Settlers

[ForeverYoung436]

Most of the posters here, people who are obsessed with Palestine, view the settlers in Judea and Samaria, as the most evil people on the planet. However, alot of them are brave people, striving to maintain a Jewish presence in the birthplace of the Jewish people. Except for Beersheba, every important Biblical city, can be found "davka" in the West Bank. There is Hebron, where Abraham lived and was buried; Bethlehem, where the shepherd, warrior and poet David was born, and first crowned King of Israel; Shiloh, where the Tabernacle stood; Jericho, where the walls fell down for Joshua; Bethel, where Jacob dreamt of a staircase to Heaven; and Shechem, where Joseph, who wore a technicolor dreamcoat, was laid to rest. It's ironic that a Jew can live in Amsterdam, Berlin or New York, but not where Judaism was born. Let's remember that the Jews were driven out of Hebron in 1927, after a horrific massacre. These settlers live among a multitude of hostile and bloodthirsty Arabs, in order to preserve their history and heritage. They carry guns in order to survive. Even if a 23rd backward Arab nation should arise over there, shouldn't Jews still be able to live there? I, for one, think so. And Jerusalem, at least, should remain the united capital of Israel; otherwise, the miraculous Six-Day War would have meant nothing at all.

 

[Boston1]

A 23rd backward Arab nation will not arise there. The Arabs aren't interested in a state. Look what happened in Gaza, the Arabs have had every opportunity to establish statehood in Gaza but instead waste virtually all their time and effort digging tunnels.

The disputed territory will never be another Arab state. IMHO it should be cleared of combatants and the number of Arab enclaves reduced to just a few for security reasons.

But no matter how you look at it the settlers are a brave courageous lot a few of whom I'm privileged to know. They're not going anywhere, the violent among the Arabs are, and its outa here

 

[RoccoR]

ForeverYoung436, et al,

I see a couple of issues here. The obvious one (of course) being the historical connection between the Jewish People and the region of Palestine. This "historic connection" has been politically recognized since the time of the San Remo Agreement (1920); and maybe even before that time.

The other less obvious --- and often latent (and least talked about) --- is in the context of the Agreement Between Emir Faisal and Doctor Weizmann (1919):

Article IV (Excerpt)

• All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

Article V (Excerpt)

• No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Article VI (Excerpt)

• The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.
​

Pursuant to Appendix I -- Annex III --- THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT (28 September 1995): (Area C (full Israeli civil and security control)

​

Most of the posters here, people who are obsessed with Palestine, view the settlers in Judea and Samaria, as the most evil people on the planet. However, alot of them are brave people, striving to maintain a Jewish presence in the birthplace of the Jewish people. Except for Beersheba, every important Biblical city, can be found "davka" in the West Bank. There is Hebron, where Abraham lived and was buried; Bethlehem, where the shepherd, warrior and poet David was born, and first crowned King of Israel; Shiloh, where the Tabernacle stood; Jericho, where the walls fell down for Joshua; Bethel, where Jacob dreamt of a staircase to Heaven; and Shechem, where Joseph, who wore a technicolor dreamcoat, was laid to rest. It's ironic that a Jew can live in Amsterdam, Berlin or New York, but not where Judaism was born. Let's remember that the Jews were driven out of Hebron in 1927, after a horrific massacre. These settlers live among a multitude of hostile and bloodthirsty Arabs, in order to preserve their history and heritage. They carry guns in order to survive. Even if a 23rd backward Arab nation should arise over there, shouldn't Jews still be able to live there? I, for one, think so. And Jerusalem, at least, should remain the united capital of Israel; otherwise, the miraculous Six-Day War would have meant nothing at all.

(COMMENT)

There are only a few things that are more complicated than the understanding of the human mind. But right up there with this complication is the explanation of Gravity, Dark Matter/Energy, why Relativism and Quantum Mechanics don't dovetail, why Egyptians cannot read hieroglyph, and the great mystery to the Solution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

The issue of settlements in the West Bank has not been not the same over time. Prior to 1988, the issue was not an Israeli-Palestinian question, but rather the an issue between the Israelis and the Jordanians.

