What right does Israel have to build settlements on occupied land?

Israel will have to make concessions if they ever want peace in the region. One of the concessions will be giving up on their idea of building settlements on occupied land. This is a provocative move that only creates more resentment and hostility.

 

Did you know that there were many Jews living peacefully in those areas since the early 1900's? It's not like they just randomly picked a piece of land.

And also, a lot Palestinians wanted to leave because Arab leaders told them that Israel would be destroyed and then they could return.

Of course Israel wasn't innocent, I'm not saying that either.

 

No one has a right to any land, simply because they were there first.

If that was the case, the good ole USA would not be here now would it?

Conquering has been a part of world history forever, and Israel rightfully conquered that land, it is theirs.

If they choose to give some of it back, that speaks very well of them.

It is NOT palastinian land, there has NEVER been a Palastine.

DD

 

They don't got no right to build settlements on occupied land!!!!!

But oh well....they have the support of the US.

Don't mess with Texas!

 

When do you plan on returning your land to the Native American's again?

 

Roman emperor Hadrian, after crushing the Jewish uprising between 132- 135 AD, declared that all of Israel be called Palestina and he changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. He forbid Jews from entering the city. So, according to the Romans, everyone who lived in that region after 135 AD would be considered a Palestinian. Until 1948, I guess.

 

DD, some one can come right back and say the jewish concentration camps were okay.

 

Actually the geneva convention is supposed to govern conduct during war. Israel is clearly in violation of the fourth geneva convention.

 

I am simply answering the question.

What right does Israel have......?

The right of Conquest gives them the right.

I know it is callous, but it is true.

DD

 

But the fact that they've agreed to follow the geneva convention, holds them to a different standard.

 

just wondering is that what's written in Taiwan's history books also? Wasn't Tibet a part of ROC before 1949 also?

 

Then why did we have Desert Storm when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Was it not the right of Conquest. If we claim to hold ourselves to a higher standard, we can't pick and choose.

 

Khan,

They did settle in Kuwait, then they got kicked out, Conquest won again.

Same thing....

By the way, I think Israel should get out of the west bank and for sure should stop settlements in the occupied territory.

However, it is their right as it is part of Israel, just as Scotland is part of England.

DD

 

I agree with you about the settlements and the occupied territory. I think they need to just get out of there and get back to their defensible borders. I don't understand the Israeli point of view. Why do they go and place their settlements in the middle of torn down Palestinian homes and wonder why people retaliate??

If they were within the original mandates there would not be a mix of the peoples and i'm sure that terrorism would fall significantly.

But the problem is, as the Isreali Ambassador to the US stated, the West Bank and Gaza are part of old Judea and Samaria and are ancestoral jewish lands. He basically stated they have intentions of taking all of that land and slowly kicking more and more people out and making more and more settlements.

Peace is not what Sharon wants, because peace would make his continued settlements look bad in the world view. His ambassador to the US simply stated that those Occupied territories were ancestoral jewish lands on CNBC last night!

Its ironic that the largest refugee population in the world is the Palestinian population. So in essence another 'diaspora' has taken place by the same people who it happened to. I compare this very much to the disdain that a child has for his alcoholic father but then becomes one himself.

 

r,

You are splitting hairs.

So, by your logic, the USA is defitely not a country, it belongs to the Indians.

And....Taiwan is really China...etc..etc...etc...all a matter of perspective.

By the way....the Middle East was not even drawn up into countries until the 20th century, so all of this arguing about who was where first is laughable at best.

DD

 

i think the key distinction we're failing to note is:

the legitimacy of expansion through military aggression ended with the rise of the U.N.

Most of the "International Law" dealing with states rests on the principles within its Charter, which in turn is founded on two key principles:

1) Sovereignty - that states are inviolate against aggression.
2) Self-Determination - that peoples decide their own futures.

These really only came into effect in the Post-War era (1945-1955).

Before that, it was really a free-for-all, with alliances, military might, retribution, and the balance of power being the dominant principles behind diplomacy. As such, legitimacy was defined in a totally different manner, and statements like "might makes right" would definitely have had a place. This is no longer the case.

So that when we're discussing these issues, any pre-1945 historical arguments aren't really relevant, i.e. no arguments about American Indians, Rome, Louis XIV, Spanish Empire, etc. etc.

As least that's the way i was taught to look at it...