Is Israel Destroying Itself With Its Settlement Policy

[SmartCat]

The last line of your post is probably the most enlightening as to how your opinions on this subject have been shaped. They also fall in line with other notions of racial superiority that are expressed in your posts. I don't think that should be what is used assess what would/should be a just resolution of the conflict but each to their own.

The acquisition of new land and soil for the settling of the superfluous populations has no end of advantages.

- Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter IV, "Munich"

The scanty fertility of a living space may instigate one race towards the highest achievement, while with another race this may only become the cause for the most dire poverty, and ultimate malnutrition with all its consequences. The inner dispositions of the peoples is always decisive for the way in which outward influences work themselves out. What leads one people to starvation, trains the other for hard work.

- Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter XI, "Nation and Race"

Numbers 31:1,2,17,18 And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites; afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children that have not know a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourself.

 

[oneworld2]

The acquisition of new land and soil for the settling of the superfluous populations has no end of advantages.

- Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter IV, "Munich"

The scanty fertility of a living space may instigate one race towards the highest achievement, while with another race this may only become the cause for the most dire poverty, and ultimate malnutrition with all its consequences. The inner dispositions of the peoples is always decisive for the way in which outward influences work themselves out. What leads one people to starvation, trains the other for hard work.

- Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter XI, "Nation and Race"

Numbers 31:1,2,17,18 And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites; afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children that have not know a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourself.

" superfluous populations "!! Wow. That alongside IQ levels and other advocacies regarding racial supremacism and how that alleged supremacism should shape events are a regular feature of your posts here.

As I have already told you , I don't think Hitler is a character from which people should try to gain insights with which to improve their moral compasses.

 

[oneworld2]

The occupied territories are the legitimate spoils of a just war. Jewish settlement in those territories is consistent with the Law of Moses. Where was so called "international law" when the Arabs tried to destroy Israel?

Germany lost land after World War I. Germany lost more land after World War II. Losing land is just punishment for a war of aggression.

International law has been a developing concept that is designed to try to stop wars of aggression and should be supported because of that. IMO there are few " just wars " and, obviously, both sides/all sides seek to justify their actions leading to everyone inevitability believing they are on the right side of justice.

 

[SmartCat]

International law has been a developing concept that is designed to try to stop wars of aggression and should be supported because of that. IMO there are few " just wars " and, obviously, both sides/all sides seek to justify their actions leading to everyone inevitability believing they are on the right side of justice.

International Law did not prevent Arab efforts to destroy Israel during the Six Day War. The Israelis deserved every square inch of land they conquered during that war.

 

[Apocalypse]

I don't think your posts indicate that you want to engage in a meaningful discussion about the subject so will leave it until it looks like you do, if that even happens.

So you complain that your logical fallacy is not being discussed and countered with logical arguments?
Well, it's not a logical argument, it's a logical fallacy. It shouldn't then.

 

[oneworld2]

International Law did not prevent Arab efforts to destroy Israel during the Six Day War. The Israelis deserved every square inch of land they conquered during that war.

Your posts support the " might is right " concept along with huge doses of racial supremacism to be used as justifications for what are crimes. What need is there to even consider such things as law and justice ? But your posts do that too without any hint of irony.

Israel launched a war of aggression in 1967 and their leaders at the time all but admitted it. I myself have covered this in numerous threads here and have even quoted their words. If people allow themselves to try to at least apply the same standards to all parties there isn't much in the way of doubt about it. If people wish to see eerything through the prism of racial supremacy they are lost to it and only seek a bias confirmation to support that. Notions of law and justice will be a bridge too far such views imo

 

[NO1]

International Law did not prevent Arab efforts to destroy Israel during the Six Day War. The Israelis deserved every square inch of land they conquered during that war.

Here is article of Stephen Schwebe former President of International Court of Justice regarding Six Day War - https://www.nytimes.com/1970/06/20/archives/topics-international-law-in-the-middle-east.html

As a general principle of international law and life, it is both vital and correct to say that there shall be no weight to conquest, that the acquisition of territory by war is, as the Security Council has pertinent ly put it, “inadmissible”—pro vided that means unlawful conquest, unlawful war. But if the qualification “unlawful” is omitted, then the principle is turned from an important safe guard into an aggressor's warrant. For if force can never be used to bring about lawful territorial change, then, once a territory has been taken by the unlawful use of force, the ille gitimacy of that position is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This can hardly be what the U.N. Charter means.

