I am not a close follower of this conflict. What are the arguments FOR the Israli settlements? I have often heard Israeli settlements quoted as a horrible thing Israel is doing to Palestinians, but I have never heard the other side on this. Is there one? Does the pro-Israel side agree that the settlements are bad? Do they downplay them?
-
Features
Arguments for Israeli Settlements
- Thread starter Jolly_Penguin
- Start date
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
God is their estate agent and he gave them the land. Therefore anyone else is a trespasser.
But Prime Minister Netanyahu has remained steadfast, refusing to turn over more land to the Palestinians whom, he is convinced, will turn it into another Gaza-like terrorist launching pad.
Read more at http://observer.com/2014/10/bibi-netanyahu-the-chicksht-who-wont-play-ball-with-obama/#ixzz3Hex6D8vT
They think that by pushing further and further into Palestinian territory they are making it safer for Israel because the rockets have further to travel? They are using the settlers as human shields? Is that the reasoning they give?
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Settlements are bad. But maybe could be used for future homes for Arab refugees?
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Hardly. Look at the map: The rockets aren't even coming from that direction, and as far as I know not a single rocket has struck a settlement yet. I think in general the attitude from those who are running for cover from rockets is basically not to lift a finger to stop the settlements just to spite Palestinians...
untermensche
Contributor
There are no valid arguments for them.
They violate international law.
The Israelis have peaceful methods they could use to stop Palestinian resistance.
End the reason for the resistance by giving the Palestinians their sovereignty.
No, that won't create a world of perfect safety for Israeli's.
Abuse people for decades and there is a price to pay.
But the cycle must end, and Israel has all the power to end it.
They violate international law.
The Israelis have peaceful methods they could use to stop Palestinian resistance.
End the reason for the resistance by giving the Palestinians their sovereignty.
No, that won't create a world of perfect safety for Israeli's.
Abuse people for decades and there is a price to pay.
But the cycle must end, and Israel has all the power to end it.
I saw no reports on where they landed but rockets were coming from the West Bank in the latest round of fighting.
That being said, populations grow. It's been a long time since Israel has built on land that wasn't obviously going to be retained by Israel in any reasonable land swap deal. Furthermore, they get accused of building settlements when they approve housing in Arab areas also, not to mention even when it's land within the 67 borders--the accusations are far more about politics than the truth.
The main issue is the use of such construction as an excuse by the Palestinians not to talk.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
What does real estate go for in the settlements?
Jokodo
Veteran Member
That article doesn't even mention the word "settlements", it only shows up in the comments. And the question of settlements is largely irrelevant from the perspective of security - if anything, they make Israel less secure, all else equal. Israel could conceivably evacuate the settlements tomorrow and still maintain security over the West Bank to prevent it from turning "another Gaza-like terrorist launching pad". In principle, it could go the other way round too - hand over security to the PLO and retract all forces out of the West Bank while leaving the settlements to fend for themselves. So, security does not imply settlements and settlements do not guarantee security
The way it is, though, significant Israeli forces are tied up safeguarding the settlements, forces which are not available to thwart potential attacks on Israel proper. In the status quo, the settlements are thus a net negative for Israeli security.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
What you mean is he will not return land that he has occupied by force in breach of his agreements, which in fact the reason for Gaza. Do you really think America is doing anything to stop the colonization and ethnic cleansing of the untermenschen? What about the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed including whole families?
Arctish
Centimillionaire
The only land that is obviously going to be ceded to Israel is what's inside the 1967 borders, with the exception of East Jerusalem.
You've said in the past you think building the settlements was a mistake. Do you still feel that way?
Last edited:
Jokodo
Veteran Member
If you define a "reasonable" land swap as one that allows Israel to keep all current and future settlements, that's tautologically true. If you constrain "reasonable" such that Palestine becomes a viable entity, not so much. But that's even irelevant, because whatever land swap deals might be reached in the future, until it has been reached, Israel doesn't have the right to build there.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
The Zionists (not representative of all Jews) don't want talks other than just to talk while taking land.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
So if Israel gave the Palestinians sovereignty, that would mitigate the problem? Don't the Palestinians want Israel wiped off the map?
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Source?
Bullshit. The reason why Israel isn't building on land that is not "obviously" part of a "reasonable" land swap is that Israel does not consider any land swap reasonable where anything was built. So conveniently, as they expand and build more, the amount of "obviously reasonable" land that Israel insists on keeping is growing. Like the most recent acquisition, where Palestinian private land was appropriated as Israeli state land. Meanwhile Palestinians aren't getting squat, and the wasteland that Israel is prepared to land is staying the same, and actually serves a double purpose because it's mostly inhabited by Israeli Arabs that the Jewish supremacists would like to get rid of.
AS for being an excuse not to talk, Israel is doing the same thing. For example, they are using the Palestinian seeking recognition in UN as excuse not to talk. They are using Hamas's activities in Gaza as reason to to talk. They are using Palestinians not recognizing Israel as "Jewish" state as an excuse not to talk. The real reason of course is that if Israel were to talk, they would gain nothing, but if they don't talk they can continue to take more land, and Palestinians have shown that they don't have the stomach to oppose Israel.
arkirk
Veteran Member
The "settlements" are armed land and property siezures...just short of war but definitely a crime against the Palestinians. Zionism drives it. Netanyahu's entire political career rests on Zionism and fear and hatred for Muslims and Persians. He is well aware there are people in the Islamic world who know of his crimes and THAT is what he is scared of.
untermensche
Contributor
Many probably do, as any sufferer of decades of violent oppression would want.
They can't hurt more than a handful of Israeli's though. And of course every normal effort should be used to prevent it. The Israeli's don't have special privileges to use excessive violence however.
Wiping Israel off the map right now by the Palestinians is impossible.
It would be made more impossible if Israel agreed to a nuclear weapons free Middle East.
But as long as Israel has nukes others will of course want them as a deterrent.
The security effects are minimal--all that really counts is the length of the border and that's not that many people--it's mostly electronics.