Why are the Israelis still building illigal settlements in the occupied territories?

Question

How is that going to help in bringing peace?

What is the benefit of Annapolis if they are still building settlements?

O yeah and if you want to say because hamas are still launching rockets, this is because people got really disappointed. The Israelis never keep a promise, this is the truth.
50% of them want the Israeli Arabs to leave Israel and 55% are against Annapolis terms.

Peace

lol, B that is funny and yes you are right, they are addict.
I think there will never be peace between us and them

For those who gave B thumbs down. Instead of giving thumbs down, please answer the question.

I didn't say rockets are killing people because they are disappointed. I am strongly against Hamas and people on this section know that but if you want to justify building the settlements by the rockets, I would say people are disappointed and they think the Israelis don't want peace. That is why Hamas are still launching rockets. Maybe if the Israelis stop building settlements, hamas will stop their rockets.

Thank you Gamla Joe

Ultra N, how does that answer my question?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200711/INT20071130d.html

as for 50% israelis who want the Israeli arabs to leave. I heard it today on aljazeera and an israeli minster who was in the interview confirmed it but I can't find any written article that mention. I am exhausted now and I have to study for my final exams. Please don't ask me for less biased sources, I don't have and i dont have time to look for.
peace

Answer 1

bit by bit bit by bit...build more settlements ...create more linking roads...with more checkpoints...make life unbearable for the Palestinians....then maybe just maybe....they will immigrate to other countries....or become tired and hopeless...and give in to whatever it is that Israel wants.......Peace!

but.....one million hands pushing heads into the water...suffocating them...eventually they can't breathe...so then....they fight to come up for air!

Answer 2

What occupied territory? If you mean the land that was won from Jordan after Jordan attacked Israel, Jordan has formally renounced their claim on it. It is in legal limbo and belongs to no state until and unless all parties peacefully negotiate final status borders. One also needs to keep in mind the difference between "sovereignty" and "ownership." Most of that land in question is either Jewish owned private property or govt owned property. The fact that a Jewish family owned a plot of land and was ethnically cleansed in 1948 by Jordan doesn't impinge on their right or that of their heirs to move back in now that it is possible. I know you disagree with what I (and the authors of UN SC Res 242 say it means...) Professor Eugene Rostow, then U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, went on record in 1991 to make this clear: “Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ‘from territories’ it occupied during the Six-Day War – not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.” Professor Rostow continues and describes: “Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines ['Green Line'], but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ’secure and recognized’ boundaries …”(5) Lord Caradon, then the United Kingdom Ambassador to the UN and the key drafter of the resolution, said several years later: “We knew that the boundaries of ‘67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers; they were a cease-fire line of a couple decades earlier. We did not say the ‘67 boundaries must be forever.” Referring to Resolution 242, Lord Caradon added: “The essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary … “(6) In a 1974 statement he said: “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967. … That’s why we didn’t demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to.”(7)

Answer 3

Speaking of promises...

The Palestinians promised that if Israel left Gaza, terrorism would decrease.

So Israel left Gaza - and now more rockets than ever are being launched from there onto Israeli towns like Sderot, and Israelis are dying as a result.

Both sides need to keep any promises that are made - the Palestinians need to stop the terrorism and the Israelis should, when that happens, stop building settlements.