Consider the situation in the Middle East. The facts of the “Six Day War” demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. She responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, and its mass ing of troops in Sinai coupled with its ejection of UNEF. Sub sequently, despite intense ef forts led in person by the Premier of the U.S.S.R., the hospitable organs of the United Nations decisively defeated res olutions condemning Israel as an aggressor.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Your posts support the " might is right " concept along with huge doses of racial supremacism to be used as justifications for what are crimes. What need is there to even consider such things as law and justice ? But your posts do that too without any hint of irony.

Israel launched a war of aggression in 1967 and their leaders at the time all but admitted it. I myself have covered this in numerous threads here and have even quoted their words. If people allow themselves to try to at least apply the same standards to all parties there isn't much in the way of doubt about it. If people wish to see eerything through the prism of racial supremacy they are lost to it and only seek a bias confirmation to support that. Notions of law and justice will be a bridge too far such views imo

Stop lying.

Syria and Egypt were already sending pro Palestinian guerilla's across Israel's border, and Nasser was readying his troops to cross the Sinai.

The only thing the Israeli leadership admitted to was a preemptive strike which was critical.

 

[oneworld2]

Stop lying.

Syria and Egypt were already sending pro Palestinian guerilla's across Israel's border, and Nasser was readying his troops to cross the Sinai.

The only thing the Israeli leadership admitted to was a preemptive strike which was critical.

The Israeli leadership has since admitted that the troops Nasser sent into the Sinai did not constitute a threat of imminent invasion. I have given the quotes here already here on numerous occasions, so if you would like to look them up yourself that's fine. See wiki pages for a quick reference point. I would go so far as to say their words are far more compelling and reasonable than much of what passes as informed opinion in todays discussions which have suffered from decades of PR to hide the fact that Israel, in attacking first, was the aggressor in 1967. Moshe Dayan admitted that around 80% of the border clashes with Syria prior to the war were initiated by Israel.

With regards to cross border raids, that tends to happen when one side banishes hundreds of thousands of people from their homeland into neighbouring states and both sides were guilty of it.

This , however, is straying way too far from the question in the OP and I think it's time that people revisit it. Any comments on why and how the illegal settlements might be detrimental to Israel going forward ?

 

[oneworld2]

Here is article of Stephen Schwebe former President of International Court of Justice regarding Six Day War - https://www.nytimes.com/1970/06/20/archives/topics-international-law-in-the-middle-east.html

Maybe you should start yet another thread on the legitimacy or not of the Six Day War seeing as this thread is about the settlements and whether they are detrimental to Israel going forward ?

 

[RetiredUSN]

The Israeli leadership has since admitted that the troops Nasser sent into the Sinai did not constitute a threat of imminent invasion. I have given the quotes here already here on numerous occasions, so if you would like to look them up yourself that's fine. See wiki pages for a quick reference point. I would go so far as to say their words are far more compelling and reasonable than much of what passes as informed opinion in todays discussions which have suffered from decades of PR to hide the fact that Israel, in attacking first, was the aggressor in 1967. Moshe Dayan admitted that around 80% of the border clashes with Syria prior to the war were initiated by Israel.

With regards to cross border raids, that tends to happen when one side banishes hundreds of thousands of people from their homeland into neighbouring states and both sides were guilty of it.

This , however, is straying way too far from the question in the OP and I think it's time that people revisit it. Any comments on why and how the illegal settlements might be detrimental to Israel going forward ?

The Arabs were bent on the destruction of Israel on May 14, 1948.

You can spin your BS anyway you wish.

 

[oneworld2]

The Arabs were bent on the destruction of Israel on May 14, 1948.

You can spin your BS anyway you wish.

So your posts have gone from the events of 1967 to the events of 1948 because I directed you to the quotes of the Israeli movers and shakers in 1967 ?

I agree that the Arabs were bent on Israels destruction in 1948 and seeing how this has played out it doesn't come as a surprise nor should it imo

 

[RetiredUSN]

So your posts have gone from the events of 1967 to the events of 1948 because I directed you to the quotes of the Israeli movers and shakers in 1967 ?

I agree that the Arabs were bent on Israels destruction in 1948 and seeing how this has played out it doesn't come as a surprise nor should it imo

Your own posts involve a timeline.........stop your BS.

 

[oneworld2]

Your own posts involve a timeline.........stop your BS.

The entire Israel/Palestine subject can be veiwed through a timeline but I asked you for your thoughts on the issue of the settlements and whether they are detrimental to the state of Israel moving forward. If you want to discuss the events of 1948 or 1967 I don't think this thread is the place for it. Why not open another or numerous ones to tackle certain events you have discussed here so far ? If you do I will try to contribute to them.

