Israel Approves 1200 New Settlement Homes

[MHunterB]

"A half-million "Jews" many recent migrants from Europe have been transferred into the Occupied Territories since 1967. "


George: when a poster includes the kind of filth bolded above as a 'point' - they thereby invalidate whatever argument they were attempting to make(not to mention the abuse of the English language!)
The GC refers to 'transferring' in population, as in involuntary moves - that is not what's being done. As to whether or not you wish to consider these people Jews: that is the decision of the Jewish People. Unless, of course, one wishes to deny us that 'right to self-determination'???

And the it continues with this bit of snide irrelevance: "Should BDS make the Israeli economy scream loudly enough, many of those illegal settlers will be looking for shelter within the Green Line."

The cheering on the illegal BDS BS - a continuation of the Arab League's illegal boycott - is duly noted. As is the hateful spew about the 'Green Line' - which was specifically not to be considered as a 'border' .

 

[Indofred]

So in the warped zionist mindset......illegal settlements are somehow 'repairing the world" and making it better??

The settlements are not illegal. As I continue to say, there is nothing to say that the Israelis cannot build in the WB. The only people who say the lie that it is illegal are those who think by giving up the WB peace will come to the region. So like speaking to a naughty child they say to the Israelis "you cannot build because it will be part of a Palestinian State there."

The Israelis should build, and of course it provides work for the Arabs who depend on the continuing construction industry for work, or they would be unemployed.

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A half-million "Jews" many recent migrants from Europe have been transferred into the Occupied Territories since 1967. Should BDS make the Israeli economy scream loudly enough, many of those illegal settlers will be looking for shelter within the Green Line.

Then what?

Please stop quoting international law the Israeli government doesn't want people to know about.
This is unfair as the Zionist extremists on here have to spout a load of bullshit in an attempt to hide your post from attention.

I should give you my first ever red brick for upsetting extremist Jews by quoting clearly anti-semitic international law that pretty much everyone agrees to except Israel because trying to force extremists out of occupied land is clearly Hitler style anti Jewish, even though they stole that land and only claim it because people they never knew, lived there 2,000 years ago.
America started a war to get Iraq out of 'occupied territory' but pays Israel to build illegal settlements in occupied Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Although I am a staunch supporter of Israel, I have to question the decision announcing the building of these homes 3 days before peace talks are to begin. They have to know it is a provocative move.

Israel approves nearly 1,200 new settlement homes

Israeli settlements are mentioned regularly.

However, the ethnic cleansing required to obtain that land is not mentioned.

 

[Bloodrock44]

Although I am a staunch supporter of Israel, I have to question the decision announcing the building of these homes 3 days before peace talks are to begin. They have to know it is a provocative move.

Israel approves nearly 1,200 new settlement homes

Israeli settlements are mentioned regularly.

However, the ethnic cleansing required to obtain that land is not mentioned.

Ethnic cleansing? OMG...why haven't I seen this on the news? Are we propagating poopaganda again?

 

[Indofred]

eth·nic cleans·ing
Noun
The mass expulsion or killing of members of an ethnic or religious group in a society.

Israel: Eviction of 1,300 Palestinians necessary to save IDF time, money - Diplomacy & Defense - Israel News | Haaretz

The state wants to evict 1,300 Palestinians from their homes in an army firing zone in the West Bank in part because training there saves the Israel Defense Forces time and money, according to the state’s response to two petitions against the mass eviction.

Of course, Israel calls it an evacuation.

At least 20 arrested in mass protests over Bedouin relocation plan - National - Israel News | Haaretz

Demonstrations, held at two separate locations in Israel's north and south, oppose plan by which 40,000 people would be evicted from their homes.

That's "resettlement".

However, that could easily be taken as mass expulsion as Israel is making it very clear they aren't welcome and doing everything short of putting them on cattle trucks to get rid of them.

That, of course, is before you even consider the first Nakba, when the creation of Israel led to the forced removal of countless Arabs from the new, all Jewish, land of Israel.

