[Rictor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4297097.stm

[aldo_14]

I don't get it... why do they need to build there, of all places?  I mean, I understand there's probably an ulterior motive (i.e. population shift to legitimise owning / occupying the territory and justify a 'protective' military presence) anyways, but on the bare face of it.... why not just build somewhere else and save the inevitable hassle of it?

[Rictor]

Cause biblical Israel is quite a bit larger than the modern day version. Therefore, those who percieve that the land was given to them by God will naturally have expansionist policiies.

Even the territory in 1948 is quite a bit bigger than the original UN mandate given in 1947. Following that, there's been steady expansion outward, with a few unsuccesful attempts, where Israel has been forced to give back captured territory (the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and part of the Golan Heights to Syria). Yeah, these territories were captured in wars that were not (mostly) initiated by Israel, but if you look at Israel in 1947 and Israel today, it is beyond question that expansion and annexation has indeed taken place. even Assuming that this trend stops, the "security fence" will still have carved out a good chunk of the West Bank. The article says there are 7k settlers in Gaza, and 400k in the West Bank. Logically, it makes sense to ditch Gaza in return for a bigger piece of the West Bank.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Cause biblical Israel is quite a bit larger than the modern day version. Therefore, those who percieve that the land was given to them by God will naturally have expansionist policiies.

Even the territory in 1948 is quite a bit bigger than the original UN mandate given in 1947. Following that, there's been steady expansion outward, with a few unsuccesful attempts, where Israel has been forced to give back captured territory (the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and part of the Golan Heights to Syria). even Assuming that this trend stops, the "security fence" will still have carved out a good chunk of the West Bank. The article says there are 7k settlers in Gaza, and 400k in the West Bank. Logically, it makes sense to ditch Gaza in return for a bigger piece of the West Bank.

I know, I know....this is just my general annoyance at the world being filled full of intransigence speaking here.  i just wish nations/people would sometimes just look and think for a second - "Is this going to cause problems?  Ok, maybe we should try something else".

Pisses me off.

[vyper]

I've heard of this "natural growth" before... it was called breathing room. *sighs*

[Sandwich]

[q]Yediot Ahronot newspaper said the government land agency plans to ramp up the number of settlement homes to coincide with a withdrawal from Gaza.

But the Israel Lands Authority said the reported plan was old and never received official approval. [/q]

I just read that article in Yediot Aharonot a few hours ago. They've been known to jump on things that aren't much more than rumor to get a story, so i wouldn't put all that much credence in it, especially if the ILA refutes the report.

That said, Israel's planned pullout from Gaza is a huge concession, which will include forcibly removing people from their homes, lands, uprooting the graves of their loved ones... there needs to be similar concessions on the Palestinian side, and no, cessation of terrorism, violence, and incitement to violence isn't a concession - it's a given condition they must meet if negotioations are to proceed.

And FYI, just so you all get an idea of what this planned pullout is doing to the nation, there are no lack of settlers who specifically are not making any plans for after the relocation, because they plan on staying there. There are drills being run in police and military bases throughout the country to train soldiers and security forces on how they should act while performing the relocation, and there is talk in some circles of a civil war - a newspaper report a few days ago said that there are thousands (I forget the exact number - may have been 7k) of weapons in the legal possession of the settlers, and that the government has no plans to collect those weapons for the pullout.

It could very well turn ugly, very easily.

[vyper]

Violence begets violence.

[Gank]

I like how you think giving back stuff you've taken from someone by force is a concession. What was it jesus said, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you?

[Grey Wolf]

To quote the Robot Jews from Futurama: "We believe that he was built, and that he was a very well-programmed robot, but that he was not our messiah."

On a more serious note, God/YHWH in the Old Testament was just a bit more vengeful and less forgiving than the New Testament version.

[Gank]

Aye but Sandys christian, was aimed at him. Also a settler iirc.

[vyper]

Isn't half your island still in turmoil over whether Catholics or Proddies got it right?

No offence Gank, I just wanted to make sure we don't completely demonize Sarnie by pointing out your own national flaws.