 

[NWRatCon]

Indeed!!

The sentiments expressed in that post are a pretty clear example of the moral decline such illegal and obviously unjust adventures as illegal settlement building propagate imo

A very good, conservative, friend of mine and I have had great discussions over a variety of topics - except any criticism of Israel. He simply cannot have any rational discussion about the topic, period. Every criticism, no matter how mild or reasonably based is "anti-semitic" in his mind. That deficiency is present in this thread as well. I've found that evangelicals are even more strident and unyielding in this view, notwithstanding the admonition of Matthew 7:1-5.

The reasonable approach to the OP is to consider both the practical limitations of occupying land in violation of international law (which this clearly is), and the moral implications of that behavior and its corrosive effect on society. It's the latter consideration that creates the most heat, because those who recognize their own error are the most strident in defending it - hence the reference to motes and eyes. If one draws the heat from discussion, the implications of the practice, and its incompatibility with the concept of the State of Israel, becomes obvious.

But, there is another practical reality that also stares us in the face, and that is the geographical stricture. Israel exists in a finite and circumscribed location, bordered by hostility and possessing a rapidly growing and concentrated population in an area of limited resources. Moreover, like the United States, it faces a demographic reality that its society is becoming more heterogenous and that threatens the ruling, conservative, elite. Those considerations create unstable nitroglycerin in the situation. Like virtually every society faced with similar constraints, they feel they face the existential imperative to expand or fracture. History is replete with other examples. While it is a false construct, it is, nonetheless, what drives the volatility of the circumstance. They feel like if they don't expand, the State of Israel will collapse. This feeling is exacerbated by the historical, religious and cultural overlays that have plagued the region for millennia. It is an impossibly complex Gordian knot.

 

[NO1]

Your own posts involve a timeline.........stop your BS.

The protocols from the Israeli cabinet which released 3 years ago regrading Moshe dayan tells that he was deeply concerned from the tanks and troops near Eilat, and he also suggest to strike first because otherwise Israel won't be able to absorb the attacks, he said it will be a fatal mistake to let them strike first.

 

[NO1]

Maybe you should start yet another thread on the legitimacy or not of the Six Day War seeing as this thread is about the settlements and whether they are detrimental to Israel going forward ?

I just joined yours and SmartCat side disscusion about six days war.

 

[oneworld2]

A very good, conservative, friend of mine and I have had great discussions over a variety of topics - except any criticism of Israel. He simply cannot have any rational discussion about the topic, period. Every criticism, no matter how mild or reasonably based is "anti-semitic" in his mind. That deficiency is present in this thread as well. I've found that evangelicals are even more strident and unyielding in this view, notwithstanding the admonition of Matthew 7:1-5.

The reasonable approach to the OP is to consider both the practical limitations of occupying land in violation of international law (which this clearly is), and the moral implications of that behavior and its corrosive effect on society. It's the latter consideration that creates the most heat, because those who recognize their own error are the most strident in defending it - hence the reference to motes and eyes. If one draws the heat from discussion, the implications of the practice, and its incompatibility with the concept of the State of Israel, becomes obvious.

But, there is another practical reality that also stares us in the face, and that is the geographical stricture. Israel exists in a finite and circumscribed location, bordered by hostility and possessing a rapidly growing and concentrated population in an area of limited resources. Moreover, like the United States, it faces a demographic reality that its society is becoming more heterogenous and that threatens the ruling, conservative, elite. Those considerations create unstable nitroglycerin in the situation. Like virtually every society faced with similar constraints, they feel they face the existential imperative to expand or fracture. History is replete with other examples. While it is a false construct, it is, nonetheless, what drives the volatility of the circumstance. They feel like if they don't expand, the State of Israel will collapse. This feeling is exacerbated by the historical, religious and cultural overlays that have plagued the region for millennia. It is an impossibly complex Gordian knot.

Thanks for a fabulously written and thoughtful reply NWRatCon. I have had some time away and it's warming to see a new face here ( new to me at least ) presenting the forum with such standards. The only other poster here who regularly hits such heights, again in my opinion, has already thanked your post themselves

The blanket charge of antisemitism for any/all criticisms of the state of Israel is sadly both a misuse of the term itself , in my opinion , and a highly successful ploy to kill any meaningful discussion of the situation regarding Israel and the Arab world which surrounds it. It will always be an unwanted accompaniment to the debate on that we can be sure. That said, it is also just as certain that amongst the ranks of the critics of Israeli state policies will be a percentage of authentic antisemites that are just as unwanted in the discussion. All's we can do is try to work with the knowledge that both are obstacles to a meaningful debate that need to be ignored as much as possible.

