Why does Israel keep putting settlers in the occupied territories?

[Akka]

Nearly all Europe was part of the Roman Empire in Antiquity.
I then consider it right to have Italy annexing France, Spain, England, Germany...
It's not a theft ! It's land coming back to its rightful owner !

[MOBIUS]

Still no acceptable answer to the question...

Basically people like Chris62 espouse a "might makes right" mentality, well that's fair then - the source of all massacres and atrocities the World has ever seen started with that premise...

How can new settlers be allowed into the occupied territories???

It defies all justice, fairness - all legality!

It inflames the entire conflict - it is the root of the conflict!!!

It is occupation of territory by stealth - after all Chris says it himself when he argues against reverting to the boundaries of the past but to maintain those of the present... Well with each increase in the size of the settlements (including those effected days after Sept 11!) that chunk of land gets bigger!

Of course under Chris' sense of justice, if some Native American came by his house armed to the teeth and driving a bulldozer to drive him off his land - that would be OK...

The creation of the Israeli state is nothing more than a Zionist invasion brought on by British horsetrading and compounded by the US and the UN... Most of the first Zionists were illegal immigrants - that is why they fought the British! Then they stole a nation from under the very feet of Palestinians in a clearly orchestrated push to create a 'Jewish' state (check the map links that Chegitz gave and tell me that's fair!!!) - somewhat unsurprisingly the Palestinians took exception to this...

Zionism was a clear strategy to create a 'Jewish' State in Greater Israel that was their goal!

To do this they would have to ethnically cleanse Palestine - one might say that they have been very successful in this job...

We all know they would complete the job if they were allowed to get away with it!

Don't talk to me about who is responsible - it is to my undying shame that my country created the 'window' that could be exploited by the Zionists in the first place!

And now for the latest crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel and reported by Israelis...

B'Tselem

Israel's Military Operation has Ended but Curfews and Sieges Remain



Following more than three weeks of massive military operations throughout the West Bank, the IDF officially announced the end of "Operation Defensive Shield.” Yet, the end of the operation did not bring an end to the extensive military presence in and around Palestinian villages, towns and refugee camps. Many places remain under curfew, confining residents to their homes for weeks on end. The entire West Bank continues to be under complete internal closure (siege), meaning that Palestinians cannot travel from one town or village to the next.

While the extent of these restrictions on freedom of movement is unprecedented, they are not a new phenomenon. Curfews and sieges have been imposed on the Palestinian population throughout the course of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, resulting in grave human rights violations, disrupting all aspects of daily life, and devastating the Palestinian economy for years to come.

The following reports provide just a few examples of the continued suffering resulting from the prolonged curfews and sieges imposed by Israel.


No Way Out - Beit Furiq, Nablus District


At about 3:00 PM on April 4, 2002, border police jeeps drove into Beit Furiq, a village just outside of Nablus, and announced by megaphone that the village was under curfew. The policemen threw several percussion grenades in the streets, and left the village several minutes later. Since then, no soldiers or border policemen have come to announce that the curfew has been lifted. The 8,500 residents of the village have been under curfew for 25 days straight. After more than three weeks of obeying the curfew, the residents of the village have begun to leave their homes in order to obtain food supplies and other basic necessities.

While there are no soldiers present inside the village to enforce the curfew, Israeli security forces surround the village, blocking any movement in or out of Beit Furiq. The siege on the village affects every aspect of daily life and has grave consequences for the residents.



The village of Beit Furiq is not connected to a running-water network, so the residents rely on water tankers to bring water from wells located outside of the village. As a result of the siege, the tankers have been unable to reach the village since April 4, leaving the residents without water for themselves or their flocks.


The medical clinic in the village has almost run out of medicine, and the siege makes it impossible to bring in the much-needed supplies.


The siege has also affected the education system. Of the 174 teachers who work at the schools in the village, 74 are unable to reach Beit Furiq, as they are from other villages in the area.


Many village residents eke out a meager living by raising chicken and sheep. Due to the closures, they cannot reach markets to sell their goods, and even if they could, there is little demand for these products, as many people cannot afford even these most basic staples.


As the economic situation has deteriorated since the beginning of the intifada, the municipality lacks the tax income to provide necessary services for residents.