Odd as it seems, Nazi Germany "relocated" Jews as well.
German Jews during the Holocaust, 1939?1945

It seems the Israeli government has been reading mein kampf.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Although I am a staunch supporter of Israel, I have to question the decision announcing the building of these homes 3 days before peace talks are to begin. They have to know it is a provocative move.

Israel approves nearly 1,200 new settlement homes

Israeli settlements are mentioned regularly.

However, the ethnic cleansing required to obtain that land is not mentioned.

Ethnic cleansing? OMG...why haven't I seen this on the news? Are we propagating poopaganda again?

Excellent question but I am not the one to ask.

 

[MHunterB]

Fredsie: Goodwin's Law. You just lost.

 

[Saigon]

The tenders to the building companies have to be sent out, then approved. That takes months, as things don't move fast. By the time the tenders have been received there will be a better idea on the outcome of the peace talks. If the talks succeed and Israel keeps the land then the building starts. If the talks fail, then no building will have taken place.

If the talks are continuing while the building is being carried out, and the Israelis win, then fine - there are more housing to ease the shortage. If the talks fail, then the Palestinians will have lots of lovely new houses. Win-win, wouldn't you say?

Israel does not "win" if it keeps land it has no historical claim to. It loses, because it means the war cannot end.

Israel only "wins" if it can find a peaceful solution.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The settlements are not illegal. As I continue to say, there is nothing to say that the Israelis cannot build in the WB.

Actually, there are UN Resolutions to say so.

Those are void. The UN Resolutions cannot negate the League of Nations (UN) giving the land to the Jews in 1922. I keep saying it on here and you all keep ignoring it. Therefore the building in the whole land is to be encouraged, and article 80 protects the Jews' right to settle not only in Israel, but in the West Bank which area was not an issue before the Jordanians occupied it from 48 to 67.

 

[Saigon]

Caroline -

I keep ignoring it, because what you are saying is a position with very little international support.

It has little support both for historical reasons (Jews have NEVER lived in many areas in which they are now settling, wheras Palestinians have,e.g. Ramallah, Nablus) and for legal reasons, in that the Green Line has been the de facto starting point for negotiations since 1967.

Again, pushing this kind of reasoning undermines Israel's claims to land within the Green Lines, because it turns the entire region into land which is owned not by historical claim, but by force and possession. Wouldn't it now follow suit for Palestinians to claim Akko and Jaffa as being Palestinian entities?

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Caroline -

I keep ignoring it, because what you are saying is a position with very little international support.

It has little support both for historical reasons (Jews have NEVER lived in many areas in which they are now settling, wheras Palestinians have,e.g. Ramallah, Nablus) and for legal reasons, in that the Green Line has been the de facto starting point for negotiations since 1967.

Again, pushing this kind of reasoning undermines Israel's claims to land within the Green Lines, because it turns the entire region into land which is owned not by historical claim, but by force and possession. Wouldn't it now follow suit for Palestinians to claim Akko and Jaffa as being Palestinian entities?

Israel is entitled to sovereignty over all the land.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_WVm8SacS4]Howard Grief - Israels Legal Borders Under International Law - Part 1 of 3 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VV_HMfzVDc]Howard Grief - Israels Legal Borders Under International Law - Part 2 of 3 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWJb8qY5KZ8]Howard Grief - Israels Legal Borders Under International Law - Part 3 of 3 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Saigon]

Sweet Caroline -

Can you explain to me why you think countries should be able to claim land on which their people have NEVER lived?

Perhaps give me another example from history so that I can understand the logic.

At the moment all I am seeing is the 'might is right' line of reasoning, which to my mind suggests that if Palestinians can control towns like Akko, Nazareth and Jaffa, then those towns cannot be part of Israel.

 

[Politico]

Home building is good for the economy. Good for them.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Home building is good for the economy. Good for them.

Exactly. Not only that. Because there is overcrowding and a lack of suitable homes for families, then of course people should welcome the new homes. The families evacuated from Gaza in the 2005 disengagement are still in temporary accommodation, and these will be the homes they will be moved into.

