Israel to triple West Bank settlements

otter

Good!
Western culture spreading in the Middle East is a good thing.

Pepe Silvia

otter wrote:

Good!
Western culture spreading in the Middle East is a good thing.

wipe the palestinians off the face of the map, eh?

TriumphantAngel

otter wrote:

Good!
Western culture spreading in the Middle East is a good thing.

say what?

yosi

I'll try to keep this short.

Byrnzie, thanks so much for the personal attack on me. I'm honored to see that I made a lasting impression despite my recent absence from this forum. If you are interested in what I actually think, the building in Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem is a travesty. It's simply stupid and wrong. Ramat Shlomo, the neighborhood at the heart of this American-Israeli dispute is slightly more complicated. I won't address that now, but if anyone is interested you can ask me.

As for settlements and security, to simply restate my position, since you clearly don't seem to get it, I object to the settlements and would like to see almost all of them evacuated. I would certainly like to see an immediate halt to all settlement construction. I feel, however, that in a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that Israel is within its rights owing to its security concerns to seek a final border that is not the same as the '67 line. This would be done through agreed land swaps, with the Palestinians receiving land equivalent in size to the entire West Bank. The settlements that fall within the land transferred to Israel would remain intact. Those in Palestinian territory would be dealt with by the Palestinians in whatever manner they choose.

Regarding Netanyahu and Israelis' perceptions of him, I'm actually in Jerusalem now, and the Israeli coverage of Netanyahu is not very good. Basically people think he doesn't have a plan regarding how to move forward with the Palestinians, and that he's been flat out dumb with regard to Obama.

I won't even address the idea that Israel somehow controls the U.S. government. It's an ugly idea, and I think what is happening now in American-Israeli relations is proof enough of its falsehood.

yosi

Commy wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

I do feel that the proof is in the pudding, though. If the Hamas-style approach worked, we'd see LESS Israeli aggression and setttlement expansion, and as it turns out, we are seeing MORE.

incorrect. Terrorism (they are calling Hamas terrorist yes?) is reactionary by definition.



They wouldn't have a motive if Israel would end the siege.

Hamas terrorism predates the "siege."

yosi

Oh, Alivegirl, you do know that PressTV is a mouthpiece for Iran, don't you? That doesn't exactly make them a reliable, non-biased source of information on Israel.

badbrains

I wasn't directing that part of aipac controlling the us at you yosi. But I'll take it to the grave that it's 1000% correct my brother.... Have a great time in Israel bro. And be safe

yosi

Well, I guess we disagree. I always have a good time here, and I always practice safety. Thanks for the well wishes.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Ramat Shlomo, the neighborhood at the heart of this American-Israeli dispute is slightly more complicated. I won't address that now, but if anyone is interested you can ask me.

Let me guess...more of your self-serving 'nuance', right?

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Oh, Alivegirl, you do know that PressTV is a mouthpiece for Iran, don't you? That doesn't exactly make them a reliable, non-biased source of information on Israel.

And the whole of U.S mainstream media is a mouthpiece for Israel. Funny that.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Hamas terrorism predates the "siege."

And the occupation predates Hamas and Palestinian terrorism.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I won't even address the idea that Israel somehow controls the U.S. government. It's an ugly idea, and I think what is happening now in American-Israeli relations is proof enough of its falsehood.

I'll address it instead then. And let's keep in mind that this is the first time in 40 years that the U.S government has stood up to Israel on the question of settlements.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... sure-obama

Israel lobby presses Congress to soften Obama's tough stance on Netanyahu

American Israel Public Affairs Committee circulates letter urging White House to 'reinforce' relationship with Israel


* Chris McGreal in Washington
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 March 2010 19.24 BST


America's main pro-Israel lobby group is mobilising members of Congress to pressure the White House over its bitter public confrontation with Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.

The move, by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), appears aimed at exploiting differences in the Obama administration as it decides how to use the crisis around settlement building in Jerusalem to press Israel towards concessions to kickstart peace negotiations.

Aipac has persuaded more than three-quarters of the members of the US House of Representatives to sign a letter calling for an end to public criticism of Israel and urging the US to "reinforce" its relationship with the Jewish state.

The open letter, which has been circulating among members of Congress for the last week, says that while it is recognised that there will be differences between the two countries, they should be kept behind closed doors. "Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence," it says.

