Helpful.
My apologies, I have been indisposed.
Sorry, you cannot equate the West Bank settlements with cities like Ashdod and Ashkelon.
Let me make it very clear that I have nothing to do with this fight. My interest is the History of Conflict and this helps me to understand the Palestinian point of view. The study of War tends to destroy partisanship and any illusions one might have had with regard to fair dealing between warring factions.
One of the least understood aspects revolves around Israel's major bone of contention - recognition as a Jewish State.
Palestinians cannot accept this for three reasons. The first is because they were not the only party to reject partition:
“In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that ‘after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine’...In 1948, Menachem Begin declared that: ‘The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever.” Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”
Secondly, Israel has never recognized Palestine:
In an interview with the the Sunday Times Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister between 1969-1974, stated in June 1969:
"It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist." (Iron Wall, p. 311)
If one examines the constitution of several important Israeli political parties, one finds a denial of Palestinian statehood and rights. The Likud Party for instance, opposes statehood, as does the Yisrael Beiteinu Party which openly proposes the forcible transference of Arabs.
Thirdly, a condition of recognition insisted upon by Israel is the abandonment of all claims arising out of the expulsion of the indigenous people in 1948. This, to the Palestinians, is utterly unacceptable. They would never have the right to even visit the place where their families had dwelt for centuries nor claim compensation for its loss. The "right of return" for Jews to a place where they have never lived as opposed to the prohibition of Palestinians to enter the land of their forefathers has its ironies.
For these reasons, to the Palestinians, nothing is settled. The original wound has never been treated and all bets are off.
In my view there is some merit in the argument. The U.N. partition plan was never ratified. Israel unilaterally declared statehood before it was put into effect and they did not accept it either by word or deed - Israel has never declared its borders. The Palestinians never accepted it at all. It is therefore a rather moot point as to whether partition is valid at all.
This makes all the territory disputed.
Under the Geneva convention, settling on disputed territory is forbidden and resistance to an occupier is permitted. To the Palestinian, settlers are complicit in the theft of their land and the violence that accompanies it. They are therefore, permitted targets according to the Koran which has very strict proscriptions against the harming of innocents.
I hope this is helpful.
