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").
Their acceptance of 'terrorism' and 'suicidal worship', make them a dangerous threat to democratic striving countries as in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Philipines, E Timor, Florida and NewYork City.
Read a little Pat Buchanan although I don't think he agrees with the Armey position.
IMO Bush in yesterdays speech said they need an overhaul, with 'repectable' constitutions and neo leaders, and between the lines, its war until that is achieved.
First of all, the status of the territory is territory obtained through armed conflict.
Every empire in history, indeed most countries created prior to the 20th century without exception were created this way.
The winner keeps the territory it gains and they can call it whatever they wish.
Indeed, the Islamic empire itself was created that way and it disintegrated the same way.
The winner gets to keep the territory and it can call it whatever it wishes.
Neither you nor the losers has a voice as to whether you approve or not.
No nation in the history of the world has been made to return land gained in war until Israel volunteered to do it after fighting against Jordan and Egypt and winning
. Neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations has ever attempted to force the winner of any war to cede territory to the losers. Look it up.
They know the futility of it, and there is no stronger instinct in a political bureaucracy than the instinct for self-preservation.
Aside from simply acknowledging political reality, when Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza, they were considered parts of Jordan and Egypt. "Palestine" did not exist until 1964. Indeed it would have been odd if it did, since Islam (the real villain) did not recognize political boundaries, the way we westerners do, until the 20th century (and then only for political leverage; 30 "countries" have more clout than a single giant harb al Islam)...
Now, that is reality. That Israel feared world opinion enough to risk cultural and national suicide is a whole other story.
When Israel and the (rejected) muslim state were created there were two essential conditions, which are ignored or brushed aside in most discussions: that the political rights of non-Jews in Israel were guaranted and similarly that the political rights of Jews in muslim countries would similarly be guaranteed.
The Muslim world has no intention of honoring the latter but endlessly repeat the requirement of the former.
Indeed, Jews were expelled from Muslim countries pretty much constantly since the 20s. Look up the number of Jews in Muslim middle-eastern countries.
So yes, the Israelis can pretty much build anywhere they want; it is their territory and they can call it anything they want.
I assume that you have bought into the canard that the Jews "threw muslims" out of their homes after the creation of Israel?
A more in-depth reading of history will reveal that to be not quite accurate. I suggest you not give up your reading. See for yourself.
Finally, a firm grasp of the basics of the subject would be useful: The name is IsrAEl, not Isreal.
BINGO!!!!
I am in favor of Israel! I don't "Curse them". Does this mean I get a "Get into jail free" pass? Even though I don't have a "personal relationship with Jesus" they way Evangelical Christians think I should? Does this mean that my being a (Non-practicing) Catholic is "OK"???
And please don't be offended with my kidding...I'm acutally serious with the content.
Thank you for your input. I give you my word that this post is real and sincere. Not that my word is worth a whole lot but it's all I got...
There is a growing "Hebraic" movement in fundamentalist Christianity in which many of my family members are involved. It is scary to watch. They won't be happy until they have your children over there on the front lines.
Make that "Get into HEAVEN free" pass. Sorry.
That might be true of some, but not all (probably not most).
"hardcore Occupationalists believe that date is more accurately 1967 A.D."
Do you have some history prior to 1967 that shows that Pallestine was ever a state? If you do, please produce it.
The more pertinent question is, why are we so intent on being involved in a fight over which Semitic tribe occupies Israel? Prior to our involvement in the region, the last Islamic terrorists we ever had to worry about were the Barbary Pirates. I've never read anything about Eisenhower lying awake at night trying to figure out how to deal with Muslim terrorists.
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.