On 31 July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank. On 15 November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence. The question is about that period between 31 July -- and 15 November 1988, and what happened to that territory? What was its status since the only effective control during that period was extended and physically maintained by the Israelis.

Occupation: When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ (permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements:

(i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous
​

There are two requirements

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of anther state (terra nullius)
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.
​

• Since Israeli was already in effective control, and had been for more than a decade, what impact does this have?
• Was there any Previously-Recognized Sovereignty to the Territories?
• After Oslo Accords, can the territories be classified as "Occupied"?

When we use the term "occupied" --- has that become a politically motivated word or phrase to confuse and jumble the image of Israel. Is this a question of "disputed" territory.

It will be interesting as to how the International Court sorts this out.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

ForeverYoung436, et al,

I see a couple of issues here. The obvious one (of course) being the historical connection between the Jewish People and the region of Palestine. This "historic connection" has been politically recognized since the time of the San Remo Agreement (1920); and maybe even before that time.

The other less obvious --- and often latent (and least talked about) --- is in the context of the Agreement Between Emir Faisal and Doctor Weizmann (1919):

Article IV (Excerpt)

• All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

Article V (Excerpt)

• No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Article VI (Excerpt)

• The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.
​

Pursuant to Appendix I -- Annex III --- THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT (28 September 1995): (Area C (full Israeli civil and security control)

​

Most of the posters here, people who are obsessed with Palestine, view the settlers in Judea and Samaria, as the most evil people on the planet. However, alot of them are brave people, striving to maintain a Jewish presence in the birthplace of the Jewish people. Except for Beersheba, every important Biblical city, can be found "davka" in the West Bank. There is Hebron, where Abraham lived and was buried; Bethlehem, where the shepherd, warrior and poet David was born, and first crowned King of Israel; Shiloh, where the Tabernacle stood; Jericho, where the walls fell down for Joshua; Bethel, where Jacob dreamt of a staircase to Heaven; and Shechem, where Joseph, who wore a technicolor dreamcoat, was laid to rest. It's ironic that a Jew can live in Amsterdam, Berlin or New York, but not where Judaism was born. Let's remember that the Jews were driven out of Hebron in 1927, after a horrific massacre. These settlers live among a multitude of hostile and bloodthirsty Arabs, in order to preserve their history and heritage. They carry guns in order to survive. Even if a 23rd backward Arab nation should arise over there, shouldn't Jews still be able to live there? I, for one, think so. And Jerusalem, at least, should remain the united capital of Israel; otherwise, the miraculous Six-Day War would have meant nothing at all.

(COMMENT)

There are only a few things that are more complicated than the understanding of the human mind. But right up there with this complication is the explanation of Gravity, Dark Matter/Energy, why Relativism and Quantum Mechanics don't dovetail, why Egyptians cannot read hieroglyph, and the great mystery to the Solution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

The issue of settlements in the West Bank has not been not the same over time. Prior to 1988, the issue was not an Israeli-Palestinian question, but rather the an issue between the Israelis and the Jordanians.

On 31 July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank. On 15 November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence. The question is about that period between 31 July -- and 15 November 1988, and what happened to that territory? What was its status since the only effective control during that period was extended and physically maintained by the Israelis.

Occupation: When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ (permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements:

(i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous
​

There are two requirements

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of anther state (terra nullius)
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.
​

• Since Israeli was already in effective control, and had been for more than a decade, what impact does this have?
• Was there any Previously-Recognized Sovereignty to the Territories?
• After Oslo Accords, can the territories be classified as "Occupied"?

When we use the term "occupied" --- has that become a politically motivated word or phrase to confuse and jumble the image of Israel. Is this a question of "disputed" territory.

It will be interesting as to how the International Court sorts this out.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice job.

From what I can see the area was never a sovereign state post Ottoman Syrian rule. Also the Israeli courts have never ruled on if it is an occupation of not. If I recall the Israeli position is that the area is available for the creation of a national Jewish homeland.

Another issue is that no international law existed previous to the UNSCR242 which is a nonbinding resolution accepted under art VI retroactively making land acquisition by war illegal. Ergo 242 doesn't qualify as international law, as no nation is required to adhere to nonbinding resolutions.

