Israel Chooses Settlements Over Peace...Again
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/au ... bank-homes
Israel go-ahead for West Bank settler homes dents peace hopes
Palestinians accuse Ehud Barak of contempt for peace talks by giving approval for building of 277 homes in Ariel
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 August 2011
The Israeli government has authorised the construction of 277 homes in the West Bank settlement of Ariel, a move that will diminish the prospects for a resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians.
An announcement from the defence ministry said approval for the scheme was given last week. The government also backed the building of 1,600 homes in the East Jerusalem settlement of Ramat Shlomo. Further announcements are expected in the coming days.
Ariel, home to almost 20,000 Israelis, extends 12 miles (20km) inside the West Bank. Its future under any agreement on borders with the Palestinians is uncertain.
Israel is determined to annex such a large settlement, but the Palestinians and many in the international community argue that it would cut the West Bank nearly in two, making a contiguous Palestinian state almost impossible.
The housing units had been in the planning process for several years before being approved by the defence minister, Ehud Barak. One hundred homes will be reserved for settlers evacuated from Gaza in 2005; the remainder will be sold on the open market.
The Palestinian Authority said the approval "makes clear to the world Israel's contempt for a negotiated two-state solution". Israel, it said in a statement, was "racing against time to make the two-state solution harder and harder by building on the land that is supposed to be the Palestinian state. The international community must ask Israel how it can pretend to be ready to negotiate while expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank?"
Hagit Ofran of the Israeli organisation Peace Now, which monitors settlement activity, described the approval as a cynical move amid the current Israel-wide tent protests about the cost of renting and buying homes. "The government is taking advantage of the housing crisis in Israel to expand its settlement policy," she said. "Most Israelis are not settlers and don't want to be settlers, and construction in Ariel is not relevant to them."
A spokesman for the US embassy said unilateral actions by either side were "not helpful to the process to try to get both parties back to the table".
Israel appears to be stepping up approval of settlement construction before the Palestinians' bid for recognition of their state at the UN next month. The government is opposed to the Palestinians making a unilateral move, saying that only negotiations can bring about a Palestinian state within agreed borders.
Attempts by the US and EU to persuade the parties to resume talks have not been successful. The US wants the pre-1967 border between Israel and the West Bank to be the basis of negotiations, with agreed land swaps to compensate for Jewish settlements Israel would retain.
The Palestinians have identified continued settlement expansion as the main obstacle to resuming direct talks, which broke down last September after Israel refused to extend a temporary freeze on settlement construction.
It emerged this week that Israel's president, Shimon Peres, held a series of secret meetings with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in recent weeks. The talks were brought to an abrupt end when Peres was forced to cancel a meeting at short notice reportedly after the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, refused to allow him room to negotiate.
Approximately 300,000 Israeli Jews live in settlements in the West Bank, which are illegal under international law. Another 200,000 live in settlements in East Jerusalem, which was captured by Israel in 1967 and later annexed in a move not recognised by the international community.
Israel go-ahead for West Bank settler homes dents peace hopes
Palestinians accuse Ehud Barak of contempt for peace talks by giving approval for building of 277 homes in Ariel
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 August 2011
The Israeli government has authorised the construction of 277 homes in the West Bank settlement of Ariel, a move that will diminish the prospects for a resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians.
An announcement from the defence ministry said approval for the scheme was given last week. The government also backed the building of 1,600 homes in the East Jerusalem settlement of Ramat Shlomo. Further announcements are expected in the coming days.
Ariel, home to almost 20,000 Israelis, extends 12 miles (20km) inside the West Bank. Its future under any agreement on borders with the Palestinians is uncertain.
Israel is determined to annex such a large settlement, but the Palestinians and many in the international community argue that it would cut the West Bank nearly in two, making a contiguous Palestinian state almost impossible.
The housing units had been in the planning process for several years before being approved by the defence minister, Ehud Barak. One hundred homes will be reserved for settlers evacuated from Gaza in 2005; the remainder will be sold on the open market.
The Palestinian Authority said the approval "makes clear to the world Israel's contempt for a negotiated two-state solution". Israel, it said in a statement, was "racing against time to make the two-state solution harder and harder by building on the land that is supposed to be the Palestinian state. The international community must ask Israel how it can pretend to be ready to negotiate while expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank?"
Hagit Ofran of the Israeli organisation Peace Now, which monitors settlement activity, described the approval as a cynical move amid the current Israel-wide tent protests about the cost of renting and buying homes. "The government is taking advantage of the housing crisis in Israel to expand its settlement policy," she said. "Most Israelis are not settlers and don't want to be settlers, and construction in Ariel is not relevant to them."
A spokesman for the US embassy said unilateral actions by either side were "not helpful to the process to try to get both parties back to the table".
Israel appears to be stepping up approval of settlement construction before the Palestinians' bid for recognition of their state at the UN next month. The government is opposed to the Palestinians making a unilateral move, saying that only negotiations can bring about a Palestinian state within agreed borders.
Attempts by the US and EU to persuade the parties to resume talks have not been successful. The US wants the pre-1967 border between Israel and the West Bank to be the basis of negotiations, with agreed land swaps to compensate for Jewish settlements Israel would retain.
The Palestinians have identified continued settlement expansion as the main obstacle to resuming direct talks, which broke down last September after Israel refused to extend a temporary freeze on settlement construction.
It emerged this week that Israel's president, Shimon Peres, held a series of secret meetings with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in recent weeks. The talks were brought to an abrupt end when Peres was forced to cancel a meeting at short notice reportedly after the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, refused to allow him room to negotiate.
Approximately 300,000 Israeli Jews live in settlements in the West Bank, which are illegal under international law. Another 200,000 live in settlements in East Jerusalem, which was captured by Israel in 1967 and later annexed in a move not recognised by the international community.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Another note, the so called 'arab spring' is so supported by the US, but when the blooming flower of revolution starts to grow in Palestine, the US only looks to cut at it's root before it fully blossoms.
an unfortunate reality.
Obviously it's in Israel's favour to continue hostilities as it gives them more time to steal more land.
Right on, which brings us to the ultimate question here, why does Israel want to steal more land?
For that, a closer look at 'Zionism' would probably be in order,
U.S. and Israeli interests lie in keeping their puppet dictatorial regimes in place.
fuