The Israeli settlement UN Resolution Vote
Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2016, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)
While the US abstaining from voting had the same effect as voting in favor of the resolution, it isn't the same as supporting the measure.
If the media had educated the public on what has happened with the settlements, the resolution might not have been so controversial.
Many settlements are land grabs, a form of adverse possession like US homesteading in the 19th century. You choose an area of land, develop it, live on it, and then claim exclusive and permanent ownership. It can't be taken away from you. In other words, someone else can't come on your land, move onto it, develop it, live on it, and claim exclusive ownership.
In the process, it's more than more land for Israelis and less for Palestinians. You have evictions from homes, destruction of olive trees (the only means of survival for many non-settlors), some of which have been owned for generations. And water diversion. There is limited fresh water supply and often, it is diverted from non-settlors to settlements, leaving no potable water for drinking, sanitation, bathing, etc. In short, no sharing of resources.
I've been reading all week-end the condemnation of the vote by the Netanyahu, members of the Israeli government, and both sides of the aisle in our government. I can't help but wonder with the latter if they are inured by our own history where it was common practice to take away land from Native Americans to give to our own settlors for the "betterment" of our country. If the UN had existed in the 19th century, would it too have condemned the land grab?
If the goal is truly a peace settlement, I can't see how incrementally assuming control and ownership of people's homes without their permission is going to accomplish that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
sorry if that offends you. 