Is this an accurate picture of settlement in the West Bank?

[Loren Pechtel]

What would happen if the US just "pulled out" of the middle east entirely. Just basically said, "we're out. Good luck to you all. whomever wishes to trade with the US may, but we ain't helping any of you out with any of your issues with each other. may the best diplomat or army win. good luck to you all and may your personal version of god bless you, whatever that means." And then buy some popcorn... seriously, what do you think would happen?

Iran would probably get nukes. Saudi Arabia would respond in kind. Egypt would be next. Israel would also significantly ramp up its nuclear arms production. You then have a situation where we would be just one coup away from a radical Islamist regime from getting access to nuclear weapons. Nukes are also much more likely to make their way to the black market at some future date. Weapons that eventually could be used to target the US and/or its allies.

Pakistan already has nukes and they're on the edge of falling to the Islamists as it is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nuclear war.

Pulling out would mean the Islamists would end up in power and they're not going to be stopped short of war. Since they would have a nuclear arsenal the resulting war would be nuclear.

Perhaps with Israel, if not then with either the US or Russia.

don't care about Russia or Israel.. why would the US be attacked for letting them come to power? I said stop being involved at all, not ignore any move against the US. I was thinking along the lines of, "we out, do what you want, but if you so much as look nasty in our general direction, we will glass-top your entire country"... something like that.

Because we are still a huge threat to the Islamists by our very existence. We present something far more attractive than they do, they will keep trying to drive away the influence.

 

[Arctish]

Response value 2. I would have given it a zero but bullshit is good fertilizer.

The ability to kill more of an opponent's people than it has to kill yours has always been the biggest bargaining chip in a peace deal. Promises to give back stuff you stole is paltry by comparison.

Except world opinion won't let Israel simply kill all the combatants. Thus the ability to do so is meaningless.

What is the basis of your argument here? Are you suggesting Israel would never do anything contrary to world opinion? If so, that's beyond bullshit. You know and I know that Israel does it all the time. In fact, it was Israel's flouting of world opinion that created the illegal settlements in the first place.

All the handwaving in the world won't obscure the fact that the ability to inflict more damage on an opponent than he can inflict on you is the biggest, most effective, and most prized bargaining chip at the negotiating table. It is, without a doubt, the superior bargaining position. You can accept this fact, or you can continue to look like you don't know the first thing about negotiations.

*Side note: what Hamas likes or doesn't like has nothing to do with the strength of Israel's bargaining position. Hamas doesn't even represent the Palestinians, ffs.

The control a reasonable chunk of the Palestinian population. That population has no voice other than what Hamas says.

You claimed the settlements were Israel's only real bargaining chip. That claim is bullshit. Israel has many bargaining chips; foremost among them is Israel's ability to slaughter Palestinians at will. That is what we are discussing here. What Hamas likes or doesn't like has fuck all to do with it.

The real problem is that it's Palestinian water from Palestinian aquifers on Palestinian land, but Israel steals it and sends it to illegal settlements built on stolen land.

Claiming it's Palestinian water doesn't make it so.

By that same token, calling it Israel's water doesn't make it so.

The water resources we're talking about are located in the West Bank, which is not part of Israel. It comes from Palestine and is recognized as a Palestinian resource by the international community. Not that Israel gives a hoot about world opinion wrt Palestine.

BTW, you might want to check your facts. Water consumption per capita is higher in the settlements than in Palestinian villages. If anyone is wasting water, it's the settlers.

Try again. Some of that Israeli water is being multi-counted. (Sewer water cleaned and used for irrigation.)

Where did you hear that? Show me the source of this claim.

Israel has no control over the border with Egypt. It's Egypt that wants nothing to do with the Palestinians. When they get into Egypt they use Egyptian soil to attack Israel.

More bullshit.

Israel built and maintains a frigging wall between Gaza and Eqypt despite the fact that the land there isn't part of Israel. The one time the Gazans managed to blast a hole in it and travel freely into Egypt without IDF interference, they went shopping for groceries.

[Citation needed]

Here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4244730.stm

And the time they blasted a hole in it was for the purpose of letting a bunch of terrorists into Egypt to attack Israel. While other might have used it that wasn't the purpose.

Your turn. Provide a source.

Yes, I'm sure. And before you start spouting your usual pulled-from-thin-air apologetics, let me remind you that we're talking about non-Israelis living outside of Israel. It isn't any of Israel business who they marry, where their spouses are from, or where they want to live.

Samara's repeated applications over the years to gain his wife resident status in the West Bank were turned down. Jailed by Israel in the past for membership in radical nationalist factions, he was barred from leaving the West Bank two years ago when he attempted to travel to a conference in Jordan.

In other words, Israel won't let in a terrorist associate.

Even if he was a member in a 'radical nationalist faction', that doesn't mean he was a terrorist. Any faction that calls for a Two State solution can be branded a 'radical nationalist' faction by Zionists, no matter how peaceful their methods.

And anyway, it isn't any of Israel's business if a 'radical nationalist' non-Israeli citizen can bring his wife into a part of the world that isn't Israel.

Israel is intruding into the family life of non-Israelis. A promise to butt out is yet another bargaining chip Israel holds, whether you want to admit it or not.

As for the other article--if they can't travel how did they meet and fall in love?

Well, if you're truly interested you could do a little bit of research.

And the checkpoints don't strange commerce unless Hamas wants them to. It's just Hamas routinely lobs rounds at the crossings in order to shut them down. Hamas doesn't want the farmers--they don't want people to be able to make it without supporting Hamas.

<citation needed>

It's called the news, something you pay no attention to if it doesn't come from the left.

Link to this news. Show me where you read it or heard of it.

And I suppose you also think the right solution to BLM is to put blacks back in slavery?

Not that it would even work over there--once an oppressor is thrown off allowing them to return to power is very bloody.

^This^ isn't even good for fertilizer. Not only does it not make any sense in the context of the conversation, it doesn't make any sense as a stand alone comment.

The point is your "solution" is to put those who have thrown off their oppressors back under the foot of those oppressors--oppressors who by now want nothing less than extirpation.

Okay, this has gone beyond bullshit and is now in shenanigans territory.

You know that all your talk of throwing off oppressors does not apply to Palestinian Jews and their Muslim and Christian neighbors. It doesn't even apply to Jewish life under the Ottomans. It applies to European Jews living in Europe.

