Why would anyone volunteer to become a settler? One would exacerbate an already terrible situation, and put one’s entire family in danger of terrorism. I cannot think of any reason for becoming a settler, other than sheer bloody-mindedness.
Except for the Palestinians stopped at roadblocks for hours, while the settlers are allowed unhindered travel. That is, of course, if Palestinians are allowed on the roads at all.
Oh well fuck me, december. I’m sure there’s vast tracts of “unoccupied” America that no one lives on. Wasteland, desert, no animals, no people, whatever.
Why don’t I just move straight in? The US government can go fuck themselves. They’re not living there.
And while I’m about it, I’ll move in huge foreign-funded armies to keep those merkin fukkas off my shiny new settlements.
rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes
There just isn’t an emoticon to express what I feel at such a stupid, WRONG argument…
You are absolutely correct. I have read that there are quite a few squatters living with their families in the area of the Salton Sea, in southern California. Since you are so offended, why don’t you sneak in with an automatic rifle and shoot the women and children? That’s what your exemplars, the Palestinian terrorists, are doing.
If december actually wanted a debate, I would have no problem with that usage. When was the last time december seemed to want a debate?
December wrote:
"Istara – They are built on land that is vacant. Nothing and nobody is there. It’s literally unoccupied.
<snip>
But, regardless of the legality, the land is literally unoccupied.
So, now Istara and I can move our tents to where WTC stood? No, at a second thought, it’s probably a too noisy place.
Better to move to New Jersey, where our mutual friend December is living. I prefer living in the countryside. I also need some forest to feel at home.
If the neighbours are against, we wreck them out of their homes.
If they are still against, we buy some helicopters and begin to blast them randomly. And if they have built up something new, we just bulldozer their sheds or whatever.
They are spoiling our view, and on the other hand when we have found the “Final Solution” to that, there will not be anyone at a miles range and we are even more legal than…, well the other guys.
But do not worry, when the TV-teams will come I will fly blood to these terrorists, who asked us to go to hell, or something like that. I will tell the teems: “Here we have a terrorist. Now I will give him some blood…”
So, dear December, paint a red cross on Your roof, so that we do not blast You to pieces by mistake.
You are our best proof of that we have done everything right and legaly. We will protect You as best we can.
Yes and I will keep the Isrealian flag on my yard, so that everyone knows that ther is no harm intended.
Btw., You told You are a conservative in one of Your enlighting posts.
So do You not care about Law and Order, (and Higher Moral Standards)?
You are writing about socializing land like some piggy commie, are You not?
But, naturally, if it is the life-style in New Jersey, so be it.
I see no ships!
Absolutely! In all history, people have tended to live as far as possible from water: From tributaries, streams, rivers, wells – especially in arid regions like the West Bank.
I’m not playing the game of picking out one settlement so you can then say it’s not representative. If people reading this want to think high ground doesn’t overlook (historically inhabited) lowland, then so be it. I suggest anyone else look at a map, look at the location of settlements and then look for the thin blue lines.
BTW, if you have actually been to the West Bank and don’t accept this I can only conclude you’re a simple liar or are dangerously delusional.
Also, from that link CyberPundit supplied (above};
"How many settlements would you dismantle?
I won’t give you a direct answer ... but it is not just a few settlements. It is more than a few, that’s for sure. In Gaza for example, I would evacuate all the settlements and relocate the defense line along the current fence. We’re talking about an area with 3½ million Palestinians ... **The settlements are the core issue of the problem with the Palestinians. This is one of the most difficult issues, and I think it will determine whether or not an agreement is possible with the other side. **
*But many of the settlements were built when your own Labor party was in power.*
Labor built settlements in specific areas. But it was Sharon’s idea in the late ’70s to build settlements everywhere to make sure the government will never be able to evacuate them ... I was aware then that it was wrong and would lead nowhere. Most of the leaders didn’t have the strength to tell the truth."Hmmm… so by the same token, it wouldn’t be a problem if settlers from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt (or indeed England, Mongolia or Papua New Guinea) “settled” in, say, large parts of the “unoccupied” Negev Desert?
On that particular blinding piece of legal understanding, not even the way-out-there conservative Israeli Government agrees with him:
http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/results.pl?scope=newsukfs&tab=news&q=illegal+settlements
“Israel’s defence minister has said he wants to uproot 20 illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.”
