Understanding multiple positions on the Israel settlements controversy

[Anonymous]

I am inclined to support the recent position that the US took by abstaining from the UN vote. I generally dislike the way Israel exerts its power and treats the Palestinian people.

It seems to be a general consensus (seeing as the whole Security Council voted against Israel) that the settlements are not ok. I do not understand the pro settlement argument. I read that some Israelis state a biblical claim to that land.

What is the argument for the settlements? We are entitled to this land? I am seeing lots of posts of FB lambasting Obama and Kerry and comparing them to quite abhorrent people.

I want to understand both sides better. If you have read any great articles recently, or seen news clips, please let me know. A lot of the news I've found just explains the vote and implications.

[Anonymous]

<<crickets>>

[Anonymous]

the settlement issue is the zionists version of lebensraum. they couch this by saying the 67 borders are indefensible.

The view the gentiles as untermenschen whilst of course every jewish person at somepoint in their life has either been told by someone in the community or has themselves believed they are 'chosen'.

they view all of the west bank, gaza, and the golan as rightfully jewish.

The end state is for the golan, gaza, and all of the west bank to be 100% ethnically jewish.

[Anonymous]

Israel needs lebensraum. If Jews are the chosen people what right to the non chosen people have? None.

[Anonymous]

OP, I was wondering the same thing recently. I found this wiki article helpful, particularly the section on "Reasons for Settlements"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

Reasons for settlements
Jews who had been living in the West Bank before they were expelled in 1948 wanted to return home.[57]
After the Six-Day War, some Israelis believed that war might break out again. They built settlements on hilltops to act as observation posts for an early warning system.[58]
Israelis were afraid that if strategically important lands were returned, Israelis would be in danger. For years, Syria had been firing from the Golan Heights into the kibbutzim of the valley. If Syria got back the Golan Heights, they would resume firing on the Israelis below. Israelis remembered that after conquering the Sinai, Israel withdrew from the Sinai. If Israel constructed a military base, the soldiers could be ordered to leave, but if they created a "settlement on the Syrian heights – a civilian presence, then no one could just order a withdrawal. There'd have to be a debate in the Knesset."[59]
There were Israelis who remembered that Israel had conquered the Sinai in 1956, but gave it back. "…the promises made by Eisenhower had proved hollow at the first test and had failed to prevent war…"[60] They were willing to return land, but only if Israel got a peace treaty in return. They were hoping that building settlements would make it more difficult for Israel to withdraw from land without getting a peace treaty in return.
There were "Religious radicals, convinced that they were fulfilling God's plan for history…"[61] For Avraham Kook, "the Jews' role was to be the vessel that brings the "divine idea" into the world. The world's redemption depended on the Jews living in the Land of Israel"[62] Rabbi Tzvi Kook said…It's "the Lord's land. Is it in our hands to give up even a millimeter?" The State of Israel represented the "beginning of redemption" and was "the state that the prophets foresaw" when they spoke of the End of Days.[63] "…the Bible was the Jewish deed to the Land of Israel…"[64] "…the conquest as introducing the end of days, when 'nation shall not lift up sword against nation.'"[65]
There were secular Israelis who saw "the West Bank as the historic patrimony of the Jewish people and control of this region as a matter of momentous historic importance."[58]
Settlement building as punishment. "According to reports on Israel Radio, the development is a response to the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers."[66]
Settlements as bargaining chips for negotiations.[67]

I got really depressed after reading how both the Israelis and the Palestinians are specifically targeting children with violence now. IMHO, Israel should pull its people out of the West Bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am inclined to support the recent position that the US took by abstaining from the UN vote. I generally dislike the way Israel exerts its power and treats the Palestinian people.

It seems to be a general consensus (seeing as the whole Security Council voted against Israel) that the settlements are not ok. I do not understand the pro settlement argument. I read that some Israelis state a biblical claim to that land.

What is the argument for the settlements? We are entitled to this land? I am seeing lots of posts of FB lambasting Obama and Kerry and comparing them to quite abhorrent people.

I want to understand both sides better. If you have read any great articles recently, or seen news clips, please let me know. A lot of the news I've found just explains the vote and implications.

It's not a pro settlement argument. It's about competent vs. incompetent negotiating. It's about U.S. credibility on the international stage.

Rule one is you don't give up a bargaining chip for nothing in return. Rule two is you don't publicly knife your supposed ally in the back if you have a disagreement with them, because that completely undercuts your legitimacy and credibility in negotiations. If you have a difference with your ally you work that out between the two of you behind closed doors.

The Palestinians position is that they won't negotiate with Israel unless settlements stop as a precondition for negotiations. Israel doesn't and shouldn't agree to that precondition because it's asking for Israel to give up bargaining leverage for nothing in return, with an unreliable dishonest and deadly negotiating partner who has never recognized Israel's right to exist. Israel would be stupid to give up that bargaining chip for nothing and the U.S. looks even stupider because it just gave up its leverage in the U.N. and with Israel (behind close doors) by gratuitously nuking Israel by letting the resolution through.

Israel has already proved it is an honest negotiating partner willing to make serious concessions on the settlements but only with an adversary who negotiates in good faith, which Abbas and Hamas are not. Israel gave up Gaza and Sinai and dismantled settlements in those regions.

The Palestinians "negotiate" by threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Israel "negotiates" by building housing.