I think constant and long standing criminality by states/peoples are sure to lead to the moral decline of their own populations and I think that is abundantly obvious in this conflict , the truth being that it has affected both parties in extremely negative ways.

My view is that I have always thought the location for the Jewish state was a poor choice that would inevitably have led to this sorry situation sooner rather than later. Obviously the location had more to do with the short term colonial interests of Britain ( and France ) than any long term considerations for the people of the region, newly free of Ottoman colonialism, as well as the plight of Jewish people around the world. Add to the mix the extremely resource rich ME generally and the geopolitical interest those resources were sure to attract, that it developed into the perfect storm for ongoing carnage is hardly a surprise. These reasons, along with the ones you have already outlined in the above, have indeed presented a situation akin to the Gordian Knot.

So what do we do/support in light of the highly complex problems that the situation presents ? My view is to try to resolve it in the most just way possible so as to try to create a future climate, hopefully with a whole lot less hostility, where the conditions are such that negotiated long term options/solutions to these problems make themselves more available.

 

[oneworld2]

I just joined yours and SmartCat side disscusion about six days war.

No worries

 

[Jean-s]

Thanks for a fabulously written and thoughtful reply NWRatCon. I have had some time away and it's warming to see a new face here ( new to me at least ) presenting the forum with such standards. The only other poster here who regularly hits such heights, again in my opinion, has already thanked your post themselves

The blanket charge of antisemitism for any/all criticisms of the state of Israel is sadly both a misuse of the term itself , in my opinion , and a highly successful ploy to kill any meaningful discussion of the situation regarding Israel and the Arab world which surrounds it. It will always be an unwanted accompaniment to the debate on that we can be sure. That said, it is also just as certain that amongst the ranks of the critics of Israeli state policies will be a percentage of authentic antisemites that are just as unwanted in the discussion. All's we can do is try to work with the knowledge that both are obstacles to a meaningful debate that need to be ignored as much as possible.

I think constant and long standing criminality by states/peoples are sure to lead to the moral decline of their own populations and I think that is abundantly obvious in this conflict , the truth being that it has affected both parties in extremely negative ways.

My view is that I have always thought the location for the Jewish state was a poor choice that would inevitably have led to this sorry situation sooner rather than later. Obviously the location had more to do with the short term colonial interests of Britain ( and France ) than any long term considerations for the people of the region, newly free of Ottoman colonialism, as well as the plight of Jewish people around the world. Add to the mix the extremely resource rich ME generally and the geopolitical interest those resources were sure to attract, that it developed into the perfect storm for ongoing carnage is hardly a surprise. These reasons, along with the ones you have already outlined in the above, have indeed presented a situation akin to the Gordian Knot.

So what do we do/support in light of the highly complex problems that the situation presents ? My view is to try to resolve it in the most just way possible so as to try to create a future climate, hopefully with a whole lot less hostility, where the conditions are such that negotiated long term options/solutions to these problems make themselves more available.

I stayed away from this meandering thread because it got derailed after a few posts but I continued to read your futile attempts to argue with a suspended member, one whose posts I cannot read because I have him on ignore and one who is a time-waster. You praised NWRatCon, however, whom I believe makes a big mistake when he suggests that the Israel question is "an impossibly complex Gordian knot" thing. It is not. The occupation of Palestine by the Israelis is neither impossible to fix nor is it complex. Until very recently with the deal of the century by Jared Kushner, the Arab world was united with international law that the occupation of the West Bank as well as the blockade of Gaza is illegal and Jewish Settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank should be evacuated. Only then will there be a chance for peace in Palestine. As long as the occupation continues, the seed of Israel's destruction remains.

 

[Fledermaus]

I stayed away from this meandering thread because it got derailed after a few posts but I continued to read your futile attempts to argue with a suspended member, one whose posts I cannot read because I have him on ignore and one who is a time-waster. You praised NWRatCon, however, whom I believe makes a big mistake when he suggests that the Israel question is "an impossibly complex Gordian knot" thing. It is not. The occupation of Palestine by the Israelis is neither impossible to fix nor is it complex. Until very recently with the deal of the century by Jared Kushner, the Arab world was united with international law that the occupation of the West Bank as well as the blockade of Gaza is illegal and Jewish Settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank should be evacuated. Only then will there be a chance for peace in Palestine. As long as the occupation continues, the seed of Israel's destruction remains.