 

[Saigon]

Home building is good for the economy. Good for them.

I fear that what the settlements cost Israel is a thousand times greater.

Consider how damaging each new settlement is to Israel's reputation, and to the chances of peace.

How much does a year of occupation cost Israel in manpower, arms and supplies?

In 2012, Israel spent $15.2 billion on its armed forces, making it the country with one of the highest ratios of defense spending to GDP of the developed countries ($1,900 per person).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Budget

A peace settlement could save Israel in excess of US$2 billion per year, at least.

Wouldn't that be better overall for the economy than building settlements that make lasting peace impossible?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Home building is good for the economy. Good for them.

I fear that what the settlements cost Israel is a thousand times greater.

Consider how damaging each new settlement is to Israel's reputation, and to the chances of peace.

How much does a year of occupation cost Israel in manpower, arms and supplies?

In 2012, Israel spent $15.2 billion on its armed forces, making it the country with one of the highest ratios of defense spending to GDP of the developed countries ($1,900 per person).

Israel Defense Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A peace settlement could save Israel in excess of US$2 billion per year, at least.

Wouldn't that be better overall for the economy than building settlements that make lasting peace impossible?

Too much in Gaza. Gaza became unprofitable. That is why the settlers were moved out.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Sweet Caroline -

Can you explain to me why you think countries should be able to claim land on which their people have NEVER lived?

Perhaps give me another example from history so that I can understand the logic.

At the moment all I am seeing is the 'might is right' line of reasoning, which to my mind suggests that if Palestinians can control towns like Akko, Nazareth and Jaffa, then those towns cannot be part of Israel.

Akko was captured by one of the Hasmonean kings, the Prophet Jonah sailed out from Jaffa, and if Jesus the Jew was born in Nazareth, that surely means that Jews lived there. I have been to both Jaffa and Akko. Jaffa is home to a beautiful artists' colony, and is the setting for the Israeli movie "Kazablan". Akko houses a prison where Jewish prisoners were hanged by the British. Therefore, both in ancient and modern times, these are Jewish cities, so I don't know why you said that we have never lived there.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Sweet Caroline -

Can you explain to me why you think countries should be able to claim land on which their people have NEVER lived?

Perhaps give me another example from history so that I can understand the logic.

At the moment all I am seeing is the 'might is right' line of reasoning, which to my mind suggests that if Palestinians can control towns like Akko, Nazareth and Jaffa, then those towns cannot be part of Israel.

Akko was captured by one of the Hasmonean kings, the Prophet Jonah sailed out from Jaffa, and if Jesus the Jew was born in Nazareth, that surely means that Jews lived there. I have been to both Jaffa and Akko. Jaffa is home to a beautiful artists' colony, and is the setting for the Israeli movie "Kazablan". Akko houses a prison where Jewish prisoners were hanged by the British. Therefore, both in ancient and modern times, these are Jewish cities, so I don't know why you said that we have never lived there.

I meant that Jesus lived in Nazareth. He was born in Bethlehem, due to a census.

 

[Saigon]

FY -

You've been to both Akko and Jaffa, so you know that both are very much Palestinian towns; Nazareth too.

When I refer to towns that Jews have NEVER lived in, though, I meant areas like Ramallah, Nalbus etc. The central and northern part of the West Bank. In the South Jews have some claims on Hebron and Jericho, but never in the north.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

FY -

You've been to both Akko and Jaffa, so you know that both are very much Palestinian towns; Nazareth too.

When I refer to towns that Jews have NEVER lived in, though, I meant areas like Ramallah, Nalbus etc. The central and northern part of the West Bank. In the South Jews have some claims on Hebron and Jericho, but never in the north.

Nablus is the Arabic corruption of the Roman name for Shechem. Shechem is mentioned continuously throughout the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), and it's where Joseph is buried. There's hardly any place in Israel, and especially the West Bank, that's not chock-full of Jewish history.