settlements

[actsnoblemartin]

Im a jew, son of an israel man, an american woman.

Im torn on this issue.

On one hand, many say the settlements are illegal, because of international law

On the other, many say the settlements are needed to combat islamic terrorism, and with the fact, that muslims/islam stole 57 countries from christians, and are pursecuting christians worldwide, the settlements are needed more then ever.

Your opinion is, and why?


Second, do you believe all terrorism against israel will end, if all the settlement are torn down and all the jews leave the west bank?

 

[dilloduck]

Im a jew, son of an israel man, an american woman.

Im torn on this issue.

On one hand, many say the settlements are illegal, because of international law

On the other, many say the settlements are needed to combat islamic terrorism, and with the fact, that muslims/islam stole 57 countries from christians, and are pursecuting christians worldwide, the settlements are needed more then ever.

Your opinion is, and why?


Second, do you believe all terrorism against israel will end, if all the settlement are torn down and all the jews leave the west bank?

Israel helps Israel and it's certainly not doing any Americans or Christians any favors. In fact it's damn expensive

 

[jillian]

Im a jew, son of an israel man, an american woman.

Im torn on this issue.

On one hand, many say the settlements are illegal, because of international law

On the other, many say the settlements are needed to combat islamic terrorism, and with the fact, that muslims/islam stole 57 countries from christians, and are pursecuting christians worldwide, the settlements are needed more then ever.

Your opinion is, and why?


Second, do you believe all terrorism against israel will end, if all the settlement are torn down and all the jews leave the west bank?

There's no reason for the settlements in terms of "combat[ing] Islamic terrorism" and that wasn't and isn't the reason for their establishment. They were established because of a desire of some to re-establish Israel the way it was in biblical times. I don't so much care that it's purportedly a violation of International Law (given that Israel is the only country I can think of which has won land in defensive battle and then has a good chunk of the world yelling that they should give it back). However, the settlements make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world. They take away the high ground. That's why Sharon, in his latter days, unilaterally said they needed to be given up.

That said, the Golan Heights should stay a de-militarized buffer zone ... otherwise the people below the Syrian bunkers become targets.

 

[Gunny]

There's no reason for the settlements in terms of "combat[ing] Islamic terrorism" and that wasn't and isn't the reason for their establishment. They were established because of a desire of some to re-establish Israel the way it was in biblical times. I don't so much care that it's purportedly a violation of International Law (given that Israel is the only country I can think of which has won land in defensive battle and then has a good chunk of the world yelling that they should give it back). However, the settlements make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world. They take away the high ground. That's why Sharon, in his latter days, unilaterally said they needed to be given up.

That said, the Golan Heights should stay a de-militarized buffer zone ... otherwise the people below the Syrian bunkers become targets.

I always considered the settlements more of a human "early warning system."

I agree about the Golan Heights.

 

[jillian]

I always considered the settlements more of a human "early warning system."

I agree about the Golan Heights.

That's an interesting way of seeing the settlements. How so?

 

[Gunny]

That's an interesting way of seeing the settlements. How so?

The settlements are in occupied Arab land. Allowing Israeli's to settle there puts friendlies in unfriendly territory, and back when this first happened (67, I believe), "early warning" still relied heavily on "eyes on." To attack Israel, Arab nations would have to go through occupied territory first.

Unlikely they could get all the way to Israel's borders without the word getting out in enough time to be waiting on line and launch aerial strikes.

 

[jillian]

The settlements are in occupied Arab land. Allowing Israeli's to settle there puts friendlies in unfriendly territory, and back when this first happened (67, I believe), "early warning" still relied heavily on "eyes on." To attack Israel, Arab nations would have to go through occupied territory first.

Unlikey they could get all the way to Israel's borders without the word getting out in enough time to be waiting on line and launch aerial strikes.

Ahhhhhhhhhh... now I understand. And it makes sense. But given the advances in technology and the like, do you still think they serve such a purpose?

 

[Gunny]

Ahhhhhhhhhh... now I understand. And it makes sense. But given the advances in technology and the like, do you still think they serve such a purpose?

It's my opinion that's why Sharon was willing to concede the land. Technology can now do the job.

What he didn't reckon on are the militant Jews, and/or the people who call those "settlements" home. IIRC, both made quite a bit of noise about it.

 

[jillian]

It's my opinion that's why Sharon was willing to concede the land. Technology can now do the job.

What he didn't reckon on are the militant Jews, and/or the people who call those "settlements" home. IIRC, both made quite a bit of noise about it.

Might be true. I guess I always felt that Sharon also moderated his views a bit toward the end.... with a little shove from us.

It wasn't just a little noise... was pretty raw, actually.

 

[Gunny]

Might be true. I guess I always felt that Sharon also moderated his views a bit toward the end.... with a little shove from us.

It wasn't just a little noise... was pretty raw, actually.

Think about it though ... why not make a "peace offering" when it costs you very little strategically?

My personal opinion is that Israel deserved to keep whatever land it took in unfair fights weighed heavily against it.

 

[jillian]

Think about it though ... why not make a "peace offering" when it costs you very little strategically?

My personal opinion is that Israel deserved to keep whatever land it took in unfair fights weighed heavily against it.