Translation : Someone who disagrees.

 

[oneworld2]

I stayed away from this meandering thread because it got derailed after a few posts but I continued to read your futile attempts to argue with a suspended member, one whose posts I cannot read because I have him on ignore and one who is a time-waster. You praised NWRatCon, however, whom I believe makes a big mistake when he suggests that the Israel question is "an impossibly complex Gordian knot" thing. It is not. The occupation of Palestine by the Israelis is neither impossible to fix nor is it complex. Until very recently with the deal of the century by Jared Kushner, the Arab world was united with international law that the occupation of the West Bank as well as the blockade of Gaza is illegal and Jewish Settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank should be evacuated. Only then will there be a chance for peace in Palestine. As long as the occupation continues, the seed of Israel's destruction remains.

Sometimes you thank peoples posts for the majority of what they say without necessarily agreeing with everything in it. That the poster objected to the gag of antisemitism is commendable imo. His views on the wish of expansion of nations was imo accurate. I thought overall they made a whole lot of sense about many things and I have no problem in thanking them for their post. When you think about how many base posts/posters there are/have been, I found their post to be above the average for here by some distance and wish that was the norm for here, agree or disagree.

I was hoping they would carry on the discussion and then we could elaborate more on the ideas surrounding the subject but it didn't happen or hasn't happened yet.

I agree that the application of international law to the situation is the best way to resolve the conflict but with the US veto working to stop this his comment on the Gordian Knot makes it not too much off the mark. Recall the cultures involved are not only found in the region itself. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians needs to be won in the US imo and the more Americans we can engage with in reasonable discourse with, the more likely the cultural shift needed in the US might take place.

 

[Jean-s]

Sometimes you thank peoples posts for the majority of what they say without necessarily agreeing with everything in it. That the poster objected to the gag of antisemitism is commendable imo. His views on the wish of expansion of nations was imo accurate. I thought overall they made a whole lot of sense about many things and I have no problem in thanking them for their post. When you think about how many base posts/posters there are/have been, I found their post to be above the average for here by some distance and wish that was the norm for here, agree or disagree.

I was hoping they would carry on the discussion and then we could elaborate more on the ideas surrounding the subject but it didn't happen or hasn't happened yet.

I agree that the application of international law to the situation is the best way to resolve the conflict but with the US veto working to stop this his comment on the Gordian Knot makes it not too much off the mark. Recall the cultures involved are not only found in the region itself. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians needs to be won in the US imo and the more Americans we can engage with in reasonable discourse with, the more likely the cultural shift needed in the US might take place.

I do agree that the USA provides political cover for the Israelis and this will not change anytime soon. It prevents real progress in the Middle East and specifically correcting the conduct of the Israelis' treatment of Palestinians. Without the American government to act as a referee, international law courts and tribunals will have to take responsibility along with Non-Governmental Organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as Israeli organizations such as Breaking the Silence and B'Selem, Adalah, HaMoked, etc. This is where progress can be made. We cannot give up hope in the human spirit being victorious.

 

[oneworld2]

I do agree that the USA provides political cover for the Israelis and this will not change anytime soon. It prevents real progress in the Middle East and specifically correcting the conduct of the Israelis' treatment of Palestinians. Without the American government to act as a referee, international law courts and tribunals will have to take responsibility along with Non-Governmental Organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as Israeli organizations such as Breaking the Silence and B'Selem, Adalah, HaMoked, etc. This is where progress can be made. We cannot give up hope in the human spirit being victorious.

It's a sad fact that without the US veto at the UNSC the overwhelming world consensus to apply international law ( surely the correct arbiter ) to resolve the conflict would have probably served to create the much needed Palestinian state long ago and in a much better way. My fear is that the two state solution is all but a dead letter already because of that blocking by the US and the criticisms of the plan make extremely valid points.

 

[ecofarm]

Years ago I was against settlements. As we enter the 21st century of democracy and rights and Hamas remains in the 15th century, it becomes more and more difficult to believe a revolution in Palestine will bring them into even the 20th century. Is that really gonna happen? Is a democratic institution with rights and representation for all really about to occur in Palestine? It looks hopeless and so the development of land and improvement of living standards must go on with or without Hamas. We can't hold up world development waiting for Hamas to join us in the 21st century when they're nearly a millennia behind.