Why is Israel Expanding its controversial building program?

[peterb]

I disagree , it doesnt have to be a whole thread , its just a straightforward point .


ego + technology = Power

Power + Ego = More Power ( More Ego )

REPEAT

more ego + more technology = Even More Power .....

etc etc

Technology never satisfies it only creates the need for more , because our egos want more , for the same reason more wealth never makes any one happy

Its just cycle of greed created by our egos need.

m

Technology doesn't create the need for more. That's completely a human reaction. Technology, being largely inanimate, can only do what the user tells it to do.

The thread is not about technology per se - it is about the politics of the region - while technology may be used in the exercise of political power, it is in itself peripheral to the politics - which is the point of the thread - keep it on topic. As I have the technology on my side, I have proved your point, Melon, by exercising the power it brings but I really don't want to remove any more off topic posts. My bucket of patience is not infinitely deep.

[TheAnimus]

I started this thread because I'd genuinely like to hear from someone who thinks that it is the right thing for Israel to be doing....

This is because from my understanding I just can't see how it will possibly be.

[kalniel]

I started this thread because I'd genuinely like to hear from someone who thinks that it is the right thing for Israel to be doing....

This is because from my understanding I just can't see how it will possibly be.

Can you understand how from their perspective, it seems like the right thing to do? They consider it their land, and only held back from building on it in the past due to agreements which the 'other side' are now 'breaking'. They consider that they made it clear that building would be the consequence of the breaking of these agreements, so to not go through with it would be an unacceptable climb down and weaken their negotiation position for the future.

[BobF64]

Can you understand how from their perspective, it seems like the right thing to do? They consider it their land, and only held back from building on it in the past due to agreements which the 'other side' are now 'breaking'.

Large parts of France belonged to England in the past, until the Crown lost it in various ways, does that mean we can just go and populate it again?

All the nice parts of the US used to belong to someone else until it was taken from them.

Times change, borders move and just because there is a historical claim does not mean its valid forever.

[Dreaming]

Large parts of France belonged to England in the past, until the Crown lost it in various ways, does that mean we can just go and populate it again?

All the nice parts of the US used to belong to someone else until it was taken from them.

Times change, borders move and just because there is a historical claim does not mean its valid forever.

It's less a historical claim, and more one that god gave them that land, and they will have it. They stopped settlement only as a condition to the bilateral peace talks. Since Palestine has asked to be recognised as an observer state, a unilateral action, Israel no longer feels bound to the agreement to stop taking the land god gave them. Obviously I don't agree with Israel, but its a case of 'when the dust settles and lines are drawn on the map, they will be drawn around where people live'. If they can squat (by force) on this land for long enough, they are de facto annexing it and it would be difficult for international negotiations and treaties to give it back to Palestine. Possession is 9/10 of the law, afterall...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

god gave them that land

Its more the Allies gave it to them,eventually. In the end it was the Palestinians,who were betrayed,so that Europe could repay its guilt over The Holocaust.

[TheAnimus]

Its more the Allies gave it to them,eventually. In the end it was the Palestinians,who were betrayed,so that Europe could repay its guilt over The Holocaust.

This is the issue for me, it doesn't appear in anyway exceptable for force your belief in religious entitlment over someone who is already occupying that land.

It might be a horrible side effect of me being an athiest, but I'd demand proof, and I'd fight to the death, with any means at my disposal to get that I suppose. This means I can completely sympathsis with the Palistinian side.

I would love to hear a good argument from someone of how you can morally annex someones land, because of a belief you can not proove, which the victim does not hold.

[Dreaming]

Its more the Allies gave it to them,eventually. In the end it was the Palestinians,who were betrayed,so that Europe could repay its guilt over The Holocaust.

The land originally given was much less, then there was the war with Egypt, Jordan etc. where they flounced the opposition and legally annexed some land (but which was later returned with peace treaties) expanding their borders to the '1967 borders'.

Since then they have had a process of expanding and annexing additional land within the 'palestinian area', but have said they will trade land on a 1:1 ratio (however they are planning to trade desert in exchange for valuable land around Tel Aviv). Jerusalem for example has been completely annexed despite the UN saying it does not belong to Israel. Israel believes when the day finally comes to settle the score, they can say 'this is where our people are, and so it is our land' whilst at the same time refusing the right to return for Palestinians from those areas.