Look, I understand how fond you are of this story. It makes the Zionist takeover of Palestine sound like something noble and uplifting. But it's a fairy tale. The Palestinian Muslims and Christians did not oppress, enslave, or subjugate their Jewish neighbors. They lived side by side through centuries of boring, uneventful coexistence, with plenty of intermarriages between the various faith groups to keep the genetic links close. In fact (a fact you know as well as I do since you have discussed this many times) the Palestinian Jews are more closely related to their Muslim and Christian neighbors in Palestine than they are to the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

If you want anyone to believe that your talk of Jews throwing off oppressors in Palestine is more than just talk, it's up to you to provide information that backs it up. Now would be a good time to start.

You were hinting very broadly that Jews can't survive among Palestinians. Show us where you got that idea. If you decide to stand by this claim, please explain why you don't give a damn about all those little Jewish children who are being placed in what you say is deadly peril.

They can't survive in Palestine without military defense--something you want to strip from them.

We don't have a lot of data on unguarded Jewish survival in Palestine for the simple reason it's so dangerous that nobody does it willingly. All we have are the data points from those who take a wrong turn or the like, some manage to get back to Jewish areas alive, some don't.

1) Wrong. I want them to be Israeli citizens in Israel or Palestinian citizens in Palestine or citizens of the country they prefer and live in, and to stop using military might to steal land and resources from their neighbors.

2) If you don't have a lot of data, you have no business reaching firm conclusions. Nevertheless, you made claims so now it's up to you to show your work.

What data did you use? Is your conclusion based in data at all, or is it just the usual hate speech we hear so often when people try to justify injustice?

Living in Palestine was presented as an option.

It's not. It would be dying in Palestine. That's what tends to happen to undefended Jews in Palestine.

The comment that started this side track was that the settlers could remain in the West Bank after the formation of the Palestinian State if they wanted to, not that they'd be prevented from going back to Israel. Anyway, if you truly believe that Jews living among Palestinians have a reduced life expectancy, you should throw your support behind getting them back inside Israel as soon as possible.

So why don't you?

Staying in Palestine was presented as an option to avoid the costs of moving them to Israel.

No it wasn't. This is where this part of the discussion started:

Palestine is not pre-1967 Jordan; JORDAN isn't even pre-1967 Jordan. The kinds of people who would end up RUNNING a Palestinian state have a far more realistic idea of what their new nation would and wouldn't be capable of. Winning any kind of war with Israel is not one of those things, and is not going to be part of their national aspirations any time this century. Removing the West Bank settlements is doable, however.

The settlements don't need to be removed. The Jews living there can become citizens of Palestine if they wish to continue living there.

Cost wasn't mentioned at all.

Even making the comment shows how utterly out of touch with the reality you are. It's like saying that you don't need to move just because a lion cage is being built around your house.

Your notion of what living in Palestine means is pretty fucking racist. But let's suppose for a moment that Jews living among Palestinians really is like people living inside a lion's cage. Why aren't you at the forefront of people calling for Jews to be removed from such a dangerous place? Why do you not object to Jewish children being brought there?

Why, Loren? Why, if you truly believe it so damned dangerous for Jews to live in Palestine, do you never call for an end to settling them there?

 

[Malintent]

don't care about Russia or Israel.. why would the US be attacked for letting them come to power? I said stop being involved at all, not ignore any move against the US. I was thinking along the lines of, "we out, do what you want, but if you so much as look nasty in our general direction, we will glass-top your entire country"... something like that.

Because we are still a huge threat to the Islamists by our very existence. We present something far more attractive than they do, they will keep trying to drive away the influence.

I agree that is a possibility.. and with the US having no allegiance to (anyone) the Middle East... we hold a hair trigger on our arsenal over them.
Terrorist attack kills 5 people in NYC - nuke kills 100,000 in Pakastan... how long can they keep that up?

And with the US only being a theoretical threat because we simply exist somewhere having no effect on them, but just don't subscribe to their beliefs, I really don't see how the possibility of total annihilation of a Terrorist's entire country stacks up to them maybe killing a handful of Americans. Hell, wouldn't the ME tribes enforce a "leave the US alone or we will kill you for fucking with them and getting us attacked" policy?

It is my understanding (which can be totally wrong - tell me) is that Terrorists have a problem with the US because of our actions, not our beliefs. If the US takes NO actions in the ME, I am of the opinion we will be left alone, and potentially have a new trade route with a now-turned-peaceful nation (once they are done killing EACH OTHER).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except world opinion won't let Israel simply kill all the combatants. Thus the ability to do so is meaningless.

What is the basis of your argument here? Are you suggesting Israel would never do anything contrary to world opinion? If so, that's beyond bullshit. You know and I know that Israel does it all the time. In fact, it was Israel's flouting of world opinion that created the illegal settlements in the first place.

All the handwaving in the world won't obscure the fact that the ability to inflict more damage on an opponent than he can inflict on you is the biggest, most effective, and most prized bargaining chip at the negotiating table. It is, without a doubt, the superior bargaining position. You can accept this fact, or you can continue to look like you don't know the first thing about negotiations.

1) Hamas likes it when anyone other than their top people die.

2) World opinion means that Israel has little ability to go after those top people. What would the world say if Israel bombed Gaza military HQ? (Hint: It's under the main hospital.)

You claimed the settlements were Israel's only real bargaining chip. That claim is bullshit. Israel has many bargaining chips; foremost among them is Israel's ability to slaughter Palestinians at will. That is what we are discussing here. What Hamas likes or doesn't like has fuck all to do with it.

And you're not listening to the fact that the supposed bargaining chip doesn't exist.

The water resources we're talking about are located in the West Bank, which is not part of Israel. It comes from Palestine and is recognized as a Palestinian resource by the international community. Not that Israel gives a hoot about world opinion wrt Palestine.

Unfortunately, while in general the BBC is good they're not when it comes to anything Israel/Palestine. I think this is simple economics rather than malice--there are more than 100 times as many Muslims as Jews, telling the truth would lose them too many eyeballs.

Try again. Some of that Israeli water is being multi-counted. (Sewer water cleaned and used for irrigation.)

Where did you hear that? Show me the source of this claim.

No point in it, you wouldn't believe any Israeli source.

Here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4244730.stm

1) I've already explained my problems with the BBC in this.

2) It doesn't matter because you article doesn't even say what you imagine it does. You're showing the existence of the wall and the fact that a hole was blasted in it, not that Israel built or maintains it.

In other words, Israel won't let in a terrorist associate.

Even if he was a member in a 'radical nationalist faction', that doesn't mean he was a terrorist. Any faction that calls for a Two State solution can be branded a 'radical nationalist' faction by Zionists, no matter how peaceful their methods.

