(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").

[whoever]

Perhaps it might help you if you were to discard the term the media and anti-Israel folks have given to the housing in the West Bank. They are not 'settlements'. That would indicate non-ownership. These are 'housing developments' on land that belongs to Israel.

Words mean things. The media knows this and they will always distort things their way, which is pro-Palestine in this case.

It is good for you to ask these questions and I believe that you have received wise counsel on the subject.

[mindprism.com]

THERE ARE NO SUCH ANIMALS AS PALESTENIAN- they are all bastardized egyptians-syrians-lebanese-jordanians

And the American 'melting-pot' means there are no "Americans".

Whatever you want to call them, they are a people striving for statehood. Its no suprise why when the conventional wisdom seems to say "A people without a state are not a people who have rights".

Listening to the arguments, you would think that the people living in Palestine before the creation of Israel were on legal par with 'the homeless' in NYC.

"Human refuse", "inconvenient vermin" come to mind. Which, of course, gives us the right to dispossess them even further. All in the name of progress ya know.

[rastus macgill]

Palestineans would likely jump at the chance for citizenship then they could just vote to call the whole country Palestine.But then it wouldn't be a Jewish state and a whole lot of peoples apocalyptic fantasies of end times would be ruined.The ideal solution would be a single peaceful democratic Secular State that ensured the rights of all who live there Jew Muslim or Christian but I must be dreaming.

[Gurn]

Whatever you want to call them, they are a people striving for statehood. Its no suprise why when the conventional wisdom seems to say "A people without a state are not a people who have rights".

I call them "murdering filth." Or, if you like, "animals who raise their babies to kill themselves." Is that better?

There's also "bloodthirsty Jew-haters" and "Foul smelling goat herders who follow a made-up, pagan religion."

Which are you most comfortable with? Because I wouldn't want to offend anybody who feels sympathy for the so-called "Palestinians." I think those are the so-called "people" who danced in the streets on 9/11. Or am I mistaken?

[mindprism.com]

I call them "murdering filth." Or, if you like, "animals who raise their babies to kill themselves." Is that better?

There's also "bloodthirsty Jew-haters" and "Foul smelling goat herders who follow a made-up, pagan religion."

Unlike the loving, peaceful Torah wherein the 'chosen' are directed to enter the land of 'wild, subhuman bloodthirsty animals who hate your guts' and then, by all appearances, the chosen are to bemoan their victimhood and lay the blame at the feet of the 'subhumans' -- because to even acknowlege the idiocy of this holy mandate would call into question the whole 'chosen people' status itself.

If you ask me, such a thing amounts to a vanity-and-hate-driven human sacrifice, of self and others, a holy charade that is rooted in the divine genocides and barely masked rituals of human sacrifice in the old testament.

So if your sense of self-holiness motivates you to kick the wild 'dogs' and lie down among them, don't expect me to acknowlege your actions as divine or civilized.

The 'holy land' thing is IDOLATRY. The 'chosen people' thing has evolved into a violation of the first commandment.

I could care less what form of suicidal endeavors people are compelled to, but don't ask me for money or blessings, and don't expect me to sit still while your actions rile the whole world and threaten its stability and the very future of mankind.

Israel: You tried hard and well, nice try, but the world will not allow you to force our necks into the noose of divine sacrifice. Mankind has outgrown such beastial rituals.

[Gurn]

I guess you missed my question. The people you're apparently feeling sorry for were the ones dancing in the street on 9/11, right? It indeed is a stretch for me to call them "people", but you get the picture, right?

[Windsong]

"So there ISN'T a crusade to secure a biblical "promised land" for the "chosen people"

I never said anything of the sort. Incidentally, I don't believe the Jews are saved at all. They reject Jesus as the son of God, and like everyone else who rejects His Son, they also reject the Father as well. They can hop up and down on any crusade they want..it is all futile unless they turn to Christ for help. Jesus could come back TOMORROW...what will that have gotten them then? Do you think Christ will acknowledge their Crusade? Or the Muslims? Or for that matter, ANY non-christian? Being a Jew is on a SPIRITUAL level..NOT in someones genetic code. Besides many many Jews do not have records of their lineage back to Abraham anyways, so what does it matter? Isreal is SPIRITUAL. NOT PHYSICAL. Every single person who follows Christ can be called a "Jew". I do support them politically however...they are democratic. They are pro 2nd amendment. Thats enough for me. BUt spiritually, we are as different as black and white. They follow man, whilst I follow Christ.

[mindprism.com]

Didn't you say "They are a "live and let live" religious people (unlike MUSLIMS)."?

I was pointing out the incongruency between a 'live and let live' religious philosophy and the historical turmoil of Zionism. But here are some examples of a Jewish movement that has been honored for thier community education efforts by the US Government by establishing "education and sharing day, USA" to coincide with and acknowlege the birthday of the movements leader:

Live and let live?

Q:"Can we really afford to divert time and money to the campaign to transform the gentiles?"

A:"[T]he Rambam uses the expression, "lakuf ("to forcefully influence") all inhabitants of the world to accept the Noachide commands." Although obviously one must do this in a pleasant, gentle, and peaceful way, it still must be done with persistence. If you have already tried several times, try again nevertheless. We frequently see that although people are sometimes spoken to five times, they do not change until they hear it a sixth time!"

Q:"Will Moshiach come entirely by our efforts on pulling individual Jews out of golus, or through our work in transforming the golus into geulah?"

A:"[I]nfluencing non-Jews to keep their mitzvos, the Seven Noachide Laws... will assist our task of making the world into a dwelling place for G-d, and help bring about the arrival of Moshiach."

Sounds to me like people want "One religion for me, and THIS religion for you" and are on a crusade to change the world not by convincing people, but by insistance, demonization and propaganda methods.

Live and let live, sure. Note: Once a religion enters politics and/or aquires a social agenda, especially an aggressive one, it is fair game for criticism and denounciation. It enters the court of public opinion.