It’s a timing thing. If these had been announced at any other time than when Biden got there…
Even when they bring it upon themselves by illegal acts of trespass and theft? The principle is that they have to endorse and support crimes committed by Jews?
What’s stopping the settlers from moving back to Israel? Didn’t they know they were leaving it when they moved to Palestine? Or did they have some, um, other expectation?
Lantern, Clinton had a two-state solution negotiated and ready to sign, when Arafat decided he wouldn’t risk assassination for it. That’s as much as anybody other than Carter has achieved, and as much as anybody could have.
As far as the settlers are concerned, the West Bank IS Israel. So, yes, the settlers had some other expectation…they expect Israel to get around to annexing the West Bank, or to use the settler term, Judea and Samaria. This is not something they make any secret of, so I’m surprised you didn’t realize it.
And I don’t think Arafat didn’t sign it because he was afraid of assassination. He didn’t sign it because he was a murderous bastard who didn’t have any actual interest in peace.
The vast majority of those settlements are legal under Israeli law.
The vast majority of them acted in accordance with Israeli law. Maybe the Israeli government broke international law in allowing them, but that’s not their fault.
And yes, even so. We look after our own, even if we don’t agree with them, even if we don’t like them. Kol Israel arevim ze la’ze.
Who cares what the settlers think? They’re wrong. Racial entitlement is not a snetiment or ideology worthy of state support.
And against intenational law. As I said. The “principle” being supported is nothing but racial entitlement.
And whether they’re right or wrong is irrelevant, huh? If they’re Israelis, that makes them right? Maybe “All Israel” should think about what that “responsibility” really means.
Yes, they could literally cut the tough, woody ends off the asparagus…in the store, pay by the pound, and be totally in the right. 
Whether the settlers are right or wrong, the question was what they expected when they moved to the settlement, so ElvisL1ves obviously cares what the settlers think, because he asked the question.
Regardless of whether it’s against international law or not, because I don’t really want to debate that with you, like I said, it’s legal under Israeli law. If you don’t like it, sue Israel in the World Court or something, but the settlers are Israeli citizens, not international citizens.
And, like Alessan said,"Kol Israel arevim ze la’ze.
That’s, like, your opinion, man.
What does right have to do with it? We look after each other because it’s our duty. If we don’t, who will? You?
I don’t trust a world who’ll only help us if they think we’re “right”. Why should I put my life in the hands of your fickle opinion? What gives you the right to judge anyone?
If the US decided to let whirling dervishes whirl, Palestine would cease to exist as a country (methinks)
IMO, Israel provides a two fold problem. We like they way they can police the middle eastern countries. We may show disdain for them if they cross a line or act to deliberately go against the US. (Unless it was actually a concern for the US, like the Iran nuclear reactor)
Publicly, we show this side but privately we pat their backs. Israel doesn’t just hold a tenuous rule, they hold a completely sustainable rule with the lack of any other powers.
Israel V Palestine, who wins and more importantly how does it occur?
I rest my case. You think entitlement comes entirely from race.
So yoiu’re sayuing that Israel has no moral duty, only racial duty?
We already are.
Why do you think you’re entitled to help if you’re NOT right? If you don’t care about being right, that’s fine by me, but don’t ask me for any more money.
Protecting its citizens is Israel’s moral duty.
The $2.775 billion we are giving Israel in aid this year? I think that buys us the right. You don’t want to be judged by us, get off our teat.
Whether those citizens are right or wrong? How is that moral. What makes its citizens more important than right and wrong?
Nah Marley, you know me well enough to know that I’m many things, but seldom subtle. 
It was just a comment about how my actual positions are deliberately being ignored in order for folks to demonize me. I suppose that I could’ve said “Finn eats babies!” instead.
It wasn’t meant to further the debate, it was a bit of annoyance that despite what I’m on record as saying about the resolution of the conflict, the status of US aid and settlements, the legitimate desires of the PA and the need for a viable two state solution, etc… there are some who will always, even in threads where the information has been posted so that they know they’re wrong, accuse me of supporting whatever Israel does, or wanting to bomb Iran, or whatever the current fiction is. I’ve been in threads where I posted that it would be a bad idea to bomb Iran, and people have said that I’m advocating bombing Iran. I’ve been in threads where I’ve said that we shout cut off all aid to Israel if they keep expanding settlements in the West Bank, and people have posted saying that I slavishly agree with everything Israel does and can find no fault with them ever. To be honest, it’s more than a bit frustrating.
So no, when I do respond to stuff of that sort I’m not so much trying to further debate as I am trying to point out that the claims are fictional in as strong a manner as I am allowed to go in GD.
“What do you think of all of Israel’s actions ever and which do you support and which do you oppose and why” is rather obviously not within the scope of talking about Israeli housing in East Jerusalem or US aid.
*
However*, the question of why 3 bil to Israel is singled out as a massive problem and a ‘destabilizing factor’ (and as pointed out, our military adventurism in Iraq is ignored or actually blamed on Israel) while Israel doesn’t need to be propped up, while 3 bil to South Korea earns nary a peep… is quite relevant in a thread about us aid to Israel and why it should be stopped. It directly goes to a question of which metrics we are using and, more importantly, why.
And when issues of “security risk” come up, it then pays to ask why if terrorists claim certain actions as justifications, why for instance we don’t say that terrorists’ demands must be met in other cases. What, for example, do you think is the venn diagram overlap of those who say “this is a security risk because terrorists might attack us, so we must stop it” and “abortion is a security risk because of abortion clinic bombers and doctor-killers, so we must stop it.”
The metrics we use are important.