- Most of the settlements are on land that was not even occupied by Palestinians.
- Many of the OTHER settlements are on land where Jews lived since recorded history - until they were kicked out by Palestinians (1929, Hebron massacre), or Jordan in 1948.
- The West Bank is of strategic importance, and Israel otherwise does not have defensible borders.
- Absolutely the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and PARTICULARLY Jerusalem are places where Jews have long historical land ties and a deep emotional connection. You cannot compare this to anywhere else, save possibly Mecca/Medina.
- In any case, any argument that the settlements are a block to peace is lost - since Israel is willing to give up the settlements.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Why I support Israel's 'settlements'
Firstly, 'settlement' implies that the land is recently 'settled.' That is a mistake to assume - in fact many of the settlements - such as Hebron, East Jerusalem, and Gush Etzion, are in land that was traditionally Jewish - until the Palestinians (1929 Hebron massacre) and/or Jordan (in 1948) took the land away. I do not believe in 'land for peace.' I believe the land CAN be given up...But only if there is REAL EVIDENCE of a REAL PEACE that is coming. This requires a change in the textbooks, media, and Palestinian attitudes. Anything short is suicide. I did not always think this way. But the Second Intifada convinced me of this. See: Raccoon's personal reaction to the Intifada. Lest we forget, the land is of strategic importance. (see: Pentagon memo stating as such) That should be reason enough to not give up the settlements unless there is evidence that the Palestinians (and Arab world) are SERIOUS about a REAL PEACE. A summary of why I support the settlements in the territories: