the aftermath of WW2, India being large enough and relatively untouched enough from WW2 to be increasingly ungovernable, and an independent India being little to no threat to the UK despite those first two factors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com