Armistice lines following 1948 War of Independence
Arab attack, May 1967
June, 1967 cease-fire lines
1993 Oslo Accords
Jerusalem, 2000
Posted on 06/25/2002 1:20:13 PM PDT by 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").
What about the majority who support such terrorism?
Armistice lines following 1948 War of Independence
Arab attack, May 1967
June, 1967 cease-fire lines
1993 Oslo Accords
Jerusalem, 2000
2. Do you think that Germany should get Prussia back?
2. Do you think that Germany should get Prussia back?
Even if they werne't "still technically at war" with any "Arab states", Israel could still hold that territory.
Why? Because they won a war, silly. Victors in war often gain land. In fact that is the primary way states gain land. A better question would be whether anyone could come up with an argument for why Israel should not hold this land they won in a war and have decided they need for security purposes. Again, short of losing a war (which they haven't yet), how can you justify saying Israel ought to voluntarily give up their land? The burden's on you. The "Palestinians" who want that land either ought to come up with a brilliant irrefutable justification, or they need to win a war against Israel. Short of that, there's nothing to say. It's Israel land to do with as she pleases.
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).
Explain?
To be honest, from my point of view "occupation" is much worse than "settlements". Think about it: In "occupation" an army moves in and stations troops around your neighborhood. But what is "settlement"? Regular people go and live in a place. What is so objectionable about that? (Aside from the fact that these people are Jews, of course.)
Have you heard of Guantanamo Bay?
-PJ
P.S. Oh yeah there's a Biblical justification too.
Thank you! This point is almost never stressed. The same people who would lecture us about "multiculturalism" see nothing wrong with the fact that there are "Arab countries" and "Muslim countries"! And not only that, but these "Arab countries" and "Muslim countries" can do no wrong, and we must bend to their every wish, according to the hypocritical leftist geniuses.
I mean the hypocrisy is so blatant but for some reason no one notices it. No one bats an eye that there are "Muslim countries", it's just accepted for some reason. I really don't get it.
If I see the phrase "cycle of violence" one more time I'm going to be sick.
They are all subhumans in that part of the world, and we have no stake.
I sense some cognitive dissonance going on here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.