Which brings us to customary law. In which case, up to this point in history it was customary for nations to acquire land by war.

Ergo while I'd agree the area might be referred to as disputed, Israel is in no way illegally occupying an area designated for the creation of a national Jewish homeland

Settlers in this area I'd think are perfectly legal.

 

[Coyote]

Many of the "settlers" are intolerant and violent extremists - there is nothing brave or wonderful about them. Their aim is to drive the Palestinians out and they do so by destroying their property, attacking their children and even killing them. I fail to understand why that is "noble" when settlers do it but horrific when Palestinians do it.

 

[Boston1]

How many Settlers do you know ? Because I've met more than a few. They are as noble as noble gets. They feel an extremely strong sense of ethnic and cultural pride and simply will not be intimidated. I give them a lot of credit for sticking up for themselves.

Its the Arab Muslims that are the intolerant extremists. Let me ask you this. How many Jews are in Gaza or the Arab areas of the disputed territories ? VS how many Arabs Israel and Israeli areas ?

Its a no brainer as to who's being intolerant.

As for violence thats also a no brainer. Lets look at this latest wave of violence. 28 Arab Muslims out of a mob of hundreds were shot while attacking Israeli's today. TODAY alone.

And they are children. The Arab Muslims have taken to sending their own children forward with knives and rocks. I can't think of anything less noble.

No I'll take my settler friends over a raving hoard anyday.

 

[Phoenall]

Many of the "settlers" are intolerant and violent extremists - there is nothing brave or wonderful about them. Their aim is to drive the Palestinians out and they do so by destroying their property, attacking their children and even killing them. I fail to understand why that is "noble" when settlers do it but horrific when Palestinians do it.

Are the Palestinians any different then. How would you react to having your home and property stolen by force and then seeing an illegal law placed on the statute books stopping you from reclaiming that property. That is what the Palestinians did to the Jews in 1949, and now the Jews are reclaiming that land. It is the Palestinians aim to drive the Jews out and to destroy their nation as shown by their many charters. The Jews are defending against illegal land thieves and terrorists is the prime difference and only a moronic Jew hater could say any different.

 

[Coyote]

Many of the "settlers" are intolerant and violent extremists - there is nothing brave or wonderful about them. Their aim is to drive the Palestinians out and they do so by destroying their property, attacking their children and even killing them. I fail to understand why that is "noble" when settlers do it but horrific when Palestinians do it.

Are the Palestinians any different then. How would you react to having your home and property stolen by force and then seeing an illegal law placed on the statute books stopping you from reclaiming that property. That is what the Palestinians did to the Jews in 1949, and now the Jews are reclaiming that land. It is the Palestinians aim to drive the Jews out and to destroy their nation as shown by their many charters. The Jews are defending against illegal land thieves and terrorists is the prime difference and only a moronic Jew hater could say any different.

Extremist Palestinians are no different, it's just that folks like you will never criticize those settlers. Instead, you justify the violence.

 

[Coyote]

How many Settlers do you know ? Because I've met more than a few. They are as noble as noble gets. They feel an extremely strong sense of ethnic and cultural pride and simply will not be intimidated. I give them a lot of credit for sticking up for themselves.

Its the Arab Muslims that are the intolerant extremists. Let me ask you this. How many Jews are in Gaza or the Arab areas of the disputed territories ? VS how many Arabs Israel and Israeli areas ?

Its a no brainer as to who's being intolerant.

As for violence thats also a no brainer. Lets look at this latest wave of violence. 28 Arab Muslims out of a mob of hundreds were shot while attacking Israeli's today. TODAY alone.

And they are children. The Arab Muslims have taken to sending their own children forward with knives and rocks. I can't think of anything less noble.

No I'll take my settler friends over a raving hoard anyday.

How many Palestinians do you know?

How is stoning kids on the way to school as "noble as noble gets"?

