Is settlement expansions right or wrong??

I want ATS to be straight forward on this.

It is a simple question, with a simple answer.

I want to ask ATS if settlement expansion is right or wrong?

What can be used to justify settlement expansions?

What laws?

What morality?

What religion?

What idea?

I want to know what can be used to justify settlement expansions.

I hope everyone stays on topic in this one, and doesn't divert attention from the question.

Thanks in advance.

oz

Nothing justifies it....

Is there anyone on these forums that thinks otherwise?

Are you seriously expecting any resistance from anyone on this matter?

What's the point of this thread other than saying that the settlements and Israel are wrong?

There's not really going to be any discussion..

reply to post by Eliad


If there wasn't anyone who thought settlement expansion is right, then why is it continuing?

Doesn't the continuation of settlement expansion mean someone endorses it?

Must be a huge number of people for it to continue for decades

reply to post by Eliad


A discussion doesn't always have to be a confrontation with opposing viewpoints.
People may generally agree that settlement expansion is wrong but differ in their perception of why its being allowed to happen or what possible solutions there might be.

Settlement expansion is wrong and I think its religion controlling politics thats allowing it to happen.
The Israeli government obviously supports it and by association the US government supports it as well.

The expansion of existing settlements and creation of new ones requires the eviction, by force, of the current occupants / owners of that land. Anywhere else in the world that would be condemned as a criminal act and the state responsible would be called upon to stop. They'd probably, and rightfully so, have severe sanctions levied against them too.

However, Israel continues to steal land, oppress the current inhabitants, destroy their houses, their agriculture and means of feeding themselves and doesn't give a damn about what anyone thinks. It's all because their holy book says they are entitled to the land. A book written by Jews, for Jews, Promoting Jewish superiority...mmmmmm!

It still baffles me a lot as to just what grip they have on our own governments, allowing them to get away with murder and land theft, both on a grand scale. There is no moral, ethical or other reasonable excuse for it and the only reason I can think of for my own governments' support is coercion or threat. Support them or suffer some nasty consequences? No other country on the planet gets away with these actions and we all have to abide by, or at least be seen to be abiding by, international laws preventing such actions.....all except Israel which gets a free pass.
I DO NOT think this is anything to do with some sort of collective guilt over what allegedly happened to Jews in WWII, that just doesn't cut it.

So, in summary, I have to say the settlement expansion is WRONG. Strip away the ridiculous religious reasons and what we have left are simple criminal acts, committed against a people by a gang of brutal invaders with the full backing of the state.

Just a little help here because I'm sure you have better sources than me for this :
Could you please provide a map of current settlement status against the 1947 UN mandate ?
Thanks in advance.

reply to post by oozyism


Oh please... If you had at least given a few points for and against settlements I might have taken this thread more seriously..

This is like I'd create a thread about suicide bombings- Is it okay to explode in a bus?

And, again, there isn't anyone that posts here that has ever said (or probably will say) the settlements are "okay"..

Let's not play dumb, settlement expansion can't be right, the same way suicide bombing or rocket attacks can't be right.. There might be extenuating circumstances, or difficulties in preventing expansion, but it'll never be right, and any attempt to create a discussion around these circumstances or difficulties is futile, as the question that stands at the base of this thread is- Is it right, or wrong? And, as I've said, it'll never be right.
So it's pretty safe to assume that this thread will never be anything more than (and was never intended to be) an easy platform for anti Israeli protest.

Come on, let's be honest- This thread is pretty shallow as it only addresses one facet of this issue, and can have no side other than anti Israeli, even if someone adds some kind of cockamamie reason for expanding the settlements, and it's just bagging for people like BritGuy to post their anti Israeli propaganda.

I don't see any substance to this thread.. You're basically posting your anti Israeli opinions in the form of a question.

reply to post by oozyism


At the risk of sounding like a broken record, just like Oozyi, I'll say this:

There was never a Palestinian people, state, kingdom or anything. Even the name Palestine is a derivation of the name Plishtim, red head people who came to the land from the Mediterranean sea. The Romans who concurred Israel, attempting to humiliate the Jews, named the place “Provincia Palestina". During the British mandate, every citizen received a Palestinian ID card, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. PM Golda had one.

Arabs by the way, do not pronounce “P” in Arabic. That is the reason even they do not call it Palestine but Filestin.

Those who call themselves Palestinians, were nomads migrating from Arabia, later known as Saudi Arabia, Syria and other Arabian places. They do not share religious, genetic, cultural, historical or geographical with the Plishtim people.

In the Qur'an you will NOT find a single mention of Palestine or Jerusalem. Not once.
In the Qur'an, there is however a mention of the land of ISRAEL.
If you care to check British mandate or Ottoman documents, both occupied the land of Israel, you will find no mention of a Palestinian state or people.