He might not be a shooter but he's part of a terrorist organization. They didn't name the faction because they didn't want to show that Israel's actions are reasonable.

And anyway, it isn't any of Israel's business if a 'radical nationalist' non-Israeli citizen can bring his wife into a part of the world that isn't Israel.

Israel is intruding into the family life of non-Israelis. A promise to butt out is yet another bargaining chip Israel holds, whether you want to admit it or not.

It's unlikely the actions are being done out of love. Israel has seen too many marriages being used for terrorist purposes, why should they think differently in this case?

Link to this news. Show me where you read it or heard of it.

Tracking down the truth through all the lies told by the terrorists and their sympathizers isn't worth it as it's very unlikely there's a non-Israeli source.

Okay, this has gone beyond bullshit and is now in shenanigans territory.

You know that all your talk of throwing off oppressors does not apply to Palestinian Jews and their Muslim and Christian neighbors. It doesn't even apply to Jewish life under the Ottomans. It applies to European Jews living in Europe.

History, pay attention to it!

Do you not realize Jews (no matter where they were born) were second class "citizens" there before the creation of Israel?

Look, I understand how fond you are of this story. It makes the Zionist takeover of Palestine sound like something noble and uplifting. But it's a fairy tale. The Palestinian Muslims and Christians did not oppress, enslave, or subjugate their Jewish neighbors.

And blacks weren't oppressed, enslaved or subjugated in America circa 1900, either.

1) Wrong. I want them to be Israeli citizens in Israel or Palestinian citizens in Palestine or citizens of the country they prefer and live in, and to stop using military might to steal land and resources from their neighbors.

2) If you don't have a lot of data, you have no business reaching firm conclusions. Nevertheless, you made claims so now it's up to you to show your work.

What we do have are the cases of Jews straying into Palestinian territory by accident. The death toll is appreciable. We can't get better data than this unless you want to want to emulate Josef Mengele.

No it wasn't. This is where this part of the discussion started:

Palestine is not pre-1967 Jordan; JORDAN isn't even pre-1967 Jordan. The kinds of people who would end up RUNNING a Palestinian state have a far more realistic idea of what their new nation would and wouldn't be capable of. Winning any kind of war with Israel is not one of those things, and is not going to be part of their national aspirations any time this century. Removing the West Bank settlements is doable, however.

The settlements don't need to be removed. The Jews living there can become citizens of Palestine if they wish to continue living there.

Cost wasn't mentioned at all.

But this stemmed from discussion of the cost of removing the settlements.

Your notion of what living in Palestine means is pretty fucking racist. But let's suppose for a moment that Jews living among Palestinians really is like people living inside a lion's cage. Why aren't you at the forefront of people calling for Jews to be removed from such a dangerous place? Why do you not object to Jewish children being brought there?

Why, Loren? Why, if you truly believe it so damned dangerous for Jews to live in Palestine, do you never call for an end to settling them there?

There's nothing racist about it, this is a matter of religion and culture. You are treating any indication of a difference between two populations as racist. I think that's the heart of the problem--you can't believe the level of hatred and thus you simply delete it from your worldview.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because we are still a huge threat to the Islamists by our very existence. We present something far more attractive than they do, they will keep trying to drive away the influence.

I agree that is a possibility.. and with the US having no allegiance to (anyone) the Middle East... we hold a hair trigger on our arsenal over them.
Terrorist attack kills 5 people in NYC - nuke kills 100,000 in Pakastan... how long can they keep that up?

No. Washington D.C. is blown up with a nuke. Who do we shoot back at? There's no target short of glassing the Muslim lands, something the liberals will never agree with.

It is my understanding (which can be totally wrong - tell me) is that Terrorists have a problem with the US because of our actions, not our beliefs. If the US takes NO actions in the ME, I am of the opinion we will be left alone, and potentially have a new trade route with a now-turned-peaceful nation (once they are done killing EACH OTHER).

In the short term you're right. We get attacked because we are trying to prevent an Islamist takeover of the area.

In the long term, though, it make no difference. We keep tempting their people away from the true path, we must be stopped. Also, there are Muslims living in our lands, they must be brought to the true path.

It's fight now or fight a much worse war later. Peaceful coexistence isn't an option.

 

[Arctish]

What is the basis of your argument here? Are you suggesting Israel would never do anything contrary to world opinion? If so, that's beyond bullshit. You know and I know that Israel does it all the time. In fact, it was Israel's flouting of world opinion that created the illegal settlements in the first place.

All the handwaving in the world won't obscure the fact that the ability to inflict more damage on an opponent than he can inflict on you is the biggest, most effective, and most prized bargaining chip at the negotiating table. It is, without a doubt, the superior bargaining position. You can accept this fact, or you can continue to look like you don't know the first thing about negotiations.

1) Hamas likes it when anyone other than their top people die.

Unproven assertion. Also irrelevant in this discussion since what Hamas likes or doesn't like doesn't affect the strength of Israel's bargaining position.

If you want to discuss what Hamas likes, start another thread. This thread is about the settlements, and this side discussion is about your claim that the settlements are Israel's only bargaining chip.

2) World opinion means that Israel has little ability to go after those top people. What would the world say if Israel bombed Gaza military HQ? (Hint: It's under the main hospital.)

If you're trying to say Israel wouldn't dare go against world opinion you're going to have to build a case, not just assert it. And you're going to have to address Israel's long-standing defiance of world opinion, most recently on full display when the Israeli government defied world opinion and committed to building even more illegal settlements .

To be perfectly honest, I don't think you sincerely believe Israel bows to world opinion on much of anything, or that it should. But you might convince me you're sincere if you make a sincere effort to explain why you believe it.

You claimed the settlements were Israel's only real bargaining chip. That claim is bullshit. Israel has many bargaining chips; foremost among them is Israel's ability to slaughter Palestinians at will. That is what we are discussing here. What Hamas likes or doesn't like has fuck all to do with it.

And you're not listening to the fact that the supposed bargaining chip doesn't exist.

Allrighty then. You're claiming Israel's ability to kill thousands of Palestinians at will is not a bargaining chip at the negotiating table. One wonders why you would deny it since you have so often referred to it as the reason the Palestinians should give up, but whatever.

Perhaps someday I'll start a thread on the subject of how superior/inferior strength affects one's negotiating position, but for now it's off-topic.

The water resources we're talking about are located in the West Bank, which is not part of Israel. It comes from Palestine and is recognized as a Palestinian resource by the international community. Not that Israel gives a hoot about world opinion wrt Palestine.