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

The Chivalry, personal qualities (honesty, integrity, discretion, judgement, etc) and the high moral attributes can never justify the intentional engagement specifically against non-combatants. Since before the time of the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army (Palestinian Arab Irregulars with leaders that were associated with WWII Germany), straight through to the Munich Olympic Massacre (involving the unnecessary killing civilians) the scope and nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians has long been well established. Even right up to the present, the Hostile Arab-Palestinians attempt every single day to justify attacks on civilians, the Indiscriminate Rocket Fire, Terrorism and Political Violence and the continuation of conflict --- and the past history of kidnapping and murder, suicide attacks, bombing, infiltration and ambushes, hijackings, and piracy.

In the century since the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, both sides (Jewish and Arab) have had uncapitalized opportunities for peace and events of less then honorable consequences as outcomes. There are probably few, if any, 100 year conflicts which have not had corrupted moments. This conflict is no different.

How many Palestinians do you know?
How is stoning kids on the way to school as "noble as noble gets"?

Extremist Palestinians are no different, it's just that folks like you will never criticize those settlers. Instead, you justify the violence.

(COMMENT)

Extremism is seen, in measure, on both sides of the issue. And there are only those very rare instances when extremist action is beneficial.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boston1]

While you refuse to answer my question, I'll answer yours anyway.

I've known several Arab Muslims of the mandated area. All claimed Jordanian citizenship although they do mention the term palestinian. We've had some rousing conversations. The one that I'm closest to lately is, friends with some friends and has over the years turned out to be a horrible person.

Left her husband of many years and ran off with a married man who'd just become a father. She's combative, argumentative, arrogant and has few friends.

The other one I know best in in Jail for illegal arms possession. Apparently when he couldn't acquire a weapon legally in this country he did so illegally and then was dumb enough to go to the same firing range as the local cops use.

I'm not hip to the entire story but I guess when he walked up to sign in for a range someone at the counter ( yes it was profiling ) noticed his Arabic looks and it was downhill from there.

Not sure when he's getting out.

I also had a dear friend in grad school I defended tooth and nail when 9/11 happened

He was one of the good ones.

I also dated a muslim just last summer during my summer stay in Yellowstone. Not my first middle eastern girl friend either. Hopefully no tmy last

So you were saying

How many Settlers do you know ?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

The Chivalry, personal qualities (honesty, integrity, discretion, judgement, etc) and the high moral attributes can never justify the intentional engagement specifically against non-combatants. Since before the time of the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army (Palestinian Arab Irregulars with leaders that were associated with WWII Germany), straight through to the Munich Olympic Massacre (involving the unnecessary killing civilians) the scope and nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians has long been well established. Even right up to the present, the Hostile Arab-Palestinians attempt every single day to justify attacks on civilians, the Indiscriminate Rocket Fire, Terrorism and Political Violence and the continuation of conflict --- and the past history of kidnapping and murder, suicide attacks, bombing, infiltration and ambushes, hijackings, and piracy.

In the century since the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, both sides (Jewish and Arab) have had uncapitalized opportunities for peace and events of less then honorable consequences as outcomes. There are probably few, if any, 100 year conflicts which have not had corrupted moments. This conflict is no different.

How many Palestinians do you know?
How is stoning kids on the way to school as "noble as noble gets"?

Extremist Palestinians are no different, it's just that folks like you will never criticize those settlers. Instead, you justify the violence.

(COMMENT)

Extremism is seen, in measure, on both sides of the issue. And there are only those very rare instances when extremist action is beneficial.

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly.

But here too is food for thought - when the hostile Arabs were conducting terrorist activities - so too were Jewish groups like Irgun, Lehigh, Sterns. Once they gained a state, there was no more need for it. They had what they had been striving for. That rather changes things doesn't it?

 

[Coyote]

While you refuse to answer my question, I'll answer yours anyway.

I've known several Arab Muslims of the mandated area. All claimed Jordanian citizenship although they do mention the term palestinian. We've had some rousing conversations. The one that I'm closest to lately is, friends with some friends and has over the years turned out to be a horrible person.

Left her husband of many years and ran off with a married man who'd just become a father. She's combative, argumentative, arrogant and has few friends.