Answer 4

Israelis do not support Annapolis is not the same as Israelis do not support peace. How bout this: for peace we must kill all the Arabs in the world. Ha! Since you don't support what I just said, obviously you aren't for peace. Do you see the flaw in this argument? (By the way, I'm not actually supporting mass genocide against Arabs, that was just an example). As for your 50% of Jews want Israeli Arabs gone statistic, I'm going to have to see proof. The nearest political opinion to that - Israel Beiteinu's suggestion that we trade areas heavily Israeli Arab for areas with Jewish settlements in the territories - garnered only 11 seats in the last election, less than 10%. I would also like to see a statistic about settlement building. If this building you are reffering to is natural expansion of existing settlements to allow for growth, then that is both to be expected and not in violation. In fact, last I heard the government, through Barak, were not even giving permits for this. If instead you are talking about unsanctioned settlement construction, then I assume it's because those building the settlements disagree with these rules. They will be an issue that a final border agreement will rectify: if they end up on the Israeli side, then the settlement will stay, and if not they will be removed.
As for your views on Hamas, I must say you are misguided. Hamas does not call for a peaceful solution with Israel, or for Israel to keep its promises. Hamas states as its goal the destruction of Israel, to the point where Israel's actions are essentially meaningless with regards Hamas. Since you're already discussing the benefit of Annapolis, what exactly is the benefit when half the population is under a different administration and the current government isn't even legal? Or when the ones making the promises are not the ones who can carry them out, i.e. stop the rocket fire. Continued settlement construction, if that is indeed happening in any appreciable way, is not the major hurdle towards peace.

Answer 5

There are some pretty obnoxious things said - from B I am use to it, from Mimi - she has given up her objectivity, and from Maya I am guessing she isn't a history/social studies teacher because her comments are not based on factual evidence. Regardless - I have to say Gamla Joe and Michael J's answers are right on target. I can see we have a lot of trolls with an anti-Semitic bent who like to give thumbs down to people - but that is what you get when you don't hold people accountable for their actions in an effective manner.

Good Luck!!!

I would also suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_242#Interpretation to give you a better idea of why Israel does what it does.

Answer 6

Because they are crazy religious fanatics who imagine that a mountain god named yahweh gave them this land,so they have the right to kill and otherwise dispose of the inhabitants. Most of the Tanahk is a celebration of genocide. What they forget is few people other than fundies take this junk history seriously and couldn't care less what they think their presumed god supposedly promised. As to genocide,that's what they were best known for in the ancient world - terrorizing their neighbors with wild stories of god-promised land,etc. - and today they do the same thing in slow motion. There will be no peace until the British are required to come back long enough to remove these so-called settlers they put in there back in the '20's. I want to see the whole area under Syrian control and I don't want these so-called chosen people to ever again have the opportunity to govern. It's only happened twice. In Palestine,a never-ending horror-story - and in post-war Hungary,under the brutish Matthias Rakosy and his savage secret police,entirely "jewish",by the way. Hungarians today are very antijewish,and can you blame them? These people are simply unfit to govern. Anywhere.
And nobody cares about their 3000-year-old con job on the god-promised bit. It was a load of crap then and it's a load of crap now.

Answer 7

because no one from arabs presidents can fear it all search how to keep standing on thir churchs also usa alawys stand behind her in any situation we are so soory for weakness of our leaders

Answer 8

The Israelis wanted it both ways freedom and democracy for them and occupation and collective punishments for the native people of Palestine. The Israeli dogma.

Answer 9

Why are Arabs still illegally living in the Holy Land altogether? Your place is in Arab Peninsula.

Answer 10

If your referring to the expansion of neighborhoods in East Jerusalem it is because the Government of Israel has stated clearly that since East Jerusalem has been annexed it dose not consider construction there settlement building.

As far as I am aware outside Jerusalem all permits for residency construction in the West Bank have been suspended.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/932333.html


PS-- Not that it will help, but please do not bite my head off, I am not giving my opinion, but only relating what information I have read from in the news.

Answer 11

If you go back to the history of Israel and the Jewish people, you will no doubt discover that the so-called illegal settlements actually belong to the Israelis. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, from Biblical times (the Promised Land) to the present. Israeli's have been more than accommodating, allowing Palestinians to usurp the land that is rightfully that of the Israelis. (Think Gaza Strip). They have been forced to leave areas that were designated as theirs. One can't blame them for retaliating by generating "squatters rights" in territory that belongs to them in the first place. Perhaps that will answer your question as to why they are still building settlements in occupied territories. Those territories have no business being occupied. It's the same principle as someone taking over your property, house, lot and garden without your authorization. How would you react? Would you bring them tea and sandwiches, or would you build barriers around what belongs to you, and force them out by whatever means available?