(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").

[rdb3]

Answer my question, please.

[mikeIII]

If Israel were to return these lands, from what you know of the Palestimians and Islam, do you think they'll peacefully co-exist?

[aruanan]

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

1. In 1922 the British divided the British Mandate of Palestine into two portions: the east district (about 2/3) and the west district (about 1/3) in preparation for the establishment of the Jewish homeland called for by the Balfour Declaration.
2. Jews were to be permitted to live only in the western administrative district.
3. The dividing line was the Jordan River.
4. In 1946, the first independent Palestinian state was created. It was an Arab state. It was Jordan. It was comprised of the eastern administrative district. The western border was the Jordan River.
5. In 1947, the U.N. proposed the creation of the second independent Palestinian state, the state of Israel. They proposed doing so by giving a small portion of the western administrative district (the mostly desert regions), retaining for the Arabs most of the so-called West Bank which also happened to be the former Nothern and Southern Kingdoms of ancient Israel. Palestinian Jews had, of course, maintained a continuous presence in that region (and in other lands throughout the Middle East) since the first century and well before.
6. The Arabs rejected this plan.
7. They wanted not only the eastern administrative district and the West Bank, but the entire western administrative district as well. After Israel declared its independence, the surrounding Arab nations launched an attack with the purpose of destroying Israel.
8. During this attack, Jordan annexed what is known as the West Bank.
9. Israel successfully defended its existence and ended up with more territory than the U.N. had proposed, though with significantly less than planned by the British partition of Palestine into the two administrative districts.
10. In 1967, the surrounding nations again tried to destroy Israel. Again, Israel successfully defended itself and regained the West Bank (part of the western administrative district and the ancient lands of Israel) as well as taking the Gaza Strip, the Sinai, and some other territory in the north. As part of the "peace" process, Israel returned control of the Sinai back to Egypt and portions of the others to Arab control.

[SteamshipTime]

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

[SteamshipTime]

The Palestinians are sub-human.

The Israelis are sub-humane.

Happy now?

[rdb3]

Objection! Nonresponsive. But I get the gist of what you are saying. You're just not man enough to come right out and say it.

[droberts]

Seems like our taxes have been keeping Israel alive for a while too.

[Anamensis]

Hell, even the Palistinians don't seem to want anything more than "Pre-1967 land". Which, based on the maps I have seen actually means "Pre-1967 but Post (For whatever reasons) 1948"???

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.

Israel won, occupied the land, and have the right, even by UN standards, to occupy it till the Palestinians sign a Peace Accord. The Palestinians have refused to sign a Peace Accord, so the Israelis keep occupying.

Meanwhile, I suspect they feel that if they have to occupy this buffer zone for years and years, they might as well use it as they see fit. And it isn't illegal unless they settle citizens there forceably, at least that was what I have gathered from my readings of the various and sundry literature.

Finally, those settlements can indeed be disbanded if the Arabs ever sign a Peace Accord (it's been done before, they had settlements on the Sinai peninsula, then disbanded them and gave it back to Egypt).

However, I personally don't see why the settlements should be disbanded. After all, the Jews DO ALLOW Arabs to live among them, they have given citizenship to 700,000 to 1,000,000 of them. What I don't understand is why Arabs can loudly proclaim that they should be able to live in a Jewish state but no Jews will be allowed to live in an Arab state, and nobody calls them on this incredible racism. But, oh well.

[Anamensis]

The arab nations rejected the '47 UN Partition and attacked Israel to destroy it, why should they get the benefit of borders they rejected?

Dang, good point!! BUMP!

[AppyPappy]

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.

Tough. Run for office and get it stopped.

[AppyPappy]

Our taxes go to other countries who openly hate us. Israel does not.

[anguish]

You say they "Won it fair and square from agressors" (Which I beleive they very well may have) but they don't even present it that way themselves?????

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.

[rdb3]

You come out with both guns blazin', don't you? I like that style.

[Howlin]

It is due to our involvement there that the NY skyline was altered.

You were so blown away by the section you pulled out, you must have missed that one.

*Alert* We're LOADED with 'em, aren't we?

[rdb3]

I didn't go after that one because it's par for the course for our resident Blame American Firsters.

But what I highlighted took me aback. I'm new to that one.

[Howlin]

Pretty vile.

[Teacher317]

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

So your solution is to cave in to their demands and encourage every other potential terrorist on the planet to deal with the US in exactly the same way? That doesn't seem like an intelligent course of action.

[droberts]

Should stop sending them to those countries too.

[freeforall]

Because in a free country private ownership of property is protected under the law.