The other one I know best in in Jail for illegal arms possession. Apparently when he couldn't acquire a weapon legally in this country he did so illegally and then was dumb enough to go to the same firing range as the local cops use.

I'm not hip to the entire story but I guess when he walked up to sign in for a range someone at the counter ( yes it was profiling ) noticed his Arabic looks and it was downhill from there.

Not sure when he's getting out.

I also had a dear friend in grad school I defended tooth and nail when 9/11 happened

He was one of the good ones.

I also dated a muslim just last summer during my summer stay in Yellowstone. Not my first middle eastern girl friend either. Hopefully no tmy last

So you were saying

How many Settlers do you know ?

I know two, but it's been many years. They were scientists involved collaborative research with my mother, and we hosted them many times along with other Israeli scientists from Tel Aviv including a couple (Dr. and Dr.) who had survived concentration camp. They were all nice people and I enjoyed their company. I also know a number of Palestinians - who immigrated here. One, came over as a child, the others as adults pursuing professions they couldn't in the Palestinian territories. They are also scientists.

Oh. And all of them - the Israeli's and the Palestinians are some of the "good ones".

They weren't arrogant, dogmatic, intolerant - but funny, charming, intelligent and fascinating.

 

[Shusha]

But here too is food for thought - when the hostile Arabs were conducting terrorist activities - so too were Jewish groups like Irgun, Lehigh, Sterns. Once they gained a state, there was no more need for it. They had what they had been striving for. That rather changes things doesn't it?

Its quite subtle, but this is justification for committing terrorism. Its supporting the idea that terrorism is somehow NECESSARY for the achievement of political goals and no longer necessary once those political goals have been achieved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Coyote]

But here too is food for thought - when the hostile Arabs were conducting terrorist activities - so too were Jewish groups like Irgun, Lehigh, Sterns. Once they gained a state, there was no more need for it. They had what they had been striving for. That rather changes things doesn't it?

Its quite subtle, but this is justification for committing terrorism. Its supporting the idea that terrorism is somehow NECESSARY for the achievement of political goals and no longer necessary once those political goals have been achieved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's not justification - what I'm pointing out is how the emphasis is always on the Arab violence, yet there was considerable Jewish gang activity as well. The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists? Aren't they all? Yet they acted the same - targeting and murdering civilians. It's so important for one side to paint itself as peaceful but it wasn't. Not at all. At least the Palestinians aren't pretending to be anything but what they are.

I'm feeling extremely cynical right now, so I'm going to ask this - has ANY state been won without any terrorism? That's not a justification - it's me wondering it it is ever possible to attain something peacefully? Mahatma Ghandi is one of my heros, but India's independence was hardly peaceful.

 

[peach174]

Most of the posters here, people who are obsessed with Palestine, view the settlers in Judea and Samaria, as the most evil people on the planet. However, alot of them are brave people, striving to maintain a Jewish presence in the birthplace of the Jewish people. Except for Beersheba, every important Biblical city, can be found "davka" in the West Bank. There is Hebron, where Abraham lived and was buried; Bethlehem, where the shepherd, warrior and poet David was born, and first crowned King of Israel; Shiloh, where the Tabernacle stood; Jericho, where the walls fell down for Joshua; Bethel, where Jacob dreamt of a staircase to Heaven; and Shechem, where Joseph, who wore a technicolor dreamcoat, was laid to rest. It's ironic that a Jew can live in Amsterdam, Berlin or New York, but not where Judaism was born. Let's remember that the Jews were driven out of Hebron in 1927, after a horrific massacre. These settlers live among a multitude of hostile and bloodthirsty Arabs, in order to preserve their history and heritage. They carry guns in order to survive. Even if a 23rd backward Arab nation should arise over there, shouldn't Jews still be able to live there? I, for one, think so. And Jerusalem, at least, should remain the united capital of Israel; otherwise, the miraculous Six-Day War would have meant nothing at all.

Just remember that GOD promised to bring them back to that land and it is now theirs forever.
He has never gone back on his promises.
They will have a terrible time to go through, but in the end it is worth it.
They know this.

 

[Shusha]

... The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists?