A lot of the expansion is mainly done for practical purposes e.g. a lack of affordable housing close to Tel Aviv.

[TheAnimus]

They stopped settlement only as a condition to the bilateral peace talks.

If say a rape victim, was let go under the promise they never went to the police. Then said victim went to the police. I would have just as much sympathy for them as if they had never made such a promise. Promises and agrements made under duress in my mind need not be honoured.

Ultimately the only way I can see this being resolved is with both sides having equal recognition, with a nutural combined paramilatery police force enforcing any agreements.

[Dreaming]

If say a rape victim, was let go under the promise they never went to the police. Then said victim went to the police. I would have just as much sympathy for them as if they had never made such a promise. Promises and agrements made under duress in my mind need not be honoured.

I'm in agreement with you, and so it seems are the majority of the world:

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think it was just easier for Europe, to basically not really address the aftermath of what happened to the Jewish people and all the anti-semitism which had brewed up for a century, and instead remove their guilt and any problems in a sort of "out of sight,out of mind" way. Present the Jewish people with a pancea to their problems,then we don't need to worry about them in our back yard sort of attitude. The colonial powers did it to other parts of the world,and it is more a case of doing anything so you can just wash your hands of it quickly. Of course,that short sighted attitude caused more problems than it solved.

[kalniel]

Large parts of France belonged to England in the past, until the Crown lost it in various ways, does that mean we can just go and populate it again?

I don't think 'we can just go and populate it again' - France's military sizable and they would enjoy great support from other nations. But perhaps you're actually asking 'should we'? - in our situation the answer is clearly no. But we are not Israel, and we are not Israelies.

Times change, borders move and just because there is a historical claim does not mean its valid forever.

Israel believe different - it's an everlasting covenant, to be taken away and returned as God alone decides.

[kalniel]

This is the issue for me, it doesn't appear in anyway exceptable for force your belief in religious entitlment over someone who is already occupying that land.

It might be a horrible side effect of me being an athiest, but I'd demand proof, and I'd fight to the death, with any means at my disposal to get that I suppose. This means I can completely sympathsis with the Palistinian side.

I would love to hear a good argument from someone of how you can morally annex someones land, because of a belief you can not proove, which the victim does not hold.

I wouldn't be so quick to sympathise entirely with one position over another - while forcing another populace out for religious reasons is absolutely repugnant, so is wanting to rid the world of another race, which is what many of the 'other sides' want.

You've got two sides, one of which wants what it considers its own land, the other of which wants to annihilate the first.

In the eyes of some, the demand for land is the lesser of the two evils, because they do not want to wipe out the other people (they believe harm should only be either in defence or if for retribution it must be proportionate - an eye for an eye means *only* an eye for an eye, no more).

[Dreaming]

Bear in mind as well Israelis are taught they were 'ripped off' when the borders were drawn up initially - that they were supposed to have a large chunk of land but ended up with this tiny strip that bore little resemblance to the promised Israel. That's a tough pill to swallow if you've been waiting x000 years to have your land back.

[Galant]

Here's my take on answering the OP:

I think Israel are acting this way because they feel that no matter what happens they can't rely on the UN to uphold their interests. I can think of two main reasons for this, first, historically the UN in it's votes and actions has been hugely pro-'Palestinian'/anti-Israel and second, perhaps most significantly, there is very little, if anything, said to address the biggest Israel concern, the massive anti-Israel stance of many Arabs in the area. To put it more specifically, demands are made of Israel, but rarely is anything heard of demands that the Arabs in the area must accept the valid existence of the nation of Israel. That is the underlying issue which for some reason doesn't come to light, the elephant in the room, and since the UN wont acknowledge the elephant, then Israel will take its own path.

Gaza being a prime example - Gaza was a piece of land held by Israel which was released to Arab control. It has since then become a prime launching ground for rockets into Israel. It seems to me to be a valid - and yet surprisingly unmentioned (by the UN) - concern of Israel that any further land ceded to Arab control will not also become grounds for further attacks into Israel.

TLDR - There has been, and continues to be, a strong belief amongst many Arabs that Israel is invalid and has no right to exist. More than this, that it is an Arab/Muslim duty to destroy Israel. This is the elephant in the room that for whatever reason the UN seems never to deal with and so the Israelis feel they cannot trust the UN and will have to look after themselves.