Cut off from the Cities - Bethlehem District


Bethlehem and the surrounding villages (including Beit Sahour, Beit Jala, Al Khader, and A-Duha), which have a population of approximately 100,000, have been under curfew since April 2, 2002. The Israeli military has lifted the curfew 7 or 8 times for periods of 2 to 4 hours, although not always for the entire area. Badra Musa al-Shaer from the village of Takua, which is just outside of Bethlehem, told of a shortage of medicine, milk, and diapers in the village. "There are no vegetables, fruit, meat, or dairy products available. We eat mostly lentils and rice, and the little bit that we have grown in our backyards.”

One of the most troubling outcomes of the siege is the inability of residents in small villages to obtain medical care, as they are dependent on hospitals and clinics in the nearby towns. The village of al-Walaja has been under curfew and closure since April 2, 2002. Women in labor have no place to give birth. The village lacks a medical center, and those in need of medical treatment normally rely on the hospitals in Bethlehem and Beit Jala, which they are now unable to reach. Halima al-Atrash, a resident of the village, gave birth in her car after soldiers at the checkpoint refused to let her through to reach the hospital in Beit Jala. Other village residents with chronic medical problems have run out of medicine and have not been able to receive any treatment since the beginning of the month.



Death of a Newborn - Azmut, Nablus District


On April 29, 2002, at around 7:00 PM, 28-year-old Amal 'Afaneh who was seven months pregnant, began feeling extreme abdominal pain. 'Afaneh's relatives considered taking her to the hospital in Nablus by car, a distance of only 5 to 6 kilometers from their village of Azmut. They decided against it, as they feared being shot by Israeli soldiers who are positioned at the entrance to the village and along the road between Azmut and Nablus. The family called the Red Crescent and the Red Cross to request that they send an ambulance. The family was told that this could only be done following coordination with the Israeli military.

While the Red Crescent and the Red Cross worked on obtaining the required Israeli approval, the family called a nurse who lives in the village. The nurse gave 'Afaneh preliminary treatment, and herself called the Red Crescent to urge them to hurry, as 'Afaneh needed treatment that she could not provide.

At 9:00 PM, the family was told that approval had been received and an ambulance was on its way. In fact, the Red Crescent ambulance had already arrived at the entrance to 'Azmut, but was detained for thirty minutes by an Israeli tank crew. The soldiers ordered the ambulance driver, Samir Abu Seir, and the paramedic, Jamal Abu Hamdeh, to open the doors of the ambulance, and take off all their clothes. The soldiers then took away their identification papers, turned off their walkie-talkies, and made them sit on the ground. After searching the ambulance, the soldiers ordered the two men to return to Nablus. The ambulance was forced to leave without 'Afaneh.

When 'Afaneh's relatives heard that an ambulance had been seen leaving 'Azmut, they called the Red Crescent again, and were told that the IDF denied the ambulance entry into the village, and nothing more could be done.

At 9:30 PM, Amal 'Afaneh gave birth. Her baby did not survive. She remains at home, still unable to reach the hospital for follow-up treatment.

[Arrian]

I don't think there is an acceptable answer to the question. The settlements are wrong, and just about everyone in the world agrees on that. The question Paiktis posed is the same one that I have wondered about for years. So far as I can tell, the settlers are one of the greatest barriers to peace (along with terrorists, the occupation in general, and the impass over the "right of return").

[Disclaimer]

My views on the conflict tend toward neutrality in that I am totally disgusted by both sides. I cannot abide the deliberate slaughter of civilians, nor do I have any sympathy for the occupation and settlements. Both sides lost any claim to the moral high ground long ago. So forget about who's "right" because neither side is. Focus on getting them to stop killing each other.... or just say to hell with them all and build a big wall around the whole place.

[/Disclaimer]

-Arrian

[Chris 62]

Re: Still no acceptable answer to the question...

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Basically people like Chris62 espouse a "might makes right" mentality, well that's fair then - the source of all massacres and atrocities the World has ever seen started with that premise...

Nonsense, Moby.

I have, and still do, fully support a free homeland for Palestine in the west bank and Gaza, based on the current lines.

You have NEVER shown a drop of compassion for Israelis murdered by suicide bombers and other such reprehensible behavior, you always claim it's somehow justified.

Oh, and what happened to your "warcrimes" claim in Afghanistan?

You remember, wher you said the UN had all this proof of bombing atrocietes.

Where is that Moby?

I also see you pulled out the ol "Israel shouldn't have been formed" stick again.

Objective as ever.

On another note, what did you think of NY?

Sorry i couldn't make it that night, simply couldn't get out of work.

[Mikhail]

I see, and Black September, the PLO, and the PFLP were all incapable of attacking the Israelis.