Wait, what? So you are saying the only difference between terrorism and law enforcement is that the "winners" get to pretend to be the good guys?

You are saying that Israel is currently engaging in terrorism?

 

[Boston1]

But here too is food for thought - when the hostile Arabs were conducting terrorist activities - so too were Jewish groups like Irgun, Lehigh, Sterns. Once they gained a state, there was no more need for it. They had what they had been striving for. That rather changes things doesn't it?

Its quite subtle, but this is justification for committing terrorism. Its supporting the idea that terrorism is somehow NECESSARY for the achievement of political goals and no longer necessary once those political goals have been achieved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's not justification - what I'm pointing out is how the emphasis is always on the Arab violence, yet there was considerable Jewish gang activity as well. The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists? Aren't they all? Yet they acted the same - targeting and murdering civilians. It's so important for one side to paint itself as peaceful but it wasn't. Not at all. At least the Palestinians aren't pretending to be anything but what they are.

I'm feeling extremely cynical right now, so I'm going to ask this - has ANY state been won without any terrorism? That's not a justification - it's me wondering it it is ever possible to attain something peacefully? Mahatma Ghandi is one of my heros, but India's independence was hardly peaceful.

I'm not sure how much you know about Ghandi, but he was an asshole. Everyone who worked with him universally reported this. The man was a nightmare to work with.

His entire peacenik approach was staged.

He'd jump up and down and yell and scream at his staff. There's even reliable reports of him striking staff members.

You really might pick a different hero

Ghandi ranks right up there with MLK

Oh and neither were settlers ;--)

 

[Phoenall]

Many of the "settlers" are intolerant and violent extremists - there is nothing brave or wonderful about them. Their aim is to drive the Palestinians out and they do so by destroying their property, attacking their children and even killing them. I fail to understand why that is "noble" when settlers do it but horrific when Palestinians do it.

Are the Palestinians any different then. How would you react to having your home and property stolen by force and then seeing an illegal law placed on the statute books stopping you from reclaiming that property. That is what the Palestinians did to the Jews in 1949, and now the Jews are reclaiming that land. It is the Palestinians aim to drive the Jews out and to destroy their nation as shown by their many charters. The Jews are defending against illegal land thieves and terrorists is the prime difference and only a moronic Jew hater could say any different.

Extremist Palestinians are no different, it's just that folks like you will never criticize those settlers. Instead, you justify the violence.

Just as you never criticise the actions of the arab muslims who stole the land in 1949 from its Jewish owners. Passing laws to make the land Jew free for ever. Then in 1967 the arab muslims try once again to wipe out the Jews and destroy Israel, and end up getting destroyed themselves. How is it the "Palestinians" did not want a nation of their own prior to the rout of 1967, and then the expulsion from Jordan in 1970. Why no terrorism and violence against Jordan and Egypt from 1949 till 1967 when they occupied the land of Palestine, the one question that team Palestine refuse to answer

 

[Phoenall]

How many Settlers do you know ? Because I've met more than a few. They are as noble as noble gets. They feel an extremely strong sense of ethnic and cultural pride and simply will not be intimidated. I give them a lot of credit for sticking up for themselves.

Its the Arab Muslims that are the intolerant extremists. Let me ask you this. How many Jews are in Gaza or the Arab areas of the disputed territories ? VS how many Arabs Israel and Israeli areas ?

Its a no brainer as to who's being intolerant.

As for violence thats also a no brainer. Lets look at this latest wave of violence. 28 Arab Muslims out of a mob of hundreds were shot while attacking Israeli's today. TODAY alone.

And they are children. The Arab Muslims have taken to sending their own children forward with knives and rocks. I can't think of anything less noble.

No I'll take my settler friends over a raving hoard anyday.

How many Palestinians do you know?

How is stoning kids on the way to school as "noble as noble gets"?

How many do you know in reality

Ask that of the Palestinians who did it for many years before the tit for tat responses became headline news. Strange that wasn't it while the Palestinians were stoning children going to school it was not a topic of interest, as soon as Jews started to reply with stones of their own it became a war crime.

By the way did you know that the IRA stoned children on their way to school and then whinged when the stones came back ten fold.