- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
I have long had a ‘problem’ with settlements in general. But having lived in Ramat Eshkol, Itri, shortly after 67, I assumed those areas are off limits to any future Pals state. So maybe I am being hypocritical, why is Pisgat Zev less ok?
At this time, my only objection to a Pal state is that it cannot be trusted to keep the peace.
But I still don’t see the need for all the settlements and especially the new announcement this week about over 1000 apartments. I know there is a lot of land in pre 1967 that can be developed, including outside of Jerusalem.
I have never seen the need to build on disputed land, on what the entire world considers to be illegal settlements.
I am not getting the strategy exactly of antagonizing the entire world.
is it to delay a Pal state? then they say, Israel has given back land before. ok so then why build now on it. Is it to show stregnth back?
My problem is that, i spend alot of time arguing on behalf of Israel against anti Israel posters all over, but really i have nothing to say in a positive way about these new neighborhoods like Ramat Shlomo and Har Choma. and the one past Gilo.
People want to live in yerushalaim and the government wants to build up the capital city. Why does that bother you?
Just because they hammer away does not mean we have to let it make a dent. A Palestinian state is just another antisemitic front by a people who know they can not take Israel militarily.
My feelings about a Palestinian state are the same as my feelings about all the other arab and muslim countries. I see no up side to them for Jews or other human beings.
I don’t mind one
Terrorists shouldn’t have any state, certainly not one right next to Israel. If Israel is to give over anything, it should be to the Nigerians, Thais, Filipinos, etc
Actually I hold there should be no state of Israel but not necessarily a palestinian because they aren’t trust worthy
adams: Think Gush Katif. What happened after Israel evacuated the entire Gaza, while leaving successful businesses intact? Leaving Yehuda and the Shomron makes the entire country vulnerable. It would only be 9 miles wide at one point and impossible to defend.
Also, did you know that if your neighborhood and others like it, were forced to evacuate temporarily in a war, you would be evacuated to the Shomron?
The areas you mentioned were bought and paid for legally by Jews. There never was an Arab so-called Palestinian state nor history. It’s nothing more than a tactic and means to destroy us.
Our history shows that the world is antagonized by our breathing. We are foolish for buying into their anti-semetic narrative. It’s all in Hashem’s hands. The Land is ours.
No other Country in the world is treated like we are for building on Land won in a defensive war, even when they had no history of ownership of that Land. We have the history here, yet we are treated differently than everyone else.
Please don’t fall into that trap.
Palestinians deserve a state but. It should be UN supervised
adams: The so-called settlements are just a handy excuse. The real issue is theological and to the Arabs, that means destroying us, all of us, not just Yehuda and Shomron.
vayoel moshe: that’s the most ridiculous laughable thing I’ve heard in a long time. Besides the fact that the so-called palestinians already have a state on 80% of the land originally designated for Jews, and they never wanted another state when Jordan control the territory before 1967, the UN is the last entity we should trust. All they’ve done is aid and abet terrorism against us.
Risk your own life, if you choose, not ours.
Well my halachic opinion is that the whole land has to be given over tel aviv and yerushalayim included so although it might not be optimal it’s the only solution I could think of (for it to be UN supervised)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.