The Germans believed that the Jews were stealing their wealth in Germany, and so they herded them and 5 million of their fellows into cattle-cars, destination Auschwitz, et al. The Israelis up until the 1948 war had obtained their land in Palestine through reasonable, legitimate methods. If the Palestinians weren't interested in letting the Jews in, they shouldn't have sold their land. In any case, the native Palestinian population wasn't that big anyway. The British had done little to stop the illegal immigration from Jordan, while concentration their efforts to keep out legitimate Jewish immigrants.

The Zionists had been LEGALLY buying land in Palestine well before the UN even existed.

[Natan]

Britain saves 600,000 Jews from Hitler, and MOBIUS is ashamed that his country helped these "ilegal immigrants."

[David James]

Originally posted by Carver

Nasser didn't steal anything from France or the UK. The canal was built on Egyptian soil that was stolen by the colonialists. If I steal your house and build a garage on to it, that doesn't mean the house belongs to me - and the garage doesn't belong to me either.

Umm, sorry, Nasser did steal the Suez Canal. The Canal was not built on "Egyptian soil that was stolen by the colonialists". If I had to find one example in all of Europe's imperial/colonial history where everything was done above board, the Suez Canal would be it.

The French secured the agreement of the local ruler of Egypt, the Khedive, Ismail, to build the canal. Somewhere along the way the British got in to the act as well, probably because they had more financial capital to spend and because a canal would shorten the route to India and Australia. Anyway, a French engineer designed the Canal and the French and the British would finance it. But because it was in Egypt the Khedive, France and Britain all had equal shares in the Canal. So the Khedive stood to gain financially from the canal from having done nothing other than allow its construction (not to mention the temporary and permanent employment benefits either) The canal was completed in 1869.

However, Ismail kept spending and borrowing well beyond his means and finally landed himself in financial difficulties (no comment). So the British government took advantage of the situation in 1875 and offered to buy his shares in the canal for the amount that Ismail owed (ie Britain would absorb his debts). Ismail accepted and the Canal passed into British hands. There was nothing illegal about any of this. Now, it is true that Britain and France subsequently took over Egypt's financial administration so this problem wouldn't occur again, and that was of dubious legality, but that didn't specifically concern the canal zone, which had been legally acquired.

[Carver]

Originally posted by David James


The French secured the agreement of the local ruler of Egypt, the Khedive, Ismail, to build the canal.

I love that line, "the local leaders agreed to European 'protecteeship'.... honestly".

The brutal history of colonialism is filled with "agreements" between the colonizers and the indigenous leaders. This brings to mind a local chieftan at Malebo Pool (Kinshasa, Congo) that agrees to grant King Leopold of Belgium a "trusteeship" over the Congo river basin, from the Atlantic coast to the source of the Lualaba River (even though he doesn't know where the source of the Lualaba is).

Ismail had no right to cede any part of Egypt to European control. Was Ismail elected?

[Sirotnikov]

OY, Mobius farted again.

Time to disperse all the hot air.

It is occupation of territory by stealth - ...

Like one could do anything in stealth with dem satellites here.

Of course under Chris' sense of justice, if some Native American came by his house armed to the teeth and driving a bulldozer to drive him off his land - that would be OK...

But if instead the Native American was carrying an AK-47 and had a bomb strapped to his chest, MOBIUS would think it's ok.

The creation of the Israeli state is nothing more than a Zionist invasion brought on by British horsetrading and compounded by the US and the UN...

Interesting.
horsetrading?
UN? Even though the zionist movement predates it by.. oh... 60 years?

the US? the same US that locked it's boundaries to Jews in the late 20s, knowing of pogroms to come in europe?

Most of the first Zionists were illegal immigrants - that is why they fought the British!

ROFL

Again, Mobius proves his ignorance

Obviously the first Zionists from 1880s fought the British

HAHAHAHAHAHA

The third wave came in the 1920s, when the Brits were in the area.

Furthermore, not only did Zionists not fight against the British, they helped them. We had an underground unit of espionage, which provided the brits with army positions.

We had two Jewish brigades in the Brittish army. The mule drivers, who fought in the balkans iirc, and some other brigade.

Then they stole a nation from under the very feet of Palestinians in a clearly orchestrated push

Obviously collecting money and purchasing land from it's legal real landlords while paying to those who sat there, is stealing

For instance, when I go to the Market, and buy a Tomato, I am stealing it from you even if I paid for it. Why? Because it's obvious that that tomate was meant for you!

to create a 'Jewish' state (check the map links that Chegitz gave and tell me that's fair!!!)