Unfortunately, while in general the BBC is good they're not when it comes to anything Israel/Palestine. I think this is simple economics rather than malice--there are more than 100 times as many Muslims as Jews, telling the truth would lose them too many eyeballs.

Try again. Some of that Israeli water is being multi-counted. (Sewer water cleaned and used for irrigation.)

Where did you hear that? Show me the source of this claim.

No point in it, you wouldn't believe any Israeli source.

I would if news outlet has a decent reputation for accuracy and the data supports the conclusion.

Besides, it's not just about what I'd believe. It's about supporting your claims and providing information to anyone interested enough in this topic to read this thread. It's about internet discussion etiquette, and how posters are expected to differentiate between fact and opinion.

Please link to your source or admit you don't have one.

Here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4244730.stm

1) I've already explained my problems with the BBC in this.

2) It doesn't matter because you article doesn't even say what you imagine it does. You're showing the existence of the wall and the fact that a hole was blasted in it, not that Israel built or maintains it.

In other words, Israel won't let in a terrorist associate.

Even if he was a member in a 'radical nationalist faction', that doesn't mean he was a terrorist. Any faction that calls for a Two State solution can be branded a 'radical nationalist' faction by Zionists, no matter how peaceful their methods.

He might not be a shooter but he's part of a terrorist organization. They didn't name the faction because they didn't want to show that Israel's actions are reasonable.

And anyway, it isn't any of Israel's business if a 'radical nationalist' non-Israeli citizen can bring his wife into a part of the world that isn't Israel.

Israel is intruding into the family life of non-Israelis. A promise to butt out is yet another bargaining chip Israel holds, whether you want to admit it or not.

It's unlikely the actions are being done out of love. Israel has seen too many marriages being used for terrorist purposes, why should they think differently in this case?

You just piled a bare-assed assertion on top of an unwarranted supposition in an attempt to obfuscate a point you don't dispute.

Israel is interfering in the private lives of non-Israelis living outside Israel. It asserts the right to deny foreign-born spouses entry into the West Bank, making it impossible for Palestinians to live with those spouses while remaining in their own homes. You tacitly admit this happens. You even appear to approve, or at least are willing to invent bullshit stories to make it sound reasonable. But it's not reasonable in the least.

It's none of Israel's business who people in the West Bank marry. It's none of Israel's business if married couples want to live together in Palestine. Ffs, Loren, I know you're an authoritarian through and through, but is there no end to the amount of government interference you'll countenance? The West Bank isn't Israel, the West Bank Palestinians aren't Israelis, and Israel has no legitimate authority to interfere with their private lives this way.

The promise to butt out is a bargaining chip. Israel can use it to get something it wants. You've already admitted it exists, so let's move on.

Link to this news. Show me where you read it or heard of it.

Tracking down the truth through all the lies told by the terrorists and their sympathizers isn't worth it as it's very unlikely there's a non-Israeli source.

Okay, this has gone beyond bullshit and is now in shenanigans territory.

You know that all your talk of throwing off oppressors does not apply to Palestinian Jews and their Muslim and Christian neighbors. It doesn't even apply to Jewish life under the Ottomans. It applies to European Jews living in Europe.

History, pay attention to it!

I do.

In fact, I've shown it to you quite a few times.

What part of the history of the region do you think supports your claims regarding Jews in Palestine throwing off oppression by other Palestinians?

Do you not realize Jews (no matter where they were born) were second class "citizens" there before the creation of Israel?

I realize Jews and other non-Muslims paid an extra tax during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise they had the same rights as every other subject of the Ottomans. Their equal status was spelled out explicitly when the Young Turks came to power. When the Ottoman Empire fell the Palestinian Jews came under British rule where once again they had equal status with their non-Jewish neighbors. Things were different for Jews in Europe, but that was Europe.

Look, I understand how fond you are of this story. It makes the Zionist takeover of Palestine sound like something noble and uplifting. But it's a fairy tale. The Palestinian Muslims and Christians did not oppress, enslave, or subjugate their Jewish neighbors.

And blacks weren't oppressed, enslaved or subjugated in America circa 1900, either.

I can link to solid historical evidence of oppression and subjugation of blacks in America circa 1900. I can show you pictures, news clippings, Jim Crow laws, research papers, books written by reputable historians, and more. Can you do the same wrt your claim that Christian and Muslim Palestinians oppressed, subjugated, or enslaved Palestinian Jews?

As I said before, if you want anyone to believe that your talk of Jews throwing off oppressors in Palestine is more than just talk, it's up to you to provide information that backs it up. Now would be a good time to start.

1) Wrong. I want them to be Israeli citizens in Israel or Palestinian citizens in Palestine or citizens of the country they prefer and live in, and to stop using military might to steal land and resources from their neighbors.

2) If you don't have a lot of data, you have no business reaching firm conclusions. Nevertheless, you made claims so now it's up to you to show your work.

What we do have are the cases of Jews straying into Palestinian territory by accident. The death toll is appreciable. We can't get better data than this unless you want to want to emulate Josef Mengele.

Well then, if it's so dangerous for Jews in Palestine that trying to get better data would necessitate emulating Josef Mengele, why the fuck aren't you fighting tooth and nail to get them out of there? You do realize that children sometimes stray, or that drivers sometimes take a wrong turn, or that elder sometimes get confused and wander off, don't you? Why aren't you at the forefront of people calling for Jews to leave the settlements and move back to Israel?

No it wasn't. This is where this part of the discussion started:

Palestine is not pre-1967 Jordan; JORDAN isn't even pre-1967 Jordan. The kinds of people who would end up RUNNING a Palestinian state have a far more realistic idea of what their new nation would and wouldn't be capable of. Winning any kind of war with Israel is not one of those things, and is not going to be part of their national aspirations any time this century. Removing the West Bank settlements is doable, however.

The settlements don't need to be removed. The Jews living there can become citizens of Palestine if they wish to continue living there.

Cost wasn't mentioned at all.

But this stemmed from discussion of the cost of removing the settlements.

Your notion of what living in Palestine means is pretty fucking racist. But let's suppose for a moment that Jews living among Palestinians really is like people living inside a lion's cage. Why aren't you at the forefront of people calling for Jews to be removed from such a dangerous place? Why do you not object to Jewish children being brought there?

Why, Loren? Why, if you truly believe it so damned dangerous for Jews to live in Palestine, do you never call for an end to settling them there?

There's nothing racist about it, this is a matter of religion and culture. You are treating any indication of a difference between two populations as racist. I think that's the heart of the problem--you can't believe the level of hatred and thus you simply delete it from your worldview.

