What is the justification for Israeli settlement building?

[DanTex]

I'd like to hear from people here who generally defend Israeli foreign policy as to why it's OK to build the settlements. I'm probably going to disagree, but I'd still like to know what the argument is just out of curiosity and knowledge.

I've read that Israel argues that the settlements are necessary for security. I don't believe that, but I'd still like to hear the argument in favor.

On edit: I really don't mean this OP to be snarky in any way. I'm actually just trying to figure out what the argument is, even though I'm probably going to disagree with it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I've often wondered this myself. I will be most interested in any replies. n/t

[bravenak]

2. I just yelled at My senator's campaign staff about this.

Told him it's the last vote he'll ever get from my way. Too late to find somebody else, but i have a long fucking memory.

[Jefferson23]

3. Good luck. I don't think your OP is snarky, not at all. n/t

[TexasProgresive]

4. No justification, yet? I wonder why?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. They should stop building settlements and plan to withdraw from most of them they have occupied.

Outside of extreme right wingers here and in Israel I don't see many people who support them.

[King_David]

6. No justification

[Scootaloo]

7. But you oppose removing them don't you, David?

I don't think I've ever seen you advocate such an idea, at least - maybe I just missed it? But hey. Now's your chance. Are you in favor of the removal of all settlements from the occupied territories?

[Israeli]

10. silence is golden nt.

[King_David]

13. I get to sleep 7/8 hrs a night,

And wake up fresh.

[King_David]

12. I don't oppose removing them for a secure peace

I'm all for it .

[DanTex]

17. How about just removing them because they are criminal? No?

That's the whole problem with the I/P situation. Both sides use the other side's actions as justification for their own crimes.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. Any denunciation?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. Land theft. Power. Hubris.

[Israeli]

11. not in favor ...

Ever since Moshe Levinger deployed the first group of settlers in Hebron, by ways of deception and mendacity (they promised the military governor that they were only going there to conduct a Seder Pessach ceremony), all the settlements are aimed at a single political objective: to forestall any possibility of peace with the Palestinians.

The opponents of peace know very well that such peace could only be established if Israel allows the Palestinian people to build their state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The settlements were intended to create a reality which would preclude the possibility of ever returning these territories to the Palestinians.

This objective is clearly manifested in the field: Most of the settlements have been established on top of hills, like outguards overlooking the area, also in order to provoke the Palestinians, whose villages are usually built downhill.

The intention is to control, and so is the result. The implication: A small minority in the Israeli public imposes its will on the entire state, and dictates to the overwhelming majority an endless war.

The orthodox-nationalistic-messianic hard core has settled there to " create facts in the field " , which would render any compromise with the Palestinian unfeasible This group has spawned ideological murderers such as Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir. On the other hand, there are those who have settled in the Palestinian Territories only " to find a quality of life " , or splendid homes for peanuts, or an easy life at the state's expense. Some have gone there innocently, without giving it much thought.

All settlers, however, have one thing in common: They knew very well that they were settling beyond the Green Line, on land taken by force from another people. No one is forcing them to stay there. Each and every one of them is free to leave and come back to the State of Israel.

[hack89]

14. They are not ok

they are a product of Israeli domestic politics where coalition governments give enormous leverage to small religious parties. The settlements are the cost the Likud thinks they have to pay to stay in power.

I personally think the settlements need to be with drawn.

[likesmountains 52]

15. Kick, possibly you (and the rest of us) will get more answers.

[oberliner]

16. I'll take a crack at this

The settlements aren't necessary for security. I don't think too many Israelis make that argument. They do argue that the security barrier is necessary for security but not the settlements themselves. I think that there is a sizable portion of Israelis who feel that the land of Israel includes a lot of the West Bank. You can tell who these people are because they use the terms Judea and Samaria - and believe that these lands are as much part of Israel as Israel proper and that Israelis have the right to settle and live there. Places like Hebron, for instance, had Jewish communities long before there was a modern state of Israel and this city - and others - are home to many significant Jewish holy places. There are extreme settlers who want to dot every hill in the West Bank with settlers to assert that they have the right to live in this land. I think the majority of not-right-wing Israelis oppose all the settlements (with the possible except of East Jerusalem, which is unique in some significant ways) and would like to see Israel withdraw from at least most of them and cut a deal with the Palestinians for land swaps so the people in the ones that are very close to the border with Israel could stay (and lands within Israel would be turned over in return). I think the less insane settlers might argue thusly: Jews were living in what is now the West Bank and were kicked out when the land came under Jordanian control in 1948. During the Jordanian occupation, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and no Jew was permitted to live anywhere within the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Thus, when Israel defeated Jordan in the 1967 war and captured this land, many in Israel felt that Jews ought then to have the right to move back there - recall that there was no movement for a Palestinian state just on the West Bank/Gaza at that time. So years later when such a movement did emerge and the principal of land for peace was established it became a situation where you had many of these well-established communities of Israelis living in settlements that were like small cities and they just don't want to uproot their lives and have to leave. My own personal view can be found within the text of the Geneva Initiative.

http://www.geneva-accord.org/