That cite is compelling. Can anyone cite-challenge it’s claims with the time signature they were made?
Unless I missed anything, his factual/historical claims are pretty much 100% accurate. The interpretation one uses to view them, however, is another matter.
Nope. The agreement that Israel signed with Jordan specifically says that the armistice line will not have any legal significance with which to prejudice future negotiations, which will be the acts that set the factual border. UNSC 242 also states that the eventual border will be reached via negotiation, and the drafters specifically said that Israel must withdraw from “territories” but deliberately refused to use terms such as “the territories” or “all territories”. Agreements that Israel has had with the PNAC have, likewise, made clear that the borders will be established through negotiation.
Depending on how you’d like to do it, you can draw various lines. The Green Line is popular but has no real legal or political significance… except when used by some folks who are begging the question. And not all territory beyond the Green Line was ever privately owned land by Palestinians, and some of it was privately owned by Jews.
The situation is anything but simplistic, and the fact that we can’t say “well, the real border is here” hampers those arguments whose stock in trade is undue-simplification.
So you’re saying that Israel’s national territory is undetermined? This seems like hell from a legal standpoint.
Exactly.
Now you have some idea why this is such a complex issue.
Wrong. I’m asking what the difference in motivations is. If you admit that there is none, that *should *give you pause. So why doesn’t it?
That was an interesting discussion we had recently about playing the antisemitism card first, wasn’t it? :rolleyes:
Now, once again - why do Israelis build settlements?
This latest tactic, of claiming that Israel has no defined borders in the area, and it’s a complex problem, and there’s always somebody who will never accept doing something about it, yadayada, is similarly nothing more than a series of self-serving excuses.
No, a discussion is when two sides makes certain points and, ya know, discuss an issue. You engaged in a flight of fantasy whereby you claimed that I had, ever, even once, called anybody an anti-Semite for having a differing opinion on Israel politics. Then you were totally unable to actually find even a single cite to show me doing that, even though I’ve been posting on the Dope for roughly a decade and probably have literally thousands of posts in the I/P issue. I’m also more than a little well known for speaking my mind and not mincing words. And yet, you couldn’t find even a single cite to back up your claim. Not one.
The lack of any such cites might give some folks pause.
Now, when it’s pointed out that you’re using bullshit innuendo to compare Israel with Nazi Germany, you’re preparing to hop up on the cross and preemptively complaining about an accusation that hasn’t even been hinted at, let alone made.
Your ignorance of the most basic facts of the matter, Elvis, is neither my fault nor is it a “tactic” on my part. If you wilfully remain ignorant of the facts that are essential to discuss the topic, and instead adopt a partisan narrative in toto, then perforce an honest discussion of the complexities surrounding the issue with be unpalatable to you.
If you are referring to me, I am still here on the boards, and I still post. I am also still living in the Shomron. I certainly take offense towards anyone advocating violence, including murder, for those that live over the green line.
If you ask me why the Israelis build settlements, I would say for a number of reasons. Some are religious - Yehuda and Shomron are part of the biblical territory of Israel in the Bible. Others, probably secular, would say because it’s cheaper to build and live here.
Honestly, settlements began way before my time here. We made aliyah 4 years ago, and the yishuv/settlement where we live started over 30 years ago.
You’re arguing, then, that the issue is so murky that the term “settlement” and “border” have no useful meaning in this discussion?
It seems to me that you could argue with equal force that there’s no such thing as “Israel.”
No. I’ve pointed out that not all the settlements are equal, and that the term “borders” is a misnomer used by people who want to prejudice the debate towards one side or the other. I’ve also said nothing, at all, about it being “murky”. I’ve pointed out the facts that make the term “border” meaningless when we’re talking about the West Bank, and I’ve also mentioned the facts that make simple statements like “the West Bank is Palestinian Territory” erroneous.
If you think that those facts allow you to say that a sovereign nation doesn’t actually exist, then go for it.
Fine. If you admit that there is such a thing as a settlement, why don’t you answer the OP, and drop all the side issues?
I understand that you’d like it if the facts were side issues. They’re not.
Your suggestion that I would have to “admit” that there is such a thing as a settlement is bonkers-bazooie-nutso.
I’d also ask that you read the thread before asking me about my posts in it.
Cheers.
That post says nothing about why you think the Israelis build settlements – which is the subject of the OP. I’ll ask you again to explain your view on why the Israelis build settlements. If you think you’ve said it, say it again, because I and others don’t think you’ve said it.
There are roughly 250,000 Israelis living in the Territories; each of them (or their parents or grandparents) had their own reason for moving there. Furthermore, each cabinet member in the dozens of Israeli administrations since 1967 has had their own reasons for approving and supporting the settlements. There isn’t one monolithic answer to the question of how we got where we are now - there are hundreds of them.
Sorry I can’t help you any more.
So you’re saying settlement wasn’t an actual Israeli strategy, but something more in the nature of an accident?
I’d say it was a convergence of several different strategies and accidents. There was certainly no master plan, if only because there has never been an Israeli individual or body powerful enough to implement a master plan of any sort.
And what, in your opinion, were these strategies?
It says something. Something, I’d think, rather obvious.
Once you’re able to puzzle out what, you’ll grok what I’m saying. Until then, you may join the chorus of those complaining that I’m content to debunk ignorance rather than playing with loaded dice.
Winner!
Reunifying Jerusalem.
Establishing final borders.
Reclaiming Jewish property lost in 1948.
Putting pressure on the Arabs to make peace.
Creating a buffer zone between the Territories and central Israel.
Controlling the high ground.
The belief that all of the land is Israeli by right.
Various religious reasons.
Relieving population pressures.
Supporting the construction industry.
Teenage rebellion.
Catering to religious American Jews.
Providing bases and lines of communication for the military.
Spite.
And that’s just off the top of my head. It’s all moot, anyway. They’re here, and saying that they shouldn’t have been founded in the first place is pointless. What’s done is done.