(Vanity) Explain to me why it's "OK" for Israel to have settlements on The West Bank?

My Mind ^ | June 25th, 2002 | Johnny Shear

[boris]

It might be nice first to learn to spell the name of the nation you are pondering.

As I frequently explain, there is a finite amount of territory on Earth. Therefore there are only two ways that nations gain or lose territory: (a) conquest or (b) purchase. Every nation on Earth was gained or lost--sometimes repeatedly--by one or both of these.

The Arabs were mobilizing for a massed and unprovoked attack on Israel in 1967. They got their clocks cleaned. And they lost territory. That territory was annexed by Israel: it is now part of Israel. Period.

The only way the Arabs can get it back is by re-conquering it (which they are very bad at) or buying it. They have zillions of dollars of oil money, sitting in Swiss banks, doing nothing. Perhaps they should offer Israel a trillion bucks or so and they'd sell it back to them.

--Boris

[Alouette]

If you can refer to them as "subhuman," I could only guess what you truly feel about someone who looks like me.

Did anyone ever tell you that you look Jewish?

[rmlew]

Thanks for postin ghte Palestinian Position. The whole thing is propoganda from the first line:
On November 29, 1948, the United Nations passed UN Resolution 181 to partition Palestine between the Palestinian People who owned 94.4% of the land of Palestine and the Jews who owned 5.6% of the land of Palestine.

Actually, the PAlestinains were the Jews and Arabs of teh British mandate of Palestine. The Jews wonwed 5.6% of the land and the Arabs about the same. The remaining 85+% of the land used to belong to the Ottoman Empire and was run by the British.

[rmlew]

In a war between Western Civ and Islamism, we are not neutral. We can choose to stay out, but our opponents will still see us as enemies.
Israel is a Western Country.

As for your claim that the only reason we were attacked on 9-11 is that we help Israel, this is an ahistorical lie.
Bin LAdin's main goals are to get the US out of the region so he can take over Arabia.

[rdb3]

Did anyone ever tell you that you look Jewish?

Ha! I guess I could look like I descended from King Solomon. ;-)

[rmlew]

The Islamic Brotherhood, the forruner of all Islamist parties, was at war with Western civ since the 1920's.
They hated the US above all else. Look up Said Kuttab.

Islamist terrorist had no ability to strik the Us int eh 1950's. There were virtually no Muslims here.
Ron
PS. Subhumans from your last comment. I can see why you are not religious. Cute use of Hitleresque language.

[rdb3]

In fact, I wonder if I look like Menelik, King Solomon's and the Queen of Sheba's son.

Hmmm... Naa. Wrong part of the African continent. But it could be possible, just not probable.

[rmlew]

For Christ's sake, the Israelis are militant socialists who bulldoze ancestral holdings.

I don't mean to be harsh, but you are ignorant. Stop watching CNN and start learning history.
Most houses Israel destroy are either illegal Arab settlements or new shanties built by the Arabs, 2/3 of whose ancestors settled the area between 1890 adn 1920. (The dirty little secrets of Palestine are that there is a Palestinian State (Jordan) and that more Arabs than Jew immigrated to the 1/3 of Palestine set aside to Jews.)

The Socialists in Israel are the ones who want to give up teh "Settlements". The Religious Nationalists and Conservatives do not.

[rdb3]

^5, my man!

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Here is the link for the changing borders

[Johnny Shear]

Thank you Alouette, and thanks for the ping terilyn...That's a great resource for this thread and it helps me make my point imensely...

I've seen those maps before and they are what spurns my basic question...

Why aren't the Arabs complaining about the parts that Israel took (Rightly so due to defending themselves) featured in the "Armistice lines following 1948 War of Independence" map where they connected their three parts of land and captured a route into Jerusalem, and only complaining about getting the West Bank and Gaza back???

Or, is the question...

Why didn't Israel make it a point to FULLY capture the West Bank and Gaza (Rightly so due to defending themselves) the way they captured the land that conjoined their 3 small parts and created access to Jerusalem as pictured in the "Armistice lines following 1948 War of Independence" map???