Obviously, I agree on both counts. And were Israel treated like any other nation, it would keep land it won defensively without comment by the rest of the world. But for a bit of territory, it's not worth the hostility, IMO.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Obviously, I agree on both counts. And were Israel treated like any other nation, it would keep land it won defensively without comment by the rest of the world. But for a bit of territory, it's not worth the hostility, IMO.

No matter what Israel does they will be vilefied and hated. If they and the US actually did or acted the way the haters portray them, there would be a lot less people to make those claims.

 

[Gunny]

No matter what Israel does they will be vilefied and hated. If they and the US actually did or acted the way the haters portray them, there would be a lot less people to make those claims.

Hell, I think we SHOULD act like we're accused. Some kicking ass and taking names would be a refreshing change.

 

[jillian]

No matter what Israel does they will be vilefied and hated. If they and the US actually did or acted the way the haters portray them, there would be a lot less people to make those claims.

I don't think I said they wouldn't be otherwise vilified. In fact, I know they would, and I know where those attitudes come from.

That said, I don't think the proper response is for Israel to engage in the sort of behavior it's accused of. I believe that it has to take the moral high ground. That's not to say it should be held to a different standard, but I think most Israeli's just want to be left alone and live their lives without their children getting blown up on school buses.

That isn't going to happen if they intentionally agitate like the Kahane folk.

 

[Gunny]

I don't think I said they wouldn't be otherwise vilified. In fact, I know they would, and I know where those attitudes come from.

That said, I don't think the proper response is for Israel to engage in the sort of behavior it's accused of. I believe that it has to take the moral high ground. That's not to say it should be held to a different standard, but I think most Israeli's just want to be left alone and live their lives without their children getting blown up on school buses.

That isn't going to happen if they intentionally agitate like the Kahane folk.

Have you noticed "taking the moral high ground" means you aren't allowed to win anymore?

Take Israel for example. They has HAD the moral high ground from Day One, IMO. Yet the same people that criticize the US no matter what we do, criticize Israel as well.

Dishonest literalism and distoriting reality is the name of their game in hopes of not having to take a stand on an issue.

 

[jillian]

Have you noticed "taking the moral high ground" means you aren't allowed to win anymore?

Take Israel for example. They has HAD the moral high ground from Day One, IMO. Yet the same people that criticize the US no matter what we do, criticize Israel as well.

Dishonest literalism and distoriting reality is the name of their game in hopes of not having to take a stand on an issue.

I don't agree that you can't win and keep the moral high ground. And certainly, you're correct that Israel is held to a different standard. It's that double standard that needs to be evaluated, though we all know why it exists.

That, of course, does not mean keeping the settlements would have been a good idea or served a strategic purpose.

 

[doniston]

Im a jew, son of an israel man, an american woman.

Im torn on this issue.

On one hand, many say the settlements are illegal, because of international law

On the other, many say the settlements are needed to combat islamic terrorism, and with the fact, that muslims/islam stole 57 countries from christians, and are pursecuting christians worldwide, the settlements are needed more then ever.

Your opinion is, and why?


Second, do you believe all terrorism against israel will end, if all the settlement are torn down and all the jews leave the west bank?

1. let me start by saying that I am vemenously anti Israel (the government- maybe Anti-Zionist???) but I m not anti Jew.
2. It has been shown in the past that the "peoples" Jew and Arab, can coexist peacefully side by side.
3. The jews should nor be compelled to leave the settlements, but rather, the settlements should be open to all. It was a sad mistake for Israel to evict Jews from settlements, and the destroy the dwellings. What a waste. The Wall SHOULD be destroyed.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

#1. You can oppose a specific policy without being anti-semetic.

#2 jews and christians were treated as 2nd class citizens, during the times which you speak of.

#3 I can only comment on the wall, I disagree... The jews need it to prevent terror attacks.

Thanks for your comments

1. let me start by saying that I am vemenously anti Israel (the government- maybe Anti-Zionist???) but I m not anti Jew.
2. It has been shown in the past that the "peoples" Jew and Arab, can coexist peacefully side by side.
3. The jews should nor be compelled to leave the settlements, but rather, the settlements should be open to all. It was a sad mistake for Israel to evict Jews from settlements, and the destroy the dwellings. What a waste. The Wall SHOULD be destroyed.

 

[doniston]

#1. You can oppose a specific policy without being anti-semetic.

#2 jews and christians were treated as 2nd class citizens, during the times which you speak of.

#3 I can only comment on the wall, I disagree... The jews need it to prevent terror attacks.

Thanks for your comments

Just a question, Reference #2. what times do you suppose I was speaking of? I never stated. however, I was speaking of recent times, not ancient history.(the last few years)

 

[doniston]

Have you noticed "taking the moral high ground" means you aren't allowed to win anymore?

Take Israel for example. They has HAD the moral high ground from Day One, IMO. Yet the same people that criticize the US no matter what we do, criticize Israel as well.


QUOTE]I take strong exception to that.

When, in the past sixty years has Israel had the high moral ground?, and further,

When in the past forty Years has the US held the high moral ground regarding their association with Israel?

That is why I critisize both for their virtually terroristic relationship.

I am proudly those "SAME" people. Now does that appear that I don't take a "STAND" on the issue???