I have already considered things from your alleged point of view when I said:

let's suppose for a moment that Jews living among Palestinians really is like people living inside a lion's cage. Why aren't you at the forefront of people calling for Jews to be removed from such a dangerous place? Why do you not object to Jewish children being brought there?

I say "alleged" because you don't act like you believe your own claims. And if you don't believe them, why should I?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Hamas likes it when anyone other than their top people die.

Unproven assertion. Also irrelevant in this discussion since what Hamas likes or doesn't like doesn't affect the strength of Israel's bargaining position.

It's reasonable to figure that Hamas likes things that Hamas goes out of it's way to cause to happen.

2) World opinion means that Israel has little ability to go after those top people. What would the world say if Israel bombed Gaza military HQ? (Hint: It's under the main hospital.)

If you're trying to say Israel wouldn't dare go against world opinion you're going to have to build a case, not just assert it. And you're going to have to address Israel's long-standing defiance of world opinion, most recently on full display when the Israeli government defied world opinion and committed to building even more illegal settlements .

Once again, a clear example of severe press bias. That article doesn't talk about expanding settlements at all. Rather, it talks about building houses in an area that has been Jewish for a long time. Hint: There is no city of "East Jerusalem". That's merely the part of Jerusalem that the Arabs seized and ethnically cleansed in 48. You claim to not like ethnic cleansing but you don't seem to have any problem when Jews are the victims.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think you sincerely believe Israel bows to world opinion on much of anything, or that it should. But you might convince me you're sincere if you make a sincere effort to explain why you believe it.

Palestinian military HQ still stands.

Allrighty then. You're claiming Israel's ability to kill thousands of Palestinians at will is not a bargaining chip at the negotiating table. One wonders why you would deny it since you have so often referred to it as the reason the Palestinians should give up, but whatever.

No. I'm saying that they do not have the real-world ability to slaughter them at will.

Perhaps someday I'll start a thread on the subject of how superior/inferior strength affects one's negotiating position, but for now it's off-topic.

I would if news outlet has a decent reputation for accuracy and the data supports the conclusion.

You define accurate as something that agrees with your point of view.

BTW, I checked out that BBC link. It was worse than I expected--it tried to make the 67 war about water.

Besides, it's not just about what I'd believe. It's about supporting your claims and providing information to anyone interested enough in this topic to read this thread. It's about internet discussion etiquette, and how posters are expected to differentiate between fact and opinion.

Please link to your source or admit you don't have one.

There's absolutely no point in linking sources everyone on your side will immediately dismiss as biased.

You just piled a bare-assed assertion on top of an unwarranted supposition in an attempt to obfuscate a point you don't dispute.

Israel cracked down on marriage visas because they found the abuse rate to be about 100%.

Israel is interfering in the private lives of non-Israelis living outside Israel. It asserts the right to deny foreign-born spouses entry into the West Bank, making it impossible for Palestinians to live with those spouses while remaining in their own homes. You tacitly admit this happens. You even appear to approve, or at least are willing to invent bullshit stories to make it sound reasonable. But it's not reasonable in the least.

I don't care what Israel does to a terrorist. I don't care what any country does to a terrorist. (Note, however, that found-on-a-battlefield doesn't prove bad guy status in an urban combat situation. While it's obvious that most of the people in Gitmo really are combatants I'm sure not all of them are.)

It's none of Israel's business who people in the West Bank marry. It's none of Israel's business if married couples want to live together in Palestine. Ffs, Loren, I know you're an authoritarian through and through, but is there no end to the amount of government interference you'll countenance? The West Bank isn't Israel, the West Bank Palestinians aren't Israelis, and Israel has no legitimate authority to interfere with their private lives this way.

Israel has the legitimate authority to kill the guy. Stopping him from being with the person he married is small potatoes compared to that.

The promise to butt out is a bargaining chip. Israel can use it to get something it wants. You've already admitted it exists, so let's move on.

The problem here is that you are ignoring his terrorist status.

What part of the history of the region do you think supports your claims regarding Jews in Palestine throwing off oppression by other Palestinians?

Every non-Muslim in Muslim lands is a second class citizen. The only question is how much oppression, not whether there is oppression.

I realize Jews and other non-Muslims paid an extra tax during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise they had the same rights as every other subject of the Ottomans. Their equal status was spelled out explicitly when the Young Turks came to power. When the Ottoman Empire fell the Palestinian Jews came under British rule where once again they had equal status with their non-Jewish neighbors. Things were different for Jews in Europe, but that was Europe.

Try Google.

Look, I understand how fond you are of this story. It makes the Zionist takeover of Palestine sound like something noble and uplifting. But it's a fairy tale. The Palestinian Muslims and Christians did not oppress, enslave, or subjugate their Jewish neighbors.

And blacks weren't oppressed, enslaved or subjugated in America circa 1900, either.

I can link to solid historical evidence of oppression and subjugation of blacks in America circa 1900. I can show you pictures, news clippings, Jim Crow laws, research papers, books written by reputable historians, and more. Can you do the same wrt your claim that Christian and Muslim Palestinians oppressed, subjugated, or enslaved Palestinian Jews?

Just how much evidence of any kind exists from that time in any non-western nation?

As I said before, if you want anyone to believe that your talk of Jews throwing off oppressors in Palestine is more than just talk, it's up to you to provide information that backs it up. Now would be a good time to start.

Well then, if it's so dangerous for Jews in Palestine that trying to get better data would necessitate emulating Josef Mengele, why the fuck aren't you fighting tooth and nail to get them out of there? You do realize that children sometimes stray, or that drivers sometimes take a wrong turn, or that elder sometimes get confused and wander off, don't you? Why aren't you at the forefront of people calling for Jews to leave the settlements and move back to Israel?

I'm talking about the status of undefended Jews. I'm saying the only way to get the data would be to send them out and count the number that made it back alive. You're trying to apply it to defended Jews as well.

Hint: There's a reason that visits to Jewish shrines in Palestinian areas are done only by military convoy.

let's suppose for a moment that Jews living among Palestinians really is like people living inside a lion's cage. Why aren't you at the forefront of people calling for Jews to be removed from such a dangerous place? Why do you not object to Jewish children being brought there?

I say "alleged" because you don't act like you believe your own claims. And if you don't believe them, why should I?

The current situation has the wall to protect them. You're trying to remove the wall and pretend things will be the same.

 

[laughing dog]

It's reasonable to figure that Hamas likes things that Hamas goes out of it's way to cause to happen.