The public differences, and revelations of Obama's private snubs of Netanyahu at the White House last week, have proved embarrassing to the Israeli leader at home, where he has been accused of undermining Israel's most important relationship.

Signatories to Aipac's letter include Steny Hoyer, the Democrat majority leader, and Eric Cantor, the Republican whip. The wording is similar to an email Aipac sent out during Netanyahu's visit, describing Obama's criticisms of the Israeli government as "a matter of serious concern" and calling on the US administration "to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish state".

But while Aipac has for years influenced US policy on Israel, by targeting members of Congress who criticise the Jewish state, it may no longer have the same impact.

Robert Malley, a former special assistant to President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli affairs, said the administration's decision to take a once routine disagreement over settlement construction in East Jerusalem and turn it in to a confrontation is a reflection of the determination in the White House.

"This episode tells us more about the past and the future than the present. It's a reflection of the accumulated frustration and mistrust of the Netanyahu government by the White House. For the future, they're headed for a collision on the pace and nature of peace negotiations," he said. "We're seeing determination."

A source, who is consulted by administration officials on Israel policy but did not wish to be named, said that having chosen to take Netanyahu on, Obama cannot afford to back away. "The administration's credibility is at stake – in Israel and the Arab world. Netanyahu thought he had the better of it last year after he humiliated the president by rejecting his demand for a settlement freeze. If the administration does not follow through on this, or reaches some compromise that takes the heat off the Israelis, I suspect it will be almost impossible for us to get anything off the ground," he said.

Netanyahu appears to have been caught off guard by Obama's stand, perhaps because he was overconfident of being able to bypass the administration by relying on strong support for Israel in Congress. But while Aipac has been able to mobilise support for its letter, Congressional leaders have remained largely silent on the substance of the dispute.

That is, in part, because there is little enthusiasm for Jewish settlements. In addition, the White House has played an unusual card in suggesting that Netanyahu's intransigence is endangering US interests in the Middle East, and the lives of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"So far, I've been surprised by how muted congressional reaction has been," said Malley. "It may come, but if the administration manages to portray this as an issue of US national interest, it may be able to sustain a level of criticism."

However, there are reports of divisions within the administration on how to proceed. The US special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, and the national security adviser, James Jones, believe Israeli governments respond to pressure. Last year an Israeli diplomatic memorandum described Jones as having told European officials that the US administration would take a hard line with the government in Jerusalem. Some officials favour mapping out a blueprint for peace and pressing both sides to adopt it.

But other officials argue against forcing Netanyahu to make compromises that will bring down his rightwing coalition. There has been criticism from Dennis Ross, who served as Bill Clinton's Middle East envoy. Now a Middle East strategist for the Obama administration, he is reported to be arguing for the White House to ease up on Netanyahu. However, Ross is regarded by some sceptics as too close to Israel. He has publicly argued that Jerusalem must remain undivided and is regarded with suspicion by the Palestinians, who saw him as effectively negotiating on Israel's behalf, rather than as a neutral mediator.

Malley says that whatever the Obama administration does it is almost certain to lead to further confrontation with the Israeli government. "The next crisis is more or less inevitable, given the diverging views of the Israeli and US governments on the pace and direction of the emerging talks," he said.

War of words

"We must not be trapped by an illogical and unreasonable demand."

Binyamin Netanyahu on Obama's demand for an end to settlement construction in East Jerusalem.

"I think at one point the [Israeli] prime minister added that he did not see a distinction necessarily between building in Jerusalem and building in Tel Aviv. We disagree with that."

White House spokesman on Netanyahu's reaction to the demand for an end to settlement construction.

"We recognise that, despite the extraordinary closeness between our country and Israel, there will be differences over issues, both large and small. Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits long-standing strategic allies."

Letter signed by members of Congress pressing the administration to avoid such public disagreements.

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

I'll address it instead then. And let's keep in mind that this is the first time in 40 years that the U.S government has stood up to Israel on the question of settlements.

Be that as it may, the fact that there are pretty big disagreements between U.S. and Israel right now with regards to settlement is evidence that any "control" Israel exerts over the U.S. is weakening ... In all honestly, the idea that Israel pulls puppet strings in America is disconcertingly similar to old notions that Jews control all the major financial institutions, Hollywood, etc. US foreign policy has long dovetailed with Israel's, which is the result of all kinds of factors that have nothing to do with direct control.