Nor is that new. Barak was of a similar mind three years ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/473270.stm
“Israeli settlers say Prime Minister Ehud Barak plans to demolish more than a third of the Jewish communities erected illegally on Arab land during the past year.”
The man’s barking .
december, you are Vladimir Jabotinsky, and I claim my £5.
DECEMBER, try to stay with me here:
The issue of the right (if any) of the settlers to set up camps – camps, hell: towns – on disputed lands is a different issue from the issue of whether the Palestinians are right to attack the settlements and kill the settlers.
Two different issues.
Now, assuming I am willing to grant in your hypothetical that no one has the right to kill the squatters living out in their pathetic trailers on the Salton Sea – indeed, people must not do so – kindly explain how that means those squatters have any right to be living out there on land they do not own.
I may not have the right to shoot them, but I sure as hell have the right to kick them out, by physical force if necessary, and bulldoze their houses. Assuming the land in question is mine, of course.
And as I have already said, “But it’s empty!” is a non-starter as an argument. In the modern world, land is understood to have intrinsic worth beyond being exploited for towns and farms. Sometimes we leave the desert alone, just as a desert, because it has worth as is, and is not improved by being paved over and parked on. Furthermore, in the modern world, we grant greater deference to indivdual property rights than we do to the idea that land should be in all cases “in productive use.” Meaning: If it’s your land, you can leave it empty if you want to, and no one has the right to take your land from you just because they would “use” it and you aren’t.
This is the opposite of the philosphy employed in 18th and 19th century America, when land in North America was taken from the Natives on the basis that, heck, they weren’t using it, so it therefore didn’t really belong to them. This rationale is now almost universally rejected – including, as has been pointed out, but some of the most conservative of Israelis. (And no surprise there: True conservatives invariably have a high regard for the sanctity of individual property rights.)
So kindly do not conflate the issue of the right or wisdom of settling disputed lands with the issue of the right or wisdom of killing settlers. They are not the same issues, and the fact that the latter is arguably inexcusable doesn’t mean the former isn’t inexcusable as well.
As I have already said: The ownership of the land is in dispute. That is the reason neither side should be settling it. This does not mean this is the only problem the Palestinians face. This does not mean that every other aspect of Palestinian existence must be hunky-dory.
So at least we all seem to agree that the land on which the settlements are built was unoccupied dessert; No one was evicted from their home so that a settlement could be built. I once met a person who believe this.
Some people seem to be stuck up on some legalistic argument. They say the settlements are a cause of the violence because the land was legally Palestinian land. It doesn’t mater that it was unoccupied.
The land was unoccupied Jewish land, until the Romans took it, where it because unoccupied Roman land, then unoccupied Bizzanteen land, then unoccupied Ottoman land. The Ottomans lost to the British in WWI, and it because unoccupied British land.
The British asked the UN to divide the land. The UN came up with a partition plan which gave a chunk to the Palestinian Arabs and a chunk to the Palestinian Jews.
NO ARAB LEADER EVER ACCEPTED THE PARTITION PLAN. Jordan invaded and took the part the was to become the chunk for the Palestinian Arabs. The land then became unoccupied Jordanian land.
In 1967, Jordan began shelling the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, and Israel invaded. The land then became unoccupied Israeli land.
THE LAND ON WHICH THE SETTLEMENTS ARE BUILT WAS NEVER OWNED BY ANY PALESTINIAN ARAB!
Perhaps, if even one Arab leader had accepted the UN partition plan, they’d have some sort of legal claim.
With that said, it still doesn’t explain why the Settlements would cause any violence. Even if they had a legal claim to that unoccupied piece of dessert, it wouldn’t be worth killing for!
There was a claim made that the settlements overlook the Arab villages. Which settlement? I’ve been on a few from which you couldn’t see any Arabs.
If you could see Arabs from a settlement, they’d probably be shooting at the houses, like they do at the Jewish houses in Hebron and at the cars driving along the road to Jeruselem.
The Israeli-Arab conflict isn’t about land, its about power. The Arab countries have extreme levels of poverty adjacent to a rich upper class and rich despotic dictators.