The undisputed fact is, there is not a single documentation prior to 1967 that mention a Palestinian state or people. The Arab leaders as well as “Palestinian” leaders, including Yasser Arafat, said there is no such thing as Palestinians or Palestinian state. There never was.
Poor Arafat even tried once to claim that Palestinians are the decedents of the Yevusi biblical people. It was so ridiculous , that he quite quickly stopped making that outrageous claim.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Despite all that, The Arabs that settled in Israel – The historical land of the Jewish people – were offered a part of the land, to build a state of their own. This is the Partition plan.
They refused and began a war along side with the surrounding Arab countries.
They lost.
In 1967 they Started another war.
They lost.
Still, they were offered yet again, a place to build their independent sate over 97% of the 67 occupied territories.
They refused. Three times. Instead they began their bloodbath campaign by blowing Israeli civilians up to pieces.

The UN resolution 242 do NOT say that Israel must return to the 1967 armistice lines, but to a secure borders for both people. A complete withdraw from Judea an Samara will leave Israel with narrow shoulders of 15 kilometers that are not based on strategic geographical features. No country can have secure borders in such terms, and no sane country in the world will ever agree to that, unless she is homicidal.

So to answer your question Oozi, Yes. 10000 Yes.
The bigger the settlements, the better. If peace is what “Palestinians” want, they will have to agree on the bigger settlements blocks to remain in any future peace treaty.
And some of you may twist it all you like, but there is not a single settlement that is built on private “Palestinian” land.

reply to post by Eliad


And apparently I wrote in the OP:

I hope everyone stays on topic in this one, and doesn't divert attention from the question.

I will ask you again, how can settlement expansions and activities continue if there is no one who supports it, or if there is no one who thinks it is right?

Why are you deflecting the question.

I simply want to know the view point of those who supports it, and those who thinks it is right.

If that is not you, then simply say no I don't support it, because of so and so.

If you want to talk about suicide bombings, then create a thread.

reply to post by gravitational


I want Eliad to respond to you, because Eliad thinks there is no one who believes settlement expansion is right.

Good luck Eliad, I will patiently wait for your reply.

reply to post by oozyism


Well, the land was first taken in 67' as a bargaining chip for future agreements, but it turned out Jordan and Egypt didn't really care about the Palestinians, and didn't come to negotiate for them.. Then suddenly everyone got this messianic bug, and decided they can get away with taking this land to be a part of Israel.. Then we realized this isn't possible and we need to make peace, and then we realized we will need to give the land back, then we gave all the land in Gaza back, and got screwed for it, and now most politicians understand we'll have to do the same thing in the West Bank.

Problems:
1) Uprooting a whole bunch of people and transferring them somewhere is costly, and politically dangerous, so waiting until the last moment is much safer for the politicians..
2) They act as a bargaining chip for the future peace agreement (the more settlements you evacuate, the more money you have to spend, the more homeless people you get, the more political damage you get).
3) Having already evacuated Gaza, and gotten nothing in return except for a bunch of homeless people and rockets, evacuating the West Bank is now politically very risky, and politicians will always choose the safest route..

Those who think it's right either still believe we can get away with it, or simply believe that the land belongs to the Jews because of its history..

I personally don't support it because I'm a realist, and I know the Palestinians will have their own nation, and we can't have cities in the middle of their nation..

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by gravitational

 

I want Eliad to respond to you, because Eliad thinks there is no one who believes settlement expansion is right.

Good luck Eliad, I will patiently wait for your reply.

Oh, grow up already.. Just because we both support the same country doesn't mean we see eye to eye on everything.. If you can't answer the man, that says something about the strength of your arguments, and the amount of knowledge you posses..

I think he pretty much nailed it, all of it.. The only thing we don't see eye to eye on is the issue of defensible borders.. I agree with him, Israel does need defensible borders, I just don't think that evacuating the settlements would change anything.. If anyone wants to hurt Israel from those vantage points of Judea and Samara he could do so with or without the settlements in place..

But I'm no expert, and he's completely correct in stating that Israel needs to maintain defensible borders.. The question is whether or not the settlements provide any kind of defense.. I'm not sure that they do, is all..

Seriously, Oozi, don't expect me and Gravitational to act like pro Israeli robots, just because all the anti Israelis on these forums do..

reply to post by gravitational


OK my turn.

I don't agree with settlement expansions.

1. It is illegal.;

2. It is inhumane, it is backward, we didn't come this far to go back, and use the old warfare tactics of kicking people out of their homes for absolutely no reason, and build recist settlements on top, only for Jews

3. Unlike you I don't care how those lands were occupied, that is the past, if you want to talk about the past, talk about how Jews from Europe came forcefully to Palestine and claimed the whole land was Jewish land, only for Jews.