Using that logic, you would have to agree that Israel likes to violate international law because it goes out of its way to cause those violations with the expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

 

[Arctish]

Unproven assertion. Also irrelevant in this discussion since what Hamas likes or doesn't like doesn't affect the strength of Israel's bargaining position.

It's reasonable to figure that Hamas likes things that Hamas goes out of it's way to cause to happen.

Still an unproven assertion, and still irrelevant since what Hamas likes or doesn't like does not determine the strength of Israel's bargaining position.

2) World opinion means that Israel has little ability to go after those top people. What would the world say if Israel bombed Gaza military HQ? (Hint: It's under the main hospital.)

If you're trying to say Israel wouldn't dare go against world opinion you're going to have to build a case, not just assert it. And you're going to have to address Israel's long-standing defiance of world opinion, most recently on full display when the Israeli government defied world opinion and committed to building even more illegal settlements .

Once again, a clear example of severe press bias. That article doesn't talk about expanding settlements at all. Rather, it talks about building houses in an area that has been Jewish for a long time. Hint: There is no city of "East Jerusalem". That's merely the part of Jerusalem that the Arabs seized and ethnically cleansed in 48. You claim to not like ethnic cleansing but you don't seem to have any problem when Jews are the victims.

And again, a failure to address the topic.

You said Israel wouldn't go against world opinion. And yet it has, over and over again, starting with seizing land and assets from non-jews at its founding and continuing through the construction of settlements in the Occupied Territories, seizing vessels in international waters, invading neighboring countries, denying refugees their rights under international treaties and UN Conventions, the use of torture, and much more.

Please don't feign ignorance. Everyone familiar with your posting history knows you have frequently commented favorably on Israel's defiance of world opinion even as you decried what you supposed was the world's reason for having it.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think you sincerely believe Israel bows to world opinion on much of anything, or that it should. But you might convince me you're sincere if you make a sincere effort to explain why you believe it.

Palestinian military HQ still stands.

That wasn't a sincere effort at explaining anything.

I stand by my opinion that you don't believe Israel bows to world opinion on much of anything.

Allrighty then. You're claiming Israel's ability to kill thousands of Palestinians at will is not a bargaining chip at the negotiating table. One wonders why you would deny it since you have so often referred to it as the reason the Palestinians should give up, but whatever.

No. I'm saying that they do not have the real-world ability to slaughter them at will.

Really? That's your final answer? Because I'm still thinking about going back through your posts and linking to things you've said over the years about Israel's track record of launching precision strikes on targets in the West Bank and Gaza, or the least favorable option for Israel is to use it's nukes on cities like Riyadh and Qom but it's still an option, and similar chest-thumping about the IDF shooting shepherds, or blowing up beachgoers, or picking off kids holding rocks.

Perhaps someday I'll start a thread on the subject of how superior/inferior strength affects one's negotiating position, but for now it's off-topic.

I would if news outlet has a decent reputation for accuracy and the data supports the conclusion.

You define accurate as something that agrees with your point of view.

Another unfounded assertion. And yet another attempt to avoid providing a source for your claim.

I'll tell you what. You provide the source and I'll tell you what I think of it. If I say it's inaccurate but can't come up with a valid reason why, you can call me closed-minded and willfully ignorant. But at least other people reading this thread will have the chance to see the source for your claim, and that's a good thing.

BTW, I checked out that BBC link. It was worse than I expected--it tried to make the 67 war about water.

Besides, it's not just about what I'd believe. It's about supporting your claims and providing information to anyone interested enough in this topic to read this thread. It's about internet discussion etiquette, and how posters are expected to differentiate between fact and opinion.

Please link to your source or admit you don't have one.

There's absolutely no point in linking sources everyone on your side will immediately dismiss as biased.

There absolutely is a point in linking to sources even if everyone everywhere will immediately dismiss it as biased. At the very least it will prove you have one!

You just piled a bare-assed assertion on top of an unwarranted supposition in an attempt to obfuscate a point you don't dispute.

Israel cracked down on marriage visas because they found the abuse rate to be about 100%.

Israel is interfering in the private lives of non-Israelis living outside Israel. It asserts the right to deny foreign-born spouses entry into the West Bank, making it impossible for Palestinians to live with those spouses while remaining in their own homes. You tacitly admit this happens. You even appear to approve, or at least are willing to invent bullshit stories to make it sound reasonable. But it's not reasonable in the least.

I don't care what Israel does to a terrorist. I don't care what any country does to a terrorist. (Note, however, that found-on-a-battlefield doesn't prove bad guy status in an urban combat situation. While it's obvious that most of the people in Gitmo really are combatants I'm sure not all of them are.)

It's none of Israel's business who people in the West Bank marry. It's none of Israel's business if married couples want to live together in Palestine. Ffs, Loren, I know you're an authoritarian through and through, but is there no end to the amount of government interference you'll countenance? The West Bank isn't Israel, the West Bank Palestinians aren't Israelis, and Israel has no legitimate authority to interfere with their private lives this way.

Israel has the legitimate authority to kill the guy. Stopping him from being with the person he married is small potatoes compared to that.

Nice.

You've gone from assuming that a guy reported to have joined a 'radical nationalist' group is a terrorist to asserting Israel has a legitimate authority to kill him.

Anyway, the point that Israel is interfering in the domestic arrangements of non-Israelis living outside Israel stands. I don't know why you're arguing about it seeing as how you obviously approve.

The promise to butt out is a bargaining chip. Israel can use it to get something it wants. You've already admitted it exists, so let's move on.

The problem here is that you are ignoring his terrorist status.

What part of the history of the region do you think supports your claims regarding Jews in Palestine throwing off oppression by other Palestinians?

Every non-Muslim in Muslim lands is a second class citizen. The only question is how much oppression, not whether there is oppression.

I realize Jews and other non-Muslims paid an extra tax during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise they had the same rights as every other subject of the Ottomans. Their equal status was spelled out explicitly when the Young Turks came to power. When the Ottoman Empire fell the Palestinian Jews came under British rule where once again they had equal status with their non-Jewish neighbors. Things were different for Jews in Europe, but that was Europe.

Try Google.

Try backing up your claims.

What part of the history of the region do you think supports your claims regarding Jews in Palestine throwing off oppression by other Palestinians?

Back up your claims with actual sources. Show us the history. Link to the articles, books, pictures, museum displays, historical documents, or other sources of information. Don't just make claims; show us the evidence.

That, or admit you're bullshitting.

Look, I understand how fond you are of this story. It makes the Zionist takeover of Palestine sound like something noble and uplifting. But it's a fairy tale. The Palestinian Muslims and Christians did not oppress, enslave, or subjugate their Jewish neighbors.