Byrnzie

rebornFixer wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

I'll address it instead then. And let's keep in mind that this is the first time in 40 years that the U.S government has stood up to Israel on the question of settlements.

Be that as it may, the fact that there are pretty big disagreements between U.S. and Israel right now with regards to settlement is evidence that any "control" Israel exerts over the U.S. is weakening ... In all honestly, the idea that Israel pulls puppet strings in America is disconcertingly similar to old notions that Jews control all the major financial institutions, Hollywood, etc. US foreign policy has long dovetailed with Israel's, which is the result of all kinds of factors that have nothing to do with direct control.

So the fact that 'Aipac has persuaded more than three-quarters of the members of the US House of Representatives to sign [the] letter' is not relevant?

yosi

Have you considered the radical idea that perhaps AIPAC simply makes a convincing case, or that many members of congress probably don't share your politics and happen to agree with many positions that AIPAC takes. That seems like a much more plausible position than that there is some conspiracy whereby Israel dictates US foreign policy from Jerusalem.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

Hamas terrorism predates the "siege."

And the occupation predates Hamas and Palestinian terrorism.

Occupation began in June, 1967. PLO was formed in 1964. Interesting. Unless I'm mistaken 1964 came before 1967.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

Hamas terrorism predates the "siege."

And the occupation predates Hamas and Palestinian terrorism.

Occupation began in June, 1967. PLO was formed in 1964. Interesting. Unless I'm mistaken 1964 came before 1967.

Hamas isn't the same as the PLO. They are two separate entities. Nice attempt at trying to appear clever.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Have you considered the radical idea that perhaps AIPAC simply makes a convincing case, or that many members of congress probably don't share your politics and happen to agree with many positions that AIPAC takes. That seems like a much more plausible position than that there is some conspiracy whereby Israel dictates US foreign policy from Jerusalem.

Really? So what is AIPAC's case then? Go ahead and enlighten us Oh wise one.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

And the occupation predates Hamas and Palestinian terrorism.

Occupation began in June, 1967. PLO was formed in 1964. Interesting. Unless I'm mistaken 1964 came before 1967.

Hamas isn't the same as the PLO. They are two separate entities. Nice attempt at trying to appear clever.

You said Palestinian terrorism was a response to the occupation. You didn't say Hamas terrorism. Nevertheless, I would argue that the fact that Palestinian terrorism began before the occupation is a strong indication that there is a strain of thought within Palestinian society that sees all of Israel as occupied land (hence the "liberation" in the name of the PLO before there was an occupation), and that this strain of thinking is central to Hamas' ideology. That is exactly why Hamas began suicide bombings in the mid-nineties at the height of the Oslo peace process (which at the time was very much seen as a historic chance to end the occupation once and for all), because in the view of Hamas a peace that brings an end to the occupation but entails the Palestinian recognition of Israel and a permanent end to hostilities is undesirable, since the ultimate goal is not to end the occupation (of the West Bank, as we understand the term), but the occupation of all of Israel/Palestine (as Hamas understands it).

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

You said Palestinian terrorism was a response to the occupation. You didn't say Hamas terrorism. Nevertheless, I would argue that the fact that Palestinian terrorism began before the occupation is a strong indication that there is a strain of thought within Palestinian society that sees all of Israel as occupied land (hence the "liberation" in the name of the PLO before there was an occupation), and that this strain of thinking is central to Hamas' ideology. That is exactly why Hamas began suicide bombings in the mid-nineties at the height of the Oslo peace process (which at the time was very much seen as a historic chance to end the occupation once and for all), because in the view of Hamas a peace that brings an end to the occupation but entails the Palestinian recognition of Israel and a permanent end to hostilities is undesirable, since the ultimate goal is not to end the occupation (of the West Bank, as we understand the term), but the occupation of all of Israel/Palestine (as Hamas understands it).

Before the occupation? You're referring to 1947 when the Zionists sought to seize control of 56% of the land. There was resistance to this threat by the Palestinians at the time. A legitimate resistance.

As for post 1967 this is a separate issue and a separate threat. However, Hamas has declared it's willingness to adopt the same position as the international community - excluding the U.S - which calls for a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from land occupied in 1967.

As for the so called Oslo Peace Process, we've already been over this. There was no peace process. It was just an attempt by Israel to legitimize an Apartheid system of rule over some bantustans. And the Palestinians rightfully rejected it.

You see, what Israel wants is one thing, and what Israel is entitled to under international law is another thing altogether.