First read a history book.

Palestine is a name given to an area which includes Jordan.

The Brittish randomly decided to give all the land on the east bank to the Saudi Hashemic king, as a token of appriciation for aid in the war.

That area, was what the brittish regarded at the time as a division to an arab and a jewish states.

- somewhat unsurprisingly the Palestinians took exception to this...

Because obviously everything is theirs! Even things Jews paid for! It's theirs cause it's arab land!!

Zionism was a clear strategy to create a 'Jewish' State in Greater Israel that was their goal!

:rofl:

Find me one, just one zionist, before the late 1920s, that talks about a purely Jewish state.

The idea of two states for two people, was invented as a result of the tensions between arabs and Jews. Zionists didn't come meaning to kick out the locals. Infact most Zionist thinkers contemplated alot on how exactly the two people will live side by side.

To do this they would have to ethnically cleanse Palestine - one might say that they have been very successful in this job...

You are right sir!

We managed to take some 750,000 Palestinians, in the 1948 Israeli areas, 600,000 of whom fled because of the war leaving ~160,000 in 1952 Israel, and now they are 1,300,000 people, enoying their own educational system, full citizen rights, laxer duties.

There are some 12 Arab MKs iirc.

We all know they would complete the job if they were allowed to get away with it!

That's right!

That's why we transformed 160,000 into 1,300,000!

Don't talk to me about who is responsible - it is to my undying shame that my country created the 'window' that could be exploited by the Zionists in the first place!

ROFL
Yes, everyone knows brittain always ruled palestine, since the roman times

And now for the latest crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel and reported by Israelis...

CRIMES AGAIN HUMANITY!!!

Curfew & Sieges ... oh wait... those are normal in wartime.

Blockading militant hideouts... oh wait... also normal in wartime.

Regoreous checking of all vehicles for possible smuggling of arms ... also normal in war time.




Mobius, stop it. You're too funny

[Panag]

hi ,

at last someone who is using his brain , .....

S , why should you even try to explain , what is the point , most of these people have the "luck" that they will never know what it is to have your loved ones killed , they shall never know and understand what it is to leave with constant "fear" and pressure , ..........let them cry , ......its the sound of their own death , .............their ignorance shall kill them , .......

allas , have a nice day ,

and huh , drop a line hé

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Carver


"screw over the West"? Sounds like a plan to me.

I wonder if anyone (neutral) has ever done genetiv marker studies comparing the two populations, native Jews, descendents of those Jews who were living in Israel before the beginning of the 19th century, and the native Palestinians. I strongly suspect that they're the same population.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


I wonder if anyone (neutral) has ever done genetiv marker studies comparing the two populations, native Jews, descendents of those Jews who were living in Israel before the beginning of the 19th century, and the native Palestinians. I strongly suspect that they're the same population.

hi ,

yep , the jews did it and are doing it again , , the reason , to find genetic cure's for genetic disease's , ......some site has all the info

have a nice day

[David James]

Originally posted by Carver


I love that line, "the local leaders agreed to European 'protecteeship'.... honestly".

[snip]

Ismail had no right to cede any part of Egypt to European control. Was Ismail elected?

Did I say that Ismail agreed to "protecteeship"? No, I did not. What the Khedive agreed to was allowing a canal to be built. That is all. The fact that he was a profligate spender is hardly the fault of the Europeans, nor did he have to agree to the debt-share swap.
The Khedive was the rough equivalent of a prince or a duke in the Ottoman Empire, so he could hardly agree to any form of "protecteeship" without arousing just a little bit of concern with the Ottomans. Obviously Ismail was not elected, but that does not mean that he was not the legitimate ruler of Egypt. On the basis that you suggest no "unelected" ruler has any business engaging in foreign relations of practically any sort. In the present context, among other things, Israel could not negotiate with Arafat as Arafat is not a democratically elected leader (he's not even Palestinian - he's Tunisian).

[Eli]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I wonder if anyone (neutral) has ever done genetiv marker studies comparing the two populations, native Jews, descendents of those Jews who were living in Israel before the beginning of the 19th century, and the native Palestinians. I strongly suspect that they're the same population.

There is a theory that most of the Palestinians are Jews who weren't exiled and converted to Islam. Maybe that's why they're so ****ing stubborn.

[Ecthy]

They're not stubborn at all, Eli. They just want to be free.

(And have a right to property )