In order to keep power, these dictators need to explain why their people are so poor. Maintaining a healthy hatred for the Jews is the way they maintain their power. Would Arafat, with his $1.3 billion in stolen wealth, have remained if it weren’t for a need to remain united against the zionist enemy! What about Syria? The power is out in Damascus 4 hours every day, but they can spend millions on a huge military force. The force keeps the dictators in power, but how could it be justified without the zionist enemy!
MHand wrote, (his/her text in bold letters):
”So at least we all seem to agree that the land on which the
settlements are built was unoccupied dessert; No one was evicted from their home so that a settlement could be built. I once met a person who believe this.”
- Well, I know a few traitors, that does not understand this:
“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist.
Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either.
Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”
Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.
”Some people seem to be stuck up on some legalistic argument. They say the settlements are a cause of the violence because the land was legally Palestinian land. It doesn’t mater that it was unoccupied.”
”The land was unoccupied Jewish land, until the Romans took it, where it because unoccupied Roman land, then unoccupied Bizzanteen land, then unoccupied Ottoman land. The Ottomans lost to the British in WWI, and it because unoccupied British land.”
“Since the end of the 1967 war, the U.S. has regarded Israel as the occupying power in the occupied territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The U.S. considers Israel’s occupation to be governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation.”
US Ambassador to the UN Pickering (27 November 1989)
- Oh, what a sissy! :smack: (You traitor, You!!!)
”The British asked the UN to divide the land. The UN came up with a partition plan which gave a chunk to the Palestinian Arabs and a chunk to the Palestinian Jews.”
- Yeah, the Israelian chunk was 78%, and the Palestinian chunk 22%. It’s unfair! So unfair; only 78%! Completely abhorring!!!
So, surely it’s right to build on the Palestinian chunk.
”NO ARAB LEADER EVER ACCEPTED THE PARTITION PLAN. Jordan invaded and took the part the was to become the chunk for the Palestinian Arabs. The land then became unoccupied Jordanian land.”
”In 1967, Jordan began shelling the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, and Israel invaded. The land then became unoccupied Israeli land.”
“When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” - Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces (New York Times, 14 April 1983)
- How nicely put. He should have been a poet. His prosaic style makes me envy him…:mad:
”THE LAND ON WHICH THE SETTLEMENTS ARE BUILT WAS NEVER OWNED BY ANY PALESTINIAN ARAB!”
- Right, the land the Jews bought earlier, before 1947, of the land, that now is Israel, (some 6%), was bought at the McDonalds:rolleyes: near Traglafar Square or given by the British. Why give money to the owners when You can get it even free?
”Perhaps, if even one Arab leader had accepted the UN partition plan, they’d have some sort of legal claim.”
“If I was an Arab leader I would never make [peace] with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country.” David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.
”With that said, it still doesn’t explain why the Settlements would cause any violence. Even if they had a legal claim to that unoccupied piece of dessert, it wouldn’t be worth killing for!”
“Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours… Everything we don’t grab will go to them.” Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
- Our Blessed Hero, Shalom-Sharon, knows best what to do!
**-----------
”There was a claim made that the settlements overlook the Arab villages. Which settlement? I’ve been on a few from which you couldn’t see any Arabs.”**
- No wonder…, no wonder indeed.:rolleyes:
<snip-snippety-snip>
- I have already published these traitors and heros texts in an earlier thread. But, because people do not read carefully, I re-publish them. Repeating is the mother of learning!
So, read everything three times, and I do not need to re-re-publish!
Thank You.
Henry B, your account of the 1967 war came from a site biased against Israel.
Now, I would like to point out a few things. First of all, the terrorist groups behind these attacks do not care about the settlements, but about the destruction of Israel. The only point in question is whether Israel’s actions are allowing them to gain enough support to perform their attacks. Also, let us examine the situation in terms of the Arab right to the land. Unless I am completely mistaken, the Arabs were not there first. Second, the Arabs surrendered their right to at least some land when they chose to attack Israel. I concede that 1967 was preemptive, but it was clear that the Arabs were going to attack. Israel did not set out to conquer land, but took it in response to either an Arab attack or threat. I would like to hear the case for an Arab right to the land. The settlements, as far as I am aware, are built on areas not occupied by Palestinians. Note that the land is owned by Israel. If memory serves, Israel chose not to annex it, which is why the settlements are illegal. Had they chosen to annex it, this would not be the case. Of course, I might remember incorrectly. Also, why aren’t we criticizing the Arab states that forced Palestinians out? I don’t have a cite handy, I must admit, but, once again unless I remember incorrectly, a few Arab states did make force Palestinians out of their country. I would gladly change my opinion about the situation if someone could explain to me why what I am saying isn’t true.
