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

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

[Johnny Shear]

This is an honest question, no offense towards anyone is intended...

I won't try to claim I'm any kind of scholar on the subject of Isreal Settlements but I have done a bit of research on the subject. Yet, one question still remains...

I can't justify the Isreal Settlements in The West Bank and Gaza...In my own mind, anyway...

As far as I can tell, Isreal officially justifies these settlements based on the fact that they lay claim to Gaza and the West Bank due to defeating Arab aggressors in the 1967 war. And, Isreal is still technically at war with some Arab states so they can continue occupying these areas...

What I don't understand is how they justify the settlements. Occupation is one thing (Based on protecting themselves against an aggressor) but settlements are something completely different (In my opinion, anyway).

If anyone can educate me, I know Freepers can. And as a bonus, if anyone can supply information or sources on how the Palestinians "See Things", that would be great. (In the spirit of "Two sides to every story").

[E Rocc]

Do you remember the 1967 war? The war the Palestinians STARTED?

Actually the Israelis started it, at the provocation of the Egyptians and Syrians.

-Eric

[Leto]

In 1967 the notion of Palistine was Israel itself. The Israelis were attacked by Syria, Jordan and Egypt. In defending themselves from this attack they conquered the Golan Heights (from Syria), Gaza (from Egyot), and the West Bank (from Jordan). Why should the West Bank be ceded to a group of Palistinian terrorist led by Arafat? Jordan seems to not want the West Bank back.

Israel has a legitimate right to want to keep the land won in the 1967 war. It provides them with more defensible borders.

They traded land for peace with Egypt, probably won't cede the Golan, due to the offensive position it gives to Syria for Artillary bombardment, parts of the West Bank seem to be up for barter. We'll see.

The position of Israel for many years was that the West Bank won in a defensive war was then a part of Israel, so Israelis built settlements in their territory.

Remember there has never been a Palistine.

[Gurn]

Neither one of those is what you said in the original post to which I responded. Furthermore, I don't "insist" anything. I happen to think that the two sides in that "tribal conflict" are not morally equivalent. One side is civilized, the other barbaric. Now, I'm quite sure you're one of the resident Freeper geniuses/athiests, hence your disparaging tone toward the Bible. You'll just have to bear with us dullards who think the Bible actually means something, but where in the world did you come up with this?

2. You insist that my money be taken and sent to Israel and my life endangered from terrorist attacks because you insist the government choose sides in a tribal war which does not concern me.

What the hell does that mean? Seriously, help me out. You're saying we shouldn't support Israel to keep ragheads from killing Americans? Some folks might call that appeasement.

[E Rocc]

Assume there is a Palestinian state. Will it allow Jews, or will it be Judenrein?

I would presume that one of the conditions of an eventual settlement would be a protection for the civil rights of Jews in the Palestinian state. However, they would not be entitled to communities which are Arabrein and have special privileges, which is the case right now with the settlements.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

The U.S. won Texas, New Mexico, Navada and Calaforina in wars with Mexico.

We bought most of that land from Mexico, who signed a treaty agreeing that they are ours.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

All of the above answers are good but they are wrong. The number one deal breaker in peace negotiations is the palestinian right of return to Israel

Which the Palestinians have agreed in principle to give up.

-Eric

[Gurn]

Your presumption necessarily implies that you think Arab Muslims capable of keeping their word and abiding by a hypothetical treaty. A question for you: What was the goal of the PLO when it was formed in 1964, three years before Israel took the so-called "occupied territories"? One other question: You know, don't you, that there's no such thing as an ethnic "Palestinian"? You realize that they are Arabs, and that prior to the turn of the century, Arabs didn't acknowledge or appreciate political boundaries?

[Alouette]

However, they would not be entitled to communities which are Arabrein and have special privileges, which is the case right now with the settlements.

What "special privileges" would those be? The ones which allow them to shoot back when they are shot at?

[E Rocc]

Try this answer: There is no such people as the so-called Palestinians and no such country as Palestine.

At one time there were no such people as the "so-called Americans" and no such country as "America".

-Eric

[Publius6961]

The above-mentioned Resolution gave 55% of the total land that was owned by the Palestinian people to the Jews.

What is infuriating about Muslim Mass Murder propaganda is that it always uses the biggest lie: the half truth.
The Palestinians could not have owned anything, since they did not exist until 1964.
The land had previously been owned (literally) by the Ottoman empire to the tune of 85% of the total; of the remainder, 90% was owned by absentee owners in Syria, Lebanon Turkey or other countries.
To redefine this is fraud and hyperbole.

Of the privately owned lands by the time the Israeli state was created, over 90% had been purchased.

Not that any of this matters; When you lose a war, you lose all claims to it unless you can win it back.

They better deal with that

[Theo]

Judging from your continued inability to "get it," you don't really want to know an answer, Johnny. You're just feigning ignorance, trying to muddy the pretty clear waters....