[Gank]

Well see it was never really about the religious differences between catholic and protestant creeds, the trouble up the north (which is less than a quarter btw) stems from a time known as the plantations, where Irishmen were evicted from their lands and it was handed over to settlers loyal to the crown. Mostly Scots presbyterian btw. This happened in the 16th century and theres still ****e today.

So you see our national flaws are a direct result of the same kind of policy being pursued in Israel today.

[vyper]

I think you'll find the ****e today is more gangsterism than political differences. However, thats a debate for another time.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Gank
I like how you think giving back stuff you've taken from someone by force is a concession. What was it jesus said, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you?

I like how you think that the Gaza Strip, Judea, and Samaria were taken from the Palestinians to begin with. Besides, I don't see Syria or Jordan complaining that Israel initiate a war against them and took their lands. They know very well precisely what happened in '67. Do you?

And yes, that was Jesus. What's the point? Israel should have invaded a neighboring country the day they were formed to wipe them off the map? Israel should support and harbor terrorists? Israel should tell the world one thing in English and then tell her own population the opposite in Hebrew? Oh, no, wait - Israel should summarily execute via public hanging any suspected collaborators and leave their bodies in the town square for days. Or hey, we could even brutally lynch any Arabs found wandering into a Jewish city, toss their bodies out of the police station window, and proudly wave our bloodied hands in the air for all to see.

No, Israel doesn't want any of that done to her, so she doesn't do any of that.

P.S. Don't get me riled up - I've got a gun and I know how to use it.

Originally posted by Grey Wolf
On a more serious note, God/YHWH in the Old Testament was just a bit more vengeful and less forgiving than the New Testament version.

Oh puhleese. God didn't mellow with age. Read Jeremiah 31. Read Revelation. He hasn't changed.

Originally posted by Gank
Aye but Sandys christian, was aimed at him. Also a settler iirc.

Tell me, do you go around calling every American you meet a settler? Just curious.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Sandwich


I like how you think that the Gaza Strip, Judea, and Samaria were taken from the Palestinians to begin with.

Weren't they?

[Taristin]

Originally posted by Black Wolf


Weren't they?

Among others...?

[Sandwich]

Without even going back to Biblical times, no. Those territories were part of Egypt and Jordan, repectively. As far as I know (darn Wikipedia is down ATM), "Palestinians" were invented circa 1970-something with the formation of Egyptian-born Arafat's PLO.

[vyper]

[q]
Tell me, do you go around calling every American you meet a settler? Just curious.[/q]

No I call them colonials. I generally follow it up by waving highly taxed Tea in their face.

Yes, it's a saturday and I'm bored.

[Rictor]

OK, assuming that civil war doesn't break out, which is not at all a sure thing, the Gaza pull out would end up relocating maybe around 6 thousand people. Note the word relocating. They get moved from one occupied territory to another.

I don't think there is a single court in the world, including Israeli, that sees the territories as a legitimate part of Israel. The occupation of Gaza is unsustainable, the settlers are a vast minority and generally the place is more trouble than its worth. So, abandon Gaza (though not completely, I hear Israel plans on retaining control of the buffer zone with Egypt), and instead move everyone over to the West Bank, where they are used as a sort of demographic weapon to legitimize the occupation by trying to build a significant presence of Israelis.

The bad behaviour (settling on land that does not belong to you) does not in fact go away, it just moves a few kilometers to the west. How is this a major concession? In fact, in the long term it could very well prove to be a setback for the Palestinians, since already the wall has carved out something like an additional 20% of the West Bank.

Think of it this way: back in the days of the Britsh Empire, if Britain decided to move its settlers from occupied Hong Kong to occupied India, would that be a great and generous act on their part?

Until I see some legitimate authority rule that the territories legally belong to Israel, and provide a good reason why, I'm going to continue to see it as a foreign occupation which is illegally trying to annex another's land.

I think thats the jist of it Sandwich, you think that Gaza and the West Bank belong to Israel for whatever reason (God, military conquest, whatever) and I don't.

[vyper]

[q]if Britain decided to move its settlers from occupied Hong Kong to occupied India, would that be a great and generous act on their part? [/q]

Personally I think we should've done it the other way around... but meh...