This is not true. Israel did get a bigger portion, but only a slightly bigger portion. An international zone was also created, containing the Holy Places. [bold] Henry B. [/bold], you have quoted Israelis making statements antithetical to their cause. At first, I placed some credence in them, and that gave me cause to ponder. However, it is now clear that these quotes are not correct. Your sources are pro-Arab and although you ask me if I read the quotes (which I did), I no longer believe those were the actual statements of Israeli statesmen. Your veracity is further compromised by the above untrue statement.
Yes. The power of control. Control of the land, which in turn would lead to control of what is on that land (i.e.-settlements)*.
*(the hatred of Jews, not withstanding.)
I’ve already replied to this, and Jodi commented that she’s not going back to creation. First, who really owns the land encompassing what is now Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority? The answer is so well documented it could be the subject of future UN resolutions—the Canaanites. They established the Land of Canaan here around 2000 B.C., so they have first dibs. Unfortunately for them, there isn’t a single Canaanite left on earth.
Abraham, the Father of the Jews and a figure revered by Islam, led a band of Hebrews from Mesopotamia and began the conquest of Canaan in 1741 B.C.—that’s 3743 years ago. Those first Israelites were joined in about 1290 B.C. by the Jewish slaves led out of Egypt by Moses.
After many years and a lot of help from Joshua, the Israelites finally defeated the Canaanites and old King Saul united the country in 1100 B.C. King David added Jerusalem in 1000 B.C., and King Solomon built the First Temple around 956 B.C. The land was plagued by raiders like those guys dubbed the Philistines, “Sea Invaders,” who came out of the Aegean and snatched a nice chunk of the coast. Remember Goliath? He was a Philistine and King David made mincemeat of him, but the Philistines were a nuisance for many years.
Big trouble loomed in 586 B.C. when the Babylonians (nasty ancestors of the nasty Iraqis) invaded under King Nebuchadnezzar II. They sacked the lavish city Solomon had built in Jerusalem and tore down the First Temple. The Babylonians rounded up all the Jews they could catch and deported them to Babylonia as slaves. That “Babylonian Exile” lasted a mere 50 years and the Jews returned to build the Second Temple.
For the next 1000 years, everyone and his brother grabbed a piece of the territory—Persians, Greeks, and Romans. The Roman reign was particularly benevolent. They destroyed the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and killed an estimated 1.1 million disobedient Jews, including one named Jesus. The Romans also maliciously renamed the area Palaestina, after the Jews’ old enemy, the Philistines. The Christian Byzantine Empire took over in 300 A.D. and held on for more than 300 years. During that era, the Muslim Prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca in 570 A.D.
Muhammad’s followers believed in conversion, big time, and swarmed around the Middle East giving everyone a fair choice—become a Muslim or die. These Arabs stormed Palestine in 638 A.D. Do the math. The Arabs got to the region 2379 years after the Jews. So, who is occupying whom??
The Arabs considered Palestine unimportant and ruled from Damascus and Baghdad. You could call them benign except for the massacres and the fact that they were uncomfortable with trees . . . so they cut them all down, turning the once fertile region into a more familiar desert.
With all the hoopla about Jerusalem, check out the Muslim holy book, the Koran. The Koran mentions Mecca and Medina countless times but never once speaks of Jerusalem. On the other hand, there are 811 references to Jerusalem in the Bible.
Christian Crusaders arrived from Europe in 1099 and ousted the Arabs. In subsequent years, the land switched back and forth between invaders, and in the turmoil Jews began filtering back from their scattered exile. Many came from Spain, whence they were expelled in 1492.
In 1516, the non-Arab Ottoman Turks conquered Palestine and held sway until after World War I, when the British took over.
We really have no idea how many Jews and how many Arabs there were at the time—mainly because both groups hid from the Ottoman census takers to avoid taxes.
But we do know that there were probably fewer than 350,000 people, the majority Arab, in the whole region (including what is now Jordan) when Mark Twain made a pilgrimage in 1867.
In his travelogue, Innocents Abroad, Twain wrote, “One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings.”
You’ll notice none of these links are to the “Palestinian Daily Spin and Non-News Online.”