And blacks weren't oppressed, enslaved or subjugated in America circa 1900, either.

I can link to solid historical evidence of oppression and subjugation of blacks in America circa 1900. I can show you pictures, news clippings, Jim Crow laws, research papers, books written by reputable historians, and more. Can you do the same wrt your claim that Christian and Muslim Palestinians oppressed, subjugated, or enslaved Palestinian Jews?

Just how much evidence of any kind exists from that time in any non-western nation?

Enough evidence to demonstrate that you aren't just bullshitting, you have actual sources for your claims.

Well then, if it's so dangerous for Jews in Palestine that trying to get better data would necessitate emulating Josef Mengele, why the fuck aren't you fighting tooth and nail to get them out of there? You do realize that children sometimes stray, or that drivers sometimes take a wrong turn, or that elder sometimes get confused and wander off, don't you? Why aren't you at the forefront of people calling for Jews to leave the settlements and move back to Israel?

I'm talking about the status of undefended Jews. I'm saying the only way to get the data would be to send them out and count the number that made it back alive. You're trying to apply it to defended Jews as well.

Hint: There's a reason that visits to Jewish shrines in Palestinian areas are done only by military convoy.

let's suppose for a moment that Jews living among Palestinians really is like people living inside a lion's cage. Why aren't you at the forefront of people calling for Jews to be removed from such a dangerous place? Why do you not object to Jewish children being brought there?

I say "alleged" because you don't act like you believe your own claims. And if you don't believe them, why should I?

The current situation has the wall to protect them. You're trying to remove the wall and pretend things will be the same.

No, I am asking why, if you truly believe that for Jews a life among Palestinians is so dangerous it can be compared to living inside a lion's cage, you aren't at the forefront of those calling for Jewish settlers to be relocated back inside Israel.

Why, Loren?

 

[Funkytrip]

As you can see in the links, the area was very multicultural, and actually functioning just fine until someone had the brilliant idea to create a jewish state.

The creation of that state is the biggest mistake since 1945. Israel should have never ever existed in that area. Period.
If it had to be created, it should have been on Madagascar. The problems in the Middle-east would have been completely different (less severe is my prediction) and Madagascar would have been an oasis of peace and prosperity save for the rare Madagascarian freedom fighter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As you can see in the links, the area was very multicultural, and actually functioning just fine until someone had the brilliant idea to create a jewish state.

The creation of that state is the biggest mistake since 1945. Israel should have never ever existed in that area. Period.
If it had to be created, it should have been on Madagascar. The problems in the Middle-east would have been completely different (less severe is my prediction) and Madagascar would have been an oasis of peace and prosperity save for the rare Madagascarian freedom fighter.

I agree it shouldn't have been created but undoing it isn't viable. We need to do the best we can with reality.

 

[laughing dog]

The creation of that state is the biggest mistake since 1945. Israel should have never ever existed in that area. Period.
If it had to be created, it should have been on Madagascar. The problems in the Middle-east would have been completely different (less severe is my prediction) and Madagascar would have been an oasis of peace and prosperity save for the rare Madagascarian freedom fighter.

I agree it shouldn't have been created but undoing it isn't viable. We need to do the best we can with reality.

It is at least as viable as nuking "terrorist" cities. And more effective.

 

[fromderinside]

Myths built on myths. All the west bank and most of Isreal can never be 'state' land since no internationally recognized authority has ever said that it was. The last time that took place was in 1948. So all lands taken by force after that are subject to reallocation by nations and the international community. The Israeli state we've been talking about here is a fiction based on "I won so it's mine principles". Such land can be reclaimed by international agreement. If Israel didn't have it's origin in western democracies action under cover of the UN it wouldn't exist. Biblical claims are not valid according to existing international law.

Having put forth my view I offer contradicting information.

http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/israel_borders.htm

and

http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/israel_borders.htm

I only ask that you condition your reading of these texts as including biblical views as well as international law and that Israel has no more rights to call captured territory state land than do the Arabs living in that land even without state sponsorship.

To be honest, the academic discussion of history is irrelevant to the fact that the Palestinians living there right now, and the last ~100 years are being displaced, and discriminated, by a state that does not represent them. As you can see in the links, the area was very multicultural, and actually functioning just fine until someone had the brilliant idea to create a jewish state.

Actually the bolded isn't true. These people have been skirmishing ever since Muslims conquered Jerusalem. The Jewish people were given a boost by the events and aftermath of WWII when a mass migration to the 'holy land' took place. Still it's all connected because they've been fighting since the Muslim origins in the 600s, actually ever since ever since Romans conquered Jerusalem, well actually ever since the Jews retook Jerusalem after escaping from Egypt, .... most recently since the Ottoman Empire conquered Jerusalem ....

Religious groups have been fighting over this territory ever since writing was introduced, probably, given oral histories, even before that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

don't care about Russia or Israel.. why would the US be attacked for letting them come to power? I said stop being involved at all, not ignore any move against the US. I was thinking along the lines of, "we out, do what you want, but if you so much as look nasty in our general direction, we will glass-top your entire country"... something like that.

Because we are still a huge threat to the Islamists by our very existence.

But not as big as Russia and Europe, who are actually nearby and invested enough that their own militaries are likely to get involved with regional power plays for neighboring governments (see also "Russia vs. Syrian Rebels"). Even moderate Muslim governments in the middle east (e.g. Turkey) are bigger obstacles than we are already, and would be MUCH BIGGER obstacles if we didn't go out of our way to get involved.

We present something far more attractive than they do, they will keep trying to drive away the influence.

Except we don't actually HAVE any cultural influence in those areas; for many Muslims in those regions, the first and last thing they know about the United States is that we have a shit ton of money and we blew up their favorite restaurant. They don't know or CARE about America any more than that; we're barely a blip on the radar in their part of the world and only register in importance when we start bombing them.

Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are far more important to them from a cultural and political standpoint: there are people in Riyadh who can swing the direction of local elections in Iraq and even in Turkey just by publishing articles in Arab-language newspapers; Americans don't even READ Arabic newspapers and don't have the first idea what Arabs really think about anything ever, let alone how to change their minds about them.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What is the basis of your argument here? Are you suggesting Israel would never do anything contrary to world opinion? If so, that's beyond bullshit. You know and I know that Israel does it all the time. In fact, it was Israel's flouting of world opinion that created the illegal settlements in the first place.

All the handwaving in the world won't obscure the fact that the ability to inflict more damage on an opponent than he can inflict on you is the biggest, most effective, and most prized bargaining chip at the negotiating table. It is, without a doubt, the superior bargaining position. You can accept this fact, or you can continue to look like you don't know the first thing about negotiations.

