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").
Name another country that conquered territory in a defensive war when attacked that had to give it back. It's a ludicrous notion.
They gave it back? I thought it got repossessed for failure to make payment.
The so-called West Bank is the West bank of the Jordan River, and the West bank of the Dead Sea. The 'original' (pre-'67) borders were established by a UN ceasefire line in 1949, when it was obvious that the then Palmach was about to exterminate the British backed Arab Legion. A quick cease fire was called to save some segment of British authority in the region.
The West Bank has a natural defensive border on the river, much like another border, called the Rio Grande, where the land on the North side of that river was taken from another country.
The Brits, by the way, have NEVER liked the idea of Israel, and have done their level best to destroy it, from the beginning, up to and including stripping all the kibbutzs of weapons as they pulled out of Palistine and giving the guns to the Arabs in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.
If Israel has no right to the West Bank, then by the same reasoning, we should give Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California back to Mexico, with improvements. How is your Spanish?
2nd, consider that Israel is surrounded by racist, hostile arab states that have all participated in wars hoping to annihilate Israel and that if Israel went to the old borders, it would only be 7 miles wide in some places.
3rd, there are currently over 20 "arab countries" - even president Bush refers to them as such. It only seems fair that there should be one state of Israel.
Why should arab's be allowed to have "arab countries" while everyone else has to be dilluted with diversity, immigration, affirmitive action and other crap? Who in their right mind would give a country to a bunch of murdering, corrupt, undemocratic villains hell-bent on the destruction of western civilization?
Hey, if Israel should give land "back" to Palestinians and Yasser Arafat, [who was born in Egypt], won't the United States be pressured by the "international community" to "give back" our "occupied Territories" of Texas, New Mexico, California and Arizona?
I believe many in the Israel govrnment share the opinion, and that is why they do not definitively close it down ... but that is just my opinion.
Ultimately, I believe it is going to come to either that (meaning they simply annex it and end up fighting a war to defeat their enemies once again) or it is going to come to some gross compromise of Israel's security with people who have vowed to destroy them. That could lead to a much worse outcome IMHO.
There is an outside chance that over a relatively long period of time, that true moderates gain control in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and through sustained preservation of peace and destruction of the terror network that currently exists amongt them, the Palestinians actually become peaceful and the Israelis work out an agreement with them for a small "Palestinian State".
With all that has happened, I believe that is the most remote possibility ... again, IMHO.
Well you've also got a bunch of third-world'ers south of the border who insist that California is "occupied territory" and should be returned to Mexico as well.
The fact remains that the Arabs lost the war and lost the territory.
On one level the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews is a real tragedy. Two peoples, with equally good claims, lay claim to one land and are unable to find a compromise which allows them to share. The early Zionists recognized this: The Arabs, after centuries of domination, wanted to re-establish a united Islam under which they could live with pride and power. The Jews, after centuries of unpleasant habitation in other peoples countries culminating in a frightful Holocaust, wanted the same thing and felt the only place they could do so was in their ancient homeland.
Everything else follows from that. The conflict continues. The settlements are both defensive and offensive; needed as protection in future conflicts, desired as part of the homeland and to make it more viable.
As for how human beings justify these things, perhaps you are young and naive. Human beings can find endless justification for anything. Remember manifest destiny? The white man's burden? I only mention these things because I think you'll be familiar with them. Not because I think white men or Americans are evil. Dark peoples have plenty of the same. Just look what the Arabs are justifying.
Part of Transjordan, which was established by the British after 1917, devolving the Hashemites under the late King Hussein's father...Jordan lost the territory in 1967 as in #2. It has never been part of any other "state", which includes Jerusalem, lying within it, which has certainly never been anyone elses capitol, other than the Jews.
To include this area west of the the more natural "border" of the Jordan River to the east, as "Palestinian" (the name Palestine given the region by Rome) would be to thrust yet another Arab state into the belly of Israel proper, which is otherwise already surrounded by Arab states but for the Mediterranian Sea.
Many Israeli settlements in the region undoubtedly predate the independence of modern Israel itself in 1948. Others originated in the spirit of that ancient Judaism, and the accession of Israeli administrations since then that take in the predominance of this general overview.
So it may ultimately be a matter of opinion, of which mine is that the notion of a Palestinian state within the West Bank, if even in Gaza, or as much of the northern Sinai that so-called "Palestinians" might prevail upon Egypt to "give" them (which would be none), is ridiculous.
What confuses me is: Why is the West Bank looked at any diffently than the land Isreal won in wars BEFORE 1967? We NEVER see any maps that show what Isreal was like in 1948 but we ALWAYS see the maps that show the West Bank and Gaza as not being part of Isreal.
It seems very inconsistant. 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"???
And on top of that, I never really see a compelling argument made by Isreal that they actually do have a "Right to the West Bank" as a result of winning a war. They just seem to never address it???
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?????
Explain to me why it's OK for the Palestinians to have a perfectly "JEW-FREE" state?
They have been violated so regularly by both sides, almost from the inception, that it is abundantly clear that this is so.
Oslo = Enabling Terrorism = Clinton's Real Leagcy
Isreal, now that the Olso accords are quite obviously dead, would be absolutely foolish to consider embarking in that direction again.
But, like I said, just my opinion.
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.