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

I never thought of the 6 day war as Israeli aggression..I dont see how a case could be made for that. It was 100% self defense. Self defense is the prime reason for having a country and cannot be compromised.. UN or not.
The need for a perimeter defense, such as the settlements, was brought about by the military aggression of Israels arab neighbors. Until the arabs convice Israelis there is no theat to their lives from arab terrorists and arab military agressors ..Israel needs no permission to protect itself from her neighbors..even if it means using some of their dirt to do it.
Fairness...if the arabs had won the six day war..you need little imagination to guess the fate of Israel.

 

Mabe not in your mind..
They do to the Israelis...ask one. Never heard of them needing help either..they do a very good job of protecting themselves.

 

The US did little to enable the Israelis in 1967. The Israelis pretty much kicked butt and took names..and a little land to protect themselves.
The arabs will pay the consequences until they stop trying to exterminate Israel.

 

Actually,

The US completely subsidizes Israel's economy. I agree it is time to hit them in the pocket book.

We needed them as a beachead in the middle east, no more with Iraq and the probably permanent basis there and in Afgahnastan.

Israel will respond if the money line is threatened.

DD

 

DD,

That is a very dangerous game to play. We have one card to play against Israel, the money card. If we cut ourselves off from Israel, we will have no leverage to influnce Israeli policy. The United States is largely responsible for keeping Israel reigned in. Cutting them off may eqauate to cutting them loose. At that point, I would think the Palestinians would be in grave danger, and the Middle East could be thrown into turmoil.

 

Well if we don't play that card what point is there in having it at all.

I think we should start by cutting back, then if changes aren't forthcoming, we cut them off.

 

The point of having it is that it allows us to influence Israeli policy. The actual death toll in the conflict thus far has remained very limited. Don't you think Sharon and the other hardliners would like to kill a lot more militants than they have thus far? Sometimes just having something is enough, and using it ruins the whole thing, like nuclear weapons.

 

Apparently we are having almost no influence. If Bush can say the Roadmap requires that ISrael stop the settlements, and then Sharon says they won't stop the settlements, and Bush backs down and says Israel has already done enough to comply, then I skeptical as to where the influence is.

Sharon won't feel the need to sucomb to the influence if they believe they can bully Bush into approving anything they do. There needs to be consequences and pressure. We should cut funding for Israel, and if they start wiping out and displacing more Palestinians, then we should lead a UN force in their to section off the area and prevent Israeli troops from getting anywhere near the currently occupied territories.

 

Israel is nuclear armed. That means they will be treated no differently than N. Korea if they become hostile (ie diplomacy). You are severly underestimating our influence on Israel. What you want is control, which we don;t have. Influence is what has kept Arafat and millions of other Palestinians alive. Don't fool yourself into thinking it couldn't get any worse over there.

 

Im no foriegn policy expert, but in 1967 I witnessed the things I speak of. Until the 6 day war Israel was dependent on France for most of thier military needs. President Johnson made a decision to change that because of the stratigic importance of Israel in the mid-east during the cold war. At that time the reason for subsidizing Israel was a military one.
While Johnson got them an arms shipment on the eve of the war, Israel pretty much did the 6 day war on their own.
Its true US foriegn aid to Israel has greatly increased since then.

 

israel is hands-down the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid over the past 20 years. we're talking billions every year.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html

israel and egypt, who we pay to stay peaceful with israel, together consume 50% of america's foreign aid budget.

why do we give it to israel? i know it is NOT because of:
1) their near-apartheid political system
2) their terrible human rights record
3) their jihad-incurring foreign policies
4) their uselessness as a strategic ally
5) their 1st-World living standards

we once gave it to them to counter-balance soviet influence in the middle east and to keep the peace. however, the Cold War is over, and Israel now has the ultimate deterrant against war, Nukes. So now, we give it to them simply because they have the political clout to ensure the destruction of any politician who threatens to take away Israeli aid.

i remember reading an article that said if the U.S. cut off all aid to Israel, its economy and govt will collapse in under six months. With its huge army/police, continuous occupation and settlement building, extensive social benefits, high subsidised arms industry and space program (both of which compete against the U.S.), and huge publically-funded infrastructure projects, Israel's budget runs a big deficit even WITH U.S. aid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1944846.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1750900.stm

You'd think that for a nation as dependent as this, it should be rather compliant with U.S. policy? yes this is indeed the case. they ARE quite cooperative with U.S. policy. (recent disagreements not-withstanding - they scream and they shout but in the end they usually comply)

the key question is not so much Israel's compliance with U.S. policy, but the biases in U.S. policy itself. israel doesn't usually fight u.s. policies once they're formed, instead they make sure we don't write anything they won't like.

just check online for the last time any u.s. congressman or govt official said anything remotely suggestive of favouring the palestinians. any public figure that does that, is committing political and career suicide.

sharon has the U.S. govt by the balls, and he knows it. in fact, he publically flaunts it. bush can posture and plead for peace all he wants, but never will the U.S. govt DARE to move against Israel. it's just a fact of life that americans have to learn to live with.

 

Went to the washington report link and all I found was a pro-arab activist ranting about Clinton administration foriegn policy...throwing around random, inaccurate foriegn aid estimates. The main b****es in her 3 year old article seemed to be that the US should lift santions against Iraq and elect more pro-arab politicians.
But she didnt mention anything about Israels right to build settlements ..
Israel has the right to self defense..and until the Arabs quit terrorism and armed aggression against Isreal..the Israelis should retain occupied territory and do anything they want ..if it increases their security.
US foreign aid to Israel has been primarily used for stratigic purposes like strengthening missle defenses and countering terrorism..which beats Israel having to go it alone..which would only encourage arabs to toss more bombs at cities in Israel.
To suggest Israelis should rely on their nuclear ability for defense is madness... the reason the US is is pouring aid dollars in there..is to keep that from happening.

 

Before 67 . . .there was NEVER a Isreal . . .
and they didn't conquer it . . .it was conquered FOR THEM by
ALLIED POWERS

Rocket River

 

Cut off subsidies to Israel and the Palestinians will cease to exist, the IDF will invade Lebanon, the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan will soon be nullified, and we will be looking at another general Arab-Israeli war, which would probably go nuclear.

StupidMoniker is right. It is the only card we have, and to remove it is to lay it on the table - never to get it back - and in the process remove all restraint on Israel's hard-liners and orthodoxy. It would mean war.

 

Cut off subsidies to Israel and the Palestinians will cease to exist, the IDF will invade Lebanon, the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan will soon be nullified, and we will be looking at another general Arab-Israeli war, which would probably go nuclear.


Of course, the reality is that its not as black-and-white as you like to make it. We have choices somewhere in between giving them the full level of subsidies that we currently provide and cutting off all subsidies. In other words, using SOME of the funds as leverage and the remaining funds serve as the insurance against them starting a war.

 

Israel was created in 1945. In 1967 there was a major war in which Israel beat back the Arab attackers on her boarders and expanded, a lot. They eventually gave back a good portion of the lands, including all the land taken from Egypt. I don't know where you got your information, but it is wrong.

 

Israel was formed in 1948.

 

Sorry 1948, typo, I was using the number keypad.