1) Hamas likes it when anyone other than their top people die.

2) World opinion means that Israel has little ability to go after those top people. What would the world say if Israel bombed Gaza military HQ?

Who the fuck cares? We're talking about the West Bank, not Gaza. Hamas has very little military presence in the West Bank and NO capacity to wage large scale combat operations there. None of their military facilities are in the West Bank, none of their rockets launch from there. In fact the very few Hamas figures still in the West Bank are Hamas in name only and mostly do their own thing anyway.

And you're not listening to the fact that the supposed bargaining chip doesn't exist.

Of course it does. And Israel knows this, which is why "suspend combat operations" has ALWAYS been offered to Palestinians in exchange for some other concession every time they have "mowed the lawn"

Unfortunately, while in general the BBC is good they're not when it comes to anything Israel/Palestine...

Which is NOT a refutation of that news article or the facts it presents. If you believe the BBC is wrong about those water resources, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

Tracking down the truth through all the lies told by the terrorists and their sympathizers isn't worth it as it's very unlikely there's a non-Israeli source.

Why do you automatically assume that ISRAELI sources would be truthful and automatically assume the exact opposite of Palestinian sources? It's not as if either side is more motivated to lie than their opposition.

But this stemmed from discussion of the cost of removing the settlements.

No it didn't. It stemmed from you claiming that giving the land back to the Palestinians and letting them for their own state would somehow result in a second Six Day War or something, and me pointing out that this was bullshit. Axulus correctly pointed out that those settlers don't actually have to leave, Israel just has to stop claiming sovereignty over the land they're built on.

There's nothing racist about it, this is a matter of religion and culture.

Fair enough...

So WHY do Israelis want to live in West Bank settlements surrounded by Palestinians in the first place? Still waiting for an answer to this question. Why do those settlements even exist in the first place?

 

[LordKiran]

So WHY do Israelis want to live in West Bank settlements surrounded by Palestinians in the first place? Still waiting for an answer to this question. Why do those settlements even exist in the first place?

Loren already explained this. They're military checkpoints that children and other non-combatants also happen to reside within. Why do children and other non-combatants reside withing these 'military checkpoints'? Fuck you, that's why.

Please try and keep up, Eddie.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So WHY do Israelis want to live in West Bank settlements surrounded by Palestinians in the first place? Still waiting for an answer to this question. Why do those settlements even exist in the first place?

Loren already explained this. They're military checkpoints that children and other non-combatants also happen to reside within. Why do children and other non-combatants reside withing these 'military checkpoints'? Fuck you, that's why.

Please try and keep up, Eddie.

Well, you're not wrong...

 

[Jayjay]

Why should the settlements not be there?

This would make more sense if the complaint was that Palestinians (or Arabs or Muslims) are being driven out to make room for Jewish settlements, or are being prohibited from building their own settlements, or similar complaint. The complaints or condemnations should not be directed against "settlements" but against those who are preventing settlements or constructions or developments.

Actually Palestinians are prohibited from building settlements in Israel: A palestinian from West Bank or Gaza wouldn't even be let over the border to Israel, let alone build settlements and checkpoints.

Were Palestinian homes or villages blown up in order to provide Lebensraum for these Israeli settlements?

Some were. But even if not, annexation of land from Palestinians deprives them of the option of Palestinians building their homes and villages there in the future. Just because you aren't doing anything with your back yard at the time, doesn't mean I can build my house there.

Israel's biggest bargaining chip is it's ability and willingness to kill thousands of civilians in a single night. The promise not to drop artillery shells, drones, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, and nuclear warheads on Palestinian communities is the only chip it needs in this bargain.

Promising not to sink Palestinian fishing boats in Palestinian territorial waters and to stop diverting Palestinian water supplies away from Palestinian farms are really good bargaining chips, too. And allowing the Palestinians to sell their natural gas on the open market instead of forcing them to bring all of it to Israel is another good one. Then there's the opening of borders with Egypt and Jordan, allowing Palestinians who marry abroad to bring their spouses into Palestine, removing the checkpoints that strangle commerce in Gaza and the West Bank, etc. The list goes on and on.

If the Israeli government is guilty of acts like this, then that's what it should be condemned for, not for building settlements.

It sounds like there might be some legitimate complaints against the Israelis, but all we hear about is that "settlements" are evil.

It would make more sense if the pro-Palestinian supporters contributed toward a building program by Palestinians, maybe including infrastructure and development of water resources -- something positive -- and if the Israeli government responds by sending Darth Vader and his thugs to suppress the workers or blow them up or bulldoze the constructions, then resist the Israeli aggressors at that point.

It's easier to sympathize with someone who is clearly trying to do something positive and constructive but is being suppressed by the Evil Empire than to sympathize with someone whose only complaint is that their enemy is building homes.

If it reduces down to a dispute over land ownership, then homesteading is the best resolution. Whoever builds there (or has built there) owns it. Whoever destroys or threatens something built by another is the aggressor.

Nice libertarian idea of a borderless world where all land is pristine and only there for someone to start taking it. In reality though most land is owned by someone, and to enter it uninvited and start living there is considered squatting. Also note, that if Palestinians build houses (or shacks, since they can't really do much more) on Israeli land or even in land designated for settlements, Israel will bulldoze them down, even if there was no prior Israeli housing or infrastructure at the spot earlier. Same rules should apply to both sides.

The settlements are problematic because they are a tool for permanent land theft. Wouldn't it be better if Israel would buy the land from Palestinian Authority via mutually agreed negotiation rather than just take it by force, and do so before sending hundreds of thousands of civilians to squat on the land in a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention regarding occupied territory?

 

[Jayjay]

Do you understand that the settlements should not even be there in the first place, and giving them up is not even a negotiation point?

Do you understand reality?

Giving them up is a huge bargaining chip. The left wants Israel to simply throw away the one real bargaining chip they have.

That's nonsense. As someone pointed out, it's not a "bargaining chip" when that is one of the violations that Israel is obligated to stop anyway. If I punch you in the face and steal your wallet, that's theft even if I were to promise to give you back the wallet and "only" take the money therein... but only if you promise to not call the police or sue me for an assault.

Secondly, it's not a bargaining chip if you are not prepared to give it up. Keeping the majority of the settlements, as well as East Jerusalem, are not something Israel has ever indicated to be prepared to concede, they are off the table. The settlers themselves certainly don't see their land theft as a "bargaining chip" but a divine right, and they have absolutely no intention of leaving.