Should I keep going or are you planning a retraction?
b]Mandos**:
- How does it matter from where I read what? You know that I found these and many more, from a pro-Palestinian site.
So what?
You can not say that UN, Maariv etc., from where these quotations are taken from are biased, or can You?
You know very well that I have written about this before in the threads ”Palestinian bombers have NO excuse. Prove me wrong!” and Baraks Generous Offer. Mostly in the first mentioned.
And I have written in this thread that I will answer there, because I can not
a) hijack this thread
b) I can not begin to copy and paste a whole page or more.
c) I can not copy and paste other members comments, whom I am answering, from another thread, or whose answers which gives sites, facts etc. that I have left unrepeated.
So please, go to those threads if You want to discuss this, or begin a thread were we discuss if Maariv is biased etc. or whatever You want to discuss.
Everybody knows that there is a propaganda war going on, paralelly with the real one.
You admit Yourself, in Your last answer, that Israel was attacking 1967.
I frankly also believe that sooner or later some Arabic states would have seriously threatened Israel. But this is no excuse of the occupation that begun 1967.
And this is no excuse of the current situation!
Without settlers, there would not be any attacks upon them, or would it? If someone is attacking on Israelian ground (the military), it is the question of if Israel is on war or not?
If they attack civilians, where ever on this globe, they are criminals. So protect Your country and bring these guys to court.
Do not go and destroy others homes and attack civilians like Israel is now doing on the west bank and Gasa.
Do not use civilians as shields, etc.
** Quote:
“Unless I am completely mistaken, the Arabs were not there first.”**
- I we go to the time as far as You go, there will be many countries that should not exist: Germany and I would say, the whole middle part of Europe as well.
** Quote:
“Second, the Arabs surrendered their right to at least some land when they chose to attack Israel.”**
??? You just admitted that Israel attacked. And nobody surrenders nothing, or do You have a site?
OK, some Arab states forces out the Palestinians, and I do not question Your opinion on that. I simply do not know.
But the question remains?
- Do Israel think that if one guy does it, I can also do it?
- Did these Arabic states send tanks, to the refugee camps, , use human shielsds etc. etc. ?
- If someone does annex somebody else’s land, it makes it legal (to annex and put there settlers)?
- And if they do not annex, the settlers are not legal and You can send Your armed forces to neighbouring lands???
To barbitu8
I would just say, that if You do not believe that the quotations are right, please go to the threads mentioned above and say so. You know completely well that I can not begin here to write about this again for the reasons I gave above.
Or begin a new thread.
And to us all: Does anyone have sites on maps from different times how the Palestinian/Israelian land look like?
I am mostly interested in the 20th century, but naturally everything is interesting.
Thank You for reading.
Have a nice day.
Yes, I wrote something that was not true.
From that what was “Palestine that the Englishmen controlled” 1947, was given 56,3 %, to Israel.
So the 6 % of the inhabitants got 56,3% of the land.
And the “Arabs”, the remaining 94% of the population, got the 43,7% of land.
So it was. I am sorry for the mistake. I remembered wrong. I am sorry.
Since 1967 Israel has annexed East Jerusalem, taken direct control of over 55% of land in the Bank and 40% of the Gasa Strip.
As I understand, the 78% was the situation 1967, and naturally not 1947 as I recalled. It was my mistake to write just directly from my head, not checking it first (from e.g. my Palestinian sources). I am sorry.
And 1967 the Palestinian had 22%. So this was the situation in Oslo, or was it not?
Whereof Barak wanted still more in Camp David.
Look once again the “map of Baraks Generous offer”. In the threads, which I mentioned before, You can also find it. Why I believe it is very truthful, You can find there.
And for those that does not get mentally hurt from reading “the other side of the coin.”
Thinking people that can read, please read also the ”biased” side, where I have not found any mistakes so far.
People call “biased”, without one single proof, just say so and we should be happy with that… If Your brain get hurt of reading, please blame me, not the facts that are running in front of You.
You can also ask for daily news by E-mail from them. Here You can see, who and how the Palestinians are killed, abused, direct links to westerner newspapers etc. etc.
They send to You material daily. Read it and think about it!
So:
To subscribe IAP News: http://www.iap.org/subscribe.htm
Palestine Media Watch http://www.pmwatch.org
LAW: www.lawsociety.org