4. Everyone in the world is against it, except the US, hence the US is the only country standing with Israel, well that is because I believe US is owned by Israel.

5. Occupation doesn't = inhumane treatment of the aborigine of the occupied land + eviction of the aborigines from the occupied land/

If the world was to be governed by the same rules the Zionist terrorists are using, it would be a disgusting place. I have read the old testament, and I know what kind of BS the Zionists believe in and it makes me sick, what makes me sick even more, is that Americans are not standing up against a rogue, terrorist nation, using their military, their resources + their money, America is a slave to the Zionist, anyone who disagrees have to prove it.




I forgot,.

6. It is the biggest element stoping peace, infact if you look at the reasoning behind the second intifada, it was due to Settlement Expansions. So there were always be violence and resistance against such aggression.

Palestinians didn't gain nothing through peacefully asking for such illegal + inhumane + racist activities to stop. When they turned to violence, they gained Gaza, now there is no settlement expansion towards Gaza, but there are settlement expansions towards the Fatah territoriy.

I believe Fatah should fight and kill the occupiers, that is the right they have, they can't let the Zionist terrorists make all the demands and get nothing in return/

So yes, peace can't be achieved because of settlement expansions. Guess what? No one in the world is naive enough anymore to believe the Zionist terrorists want peace anymore, that is pretty obvious

wrong. period.
second line.

Israel's interior ministry announced plans to build 1,300 new apartments in East Jerusalem. The news came during a visit to the U.S. by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and in the midst of the Obama administration's efforts to revive Israel-Palestinian peace talks. Margaret Warner reports.

www.pbs.org...

Jews didn't learn from history, sad, sad world

Oppressor always end up like Nazi Germany..

Dead wrong. This is the illegal and unlawful construction of Jewsih settlements on Palestinian land. That would be like oif The USA decided to build and expand into British Columbia Canada. The Canadian people would have something to say about that.

Originally posted by oozyism I want ATS to be straight forward on this. It is a simple question, with a simple answer. I want to ask ATS if settlement expansion is right or wrong?

I'm not real sure that this is the most appropriate question to ask, which is why I have not responded prior to this.

It can probably be argued eternally whether settlement expansion--especially in East Jerusalem--is "right" or "wrong".

In other words, I would suggest that a more appropriate question would be:

"Whether right or wrong, will settlement expansion--especially in East Jerusalem--reasonably lead to either genuine Peace or the military conflict Prophesied by Zechariah?"

For me, this is a much more direct and simple question; and the answer is quite easily available.

In other words, what good is it for something even to be "right" if that being "right" is then the proximate cause of unleashing horrific destruction throughout the entire Middle East?

Mi cha el

reply to post by Chrysalis


1947 United Nations Partitition Plan

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d8deeb44ee35.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by gravitational


Well I had no idea of that. I guess I am so surrounded with propaganda that I truly believed the Palestinians were there for at least a thousand years prior to it officially becoming the Jewish state of Israel. That gives a good explanation of why many ‘Anti-Palestinians’ claim that the Arabs have no true claims in that land.

I will research this further and I thank you for steering me in that direction. In the event that you are correct, which I suspect you are, the Jewish claim to all of ‘Palestine’ is 100% justifiable. That would mean that the Jews/Israelis are currently being persecuted by the international community and not the Arabs. In that case I support the settlement expansions 100%.

Originally posted by Misoir I will research this further and I thank you for steering me in that direction. In the event that you are correct, which I suspect you are, the Jewish claim to all of ‘Palestine’ is 100% justifiable. That would mean that the Jews/Israelis are currently being persecuted by the international community and not the Arabs. In that case I support the settlement expansions 100%.

Don't you see the problem with this?

You are so obsessed with the "right"/"wrong" paradigm that you have forgotten that what is involved here is not "right" or "wrong" but Peace vs. genocide.

Of course, this is what the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities' are already involved in.

Each one claiming that his or her religion is the one "True" religion; in which case both of the other religions should be eliminated one way or another as "False" religions.

It appears that everyone is losing sight of the ball here, and being distracted with trivialities.

The ultimate goal is Peace, not being "right" or not having the "Truth".

That Peace, once it is achieved--and what I am talking about here is the absolute cessation of not only conflict and violence; but, also, threats of conflict and violence--would make everyone a contributor and a participator in what is Truly right and what is rightly the Truth.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


I don't think there are many people around the world who sees the genocide of the aborigine of an occupied land, as right.

The above being said:

It simply being illegal, can't make it right.

2nd, it being build on occupied territory, is a very simplistic information which makes it 100% clear that it is wrong etc..