Which tactic is the more aggressive, reprehensible one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the settlement issue is the zionists version of lebensraum. they couch this by saying the 67 borders are indefensible.

The view the gentiles as untermenschen whilst of course every jewish person at somepoint in their life has either been told by someone in the community or has themselves believed they are 'chosen'.

they view all of the west bank, gaza, and the golan as rightfully jewish.

The end state is for the golan, gaza, and all of the west bank to be 100% ethnically jewish.

PP, as long as there are people like you in the world, the Israelis are very justified in remaining on their guard.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am inclined to support the recent position that the US took by abstaining from the UN vote. I generally dislike the way Israel exerts its power and treats the Palestinian people.

It seems to be a general consensus (seeing as the whole Security Council voted against Israel) that the settlements are not ok. I do not understand the pro settlement argument. I read that some Israelis state a biblical claim to that land.

What is the argument for the settlements? We are entitled to this land? I am seeing lots of posts of FB lambasting Obama and Kerry and comparing them to quite abhorrent people.

I want to understand both sides better. If you have read any great articles recently, or seen news clips, please let me know. A lot of the news I've found just explains the vote and implications.

It's not a pro settlement argument. It's about competent vs. incompetent negotiating. It's about U.S. credibility on the international stage.

Rule one is you don't give up a bargaining chip for nothing in return. Rule two is you don't publicly knife your supposed ally in the back if you have a disagreement with them, because that completely undercuts your legitimacy and credibility in negotiations. If you have a difference with your ally you work that out between the two of you behind closed doors.

The Palestinians position is that they won't negotiate with Israel unless settlements stop as a precondition for negotiations. Israel doesn't and shouldn't agree to that precondition because it's asking for Israel to give up bargaining leverage for nothing in return, with an unreliable dishonest and deadly negotiating partner who has never recognized Israel's right to exist. Israel would be stupid to give up that bargaining chip for nothing and the U.S. looks even stupider because it just gave up its leverage in the U.N. and with Israel (behind close doors) by gratuitously nuking Israel by letting the resolution through.

Israel has already proved it is an honest negotiating partner willing to make serious concessions on the settlements but only with an adversary who negotiates in good faith, which Abbas and Hamas are not. Israel gave up Gaza and Sinai and dismantled settlements in those regions.

The Palestinians "negotiate" by threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Israel "negotiates" by building housing.

Which tactic is the more aggressive, reprehensible one?

I don't think the OP was looking for a debate in this thread but since you have started one we may as well continue. What you're basically saying is that the Israelis are actually wiping Palestine from the face of the map while the Palestinians are merely threatening. I think it is clear which tactic is more reprehensible.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Very interesting viewpoints. Also, why are people saying that Netanyahu stabbed Obama in the back?

[Anonymous]

I was in Israel AND in Palestine recently. I was there to learn. I have no bias. The settlements are shocking and I came away from the visit feeling disgusted that the international community has let this occur. If Putin was doing this in the Ukraine, let's just say, the International community would be enraged.

This is occurring on OUR watch. History will judge all of us for our complacency and complicity with injustice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the settlement issue is the zionists version of lebensraum. they couch this by saying the 67 borders are indefensible.

The view the gentiles as untermenschen whilst of course every jewish person at somepoint in their life has either been told by someone in the community or has themselves believed they are 'chosen'.

they view all of the west bank, gaza, and the golan as rightfully jewish.

The end state is for the golan, gaza, and all of the west bank to be 100% ethnically jewish.

PP, as long as there are people like you in the world, the Israelis are very justified in remaining on their guard.

I never said if the policy of lebensraum is right or wrong for the Jews. I'm just stating the goal of parties like bennet's jewish home party and those to his right.

I take it you agree with the policy?

[Anonymous]

Jews need lebensraum? But Palestinians don't? It's fine to just take over Palestinian orchards and lands and just push the Palestinians into the sea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jews need lebensraum? But Palestinians don't? It's fine to just take over Palestinian orchards and lands and just push the Palestinians into the sea?

The existence of Israel is the only reason Palestine is even contemplated as an independent state. If Israel didn't exist, and because of its existence, make the Palestinian issue a convenient tool for the rest of the Arab world, the rest of the Arab world would exterminate the Palestinians in very short order. Just see what Assad has been doing in Aleppo and I think you'll understand the drill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was in Israel AND in Palestine recently. I was there to learn. I have no bias. The settlements are shocking and I came away from the visit feeling disgusted that the international community has let this occur. If Putin was doing this in the Ukraine, let's just say, the International community would be enraged.

This is occurring on OUR watch. History will judge all of us for our complacency and complicity with injustice.

What do you find to be "shocking" about the settlements? Are the filthy, unsafe, etc.?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jews need lebensraum? But Palestinians don't? It's fine to just take over Palestinian orchards and lands and just push the Palestinians into the sea?

The existence of Israel is the only reason Palestine is even contemplated as an independent state. If Israel didn't exist, and because of its existence, make the Palestinian issue a convenient tool for the rest of the Arab world, the rest of the Arab world would exterminate the Palestinians in very short order. Just see what Assad has been doing in Aleppo and I think you'll understand the drill.

Re-write history? Check. Deflect to Aleppo? Check. Your formula is pretty tired Bucko.

If Israel continues its settlement activities it will either be an Apartheid state or it will have to undertake expulsions. Which option to you prefer and why?