[E Rocc]

I'm quite sure we could literally identify a "Few". So please reconsider. Or at least consider tempering your comments about all of them being "Animals". It's not helpful and makes me feel embarrassed to be a fellow Freeper. That's just my opinion and thoughts, of course.

I still don't quite understand why ignorant comments about Arabs and Muslims are allowed that would get posts removed and a poster banned if they were made about any other nationality or religion. It reflects poorly on conservatives as a whole.

Before someone glibly says "September 11th", answer when conservativism became about collective responsibility and group guilt.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

Error, mistakenness, and opposition to America's interests in the world and those of her best ally, Israel, can never be justified. There is no justification. Just admit you are wrong and come off it. The FReepers are on my side anyway.

Last time I looked, the attempted enforcement of "groupthink" was a function of totalitarians, not free people.

By no means is Israel "America's best ally". That would be the UK or Canada. Israel is normally a friend but has been known to act against our interests rather grossly.

-Eric

[Publius6961]

Before someone glibly says "September 11th", answer when conservativism became about collective responsibility and group guilt.

I think you are in dire need of an education about Islam.
I recommend books written before 1964.
The first edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica is an eye opener; just look up "mahomedanism".
We are not dealing with an ordinary culture here.

And it is possible that collective guilt is an accurate assessment in certain extraordinarily dense cultures.

[E Rocc]

However, they would not be entitled to communities which are Arabrein and have special privileges, which is the case right now with the settlements.

What "special privileges" would those be? The ones which allow them to shoot back when they are shot at?

For starters there's the Arabrein communities. There's also the "by-pass roads", their priority on water resources (up to 85%), the right to grab extra land on basically a whim, and the double standard by which troublemakers (and their communities) are judged.

In Hebron, 20% of the city is under Israeli occupation in order to protect 400-700 Jewish squatters.

-Eric

[Texbob]

Because, they won the territory in war. That is how the USA territory was taken, via war against the Britsh.

[Publius6961]

In Hebron, 20% of the city is under Israeli occupation in order to protect 400-700 Jewish squatters.

Please explain how one can be a "squatter" in one's own country...

[AppyPappy]

At one time there were no such people as the "so-called Americans" and no such country as "America".

That's right. And now there is because we won the territory, just like Israel.

[Alouette]

For starters there's the Arabrein communities.

Built because no Jews were allowed to move into Arab villages.

There's also the "by-pass roads",

To avoid drive-by shootings.

their priority on water resources (up to 85%),

Completely false.

the right to grab extra land on basically a whim,

From whom? Who owned the land before the Jews came? The Jordanians or the Turks?

and the double standard by which troublemakers (and their communities) are judged.

You got that right! Palestinians can shoot babies in the head, murder mothers and children in their homes, and get away with it. Whereas "settlers" are constantly being accused of things they did not do.

[E Rocc]

Except in this case Israel intentionally broke the TV and then demanded a refund. Oslo was a legitimate treaty signed by elected bodies- but Israel never stopped the expansion of settlements, the number one concern of the Palestinians (the other signators of Oslo). I do not agree with the reaction of the minority of Palestinians who participate in terrorism but to ignore one of the root causes, Israel's failure to abide by legitimate treaty, is ignorance.

Very good assessment.

The Geneva Convention bans occupying nations from moving their own people into occupied lands. There's a very good reason for this. It makes it difficult to return lands as part of a peace deal when one's own citizens are there forming a lobby for annexation. A "no peace" faction is created within the occupier's internal political structure.

The West Bank and Gaza are classic examples of why this was wise. Almost immediately, zealots began squatting in these territories, in an attempt to force their annexation. The Israeli government either lacked the courage or the inclination to deal with them, so their numbers grew. Soon, the squatter lobby became powerful enough to consign either Labor or Likud to permanent minority status if they took action against them.

There's a misconception in America about the settlements, one which is encouraged by the Israeli lobby. They are presented as simple villages being attacked by the evil Arabs. That's not true. While some of the settlers are there because land is cheap (subsidized by the Israeli government) or because they were only allowed into Israel if they lived there, others are some of the most strident and zealous factions of Israeli society.

Indeed, the settlement movement provides Israel proper a sort of safety valve. The zealots are out in the West Bank, not in Israel proper pestering secular-minded Jews or Arab Israelis. This helps keep the peace at home.

The settlements have privileges that normal Arab villages do not have. They may grow almost at will simply by fencing off land they want. They have "by pass roads" which cut off the Arabs from each other. They are given the rights to up to 85% of the water in some regions. Perhaps most critically, their towns are not targetted by the IDF when there is trouble, the Arab towns are...regardless of who started the trouble.

The continued existence of the settlements would make any Palestinian state as unviable as the South African "homelands". Bush recognizes this, and has told the Israelis they must freeze the settlements and be prepared to remove them.

-Eric