Why is the West Bank and Gaza more of a simingly "Big Deal" than the original land Israel captured???

And...

Why do so few Israelis tell the world to go screw themselves, they're keeping the West Bank and Gaza because they rightfully won it (And need it for protection) after they were attacked. It seems Israel dances around saying they OWN the West Bank and Gaza...

Am I making more sense now??

[Johnny Shear]

Do you have any problem with American settlements in New Mexico, Arizona and California?

If you're saying Israel has as much right to the West Bank and Gaza as we do to New Mexico, Arizona and California then they are total and complete IDIOTS for even playing this game. They need to just tell the world to screw themselves and FULLY take-over the West Bank and Gaza (Or, should have done so long ago).

But somehow, I don't think they're total and complete IDIOTS so there must be something more to the situation than the simple comparison you have made.

[Johnny Shear]

From what I've read, the land gained between 1948 and 1967 was land that the Jews bought, not that they "took." Then the Arabs attacked them, and they attacked FROM those areas now occupied.

Now THAT finially begins to answer my original question. Can what you have said be verified?

[Alouette]

Why do so few Israelis tell the world to go screw themselves, they're keeping the West Bank and Gaza because they rightfully won it (And need it for protection) after they were attacked. It seems Israel dances around saying they OWN the West Bank and Gaza...

Am I making more sense now??

At last.

[Johnny Shear]

Because unless they are willing to officially declare an apartheid system (or simply ethnically cleanse the land), they'd probably have to treat the people on the land they won the same as their current Arab population. In the long term that would mean the end of the Jewish state.

Very good peice of information here, VERY GOOD! Another post that goes a long ways towards answering my question.

Obviously, if all the Palestinians became "Israeli Citizens" their vote could overwhelm the Jewish vote and as you say, end the Jewish state.

So basically, they are forced into being a bit Mamby-Pamby about the rightful ownership of the West Bank and Gaza because to be stringent would mean they would be forced to ethnically clense the place in order to survive.

Makes for quite a tough situation. I guess what they really need is another all-out war to justify the "clensing". Not a good situation to be in...

Thank you very much for your opinion...It makes a lot of sense!!

[crystalk]

I am now very well informed about your lack of manners and civility.

Your post shows you know nothing whatever about my religious background or beliefs. I am not the sort of believer you damn; but I would rather deal with one of them anyday than with you.

[crystalk]

They make a nice little help, especially in bad times like now, but I would be quite surprised if even in 2002 it accounted for as much as 5% of Israel's GNP.

[FITZ]

I don't recall a single Muslim terrorist attack targeting U.S. citizens prior to the 1970's.

Robert Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian in the 1960's and there were a couple diplomats murdered because Sirhan wasn't set free.

[okie01]

"But somehow, I don't think they're total and complete IDIOTS so there must be something more to the situation than the simple comparison you have made."

Legally, they could've done as I suggested. There are two reasons why they didn't. Both are political:

1. Israel simply could not absorb millions of new Palestinians into her borders -- especially as they exhibit an unregenerate lust for Israeli blood. This problem did not confront us in the Southwest. The country was thinly populated and the once-Mexicans stayed, and adjusted peacefully.

2. Thus, in order to successfully annex the West Bank, Israel would have been confronted with conducting mass deportations. "World opinion" would not have cottoned to this. And, inasmuch as Israel owed its creation to the UN, who had voted it into existence only 19 years prior, they chose not to swim upstream against the resultant international condemnation.

Ergo, Israel agreed to "occupy", as opposed to "annex", in search of good PR. You can argue they would be more secure today had they chosen to take a PR hickey thirty-or-so years ago.

[Johnny Shear]

I am now very well informed about your lack of manners and civility.

And you being a Dick by telling me that the only reason I am alive, and will stay alive is because of "The State" is CIVIL?????

I may be a lot of things, a hypocrite I am NOT! I can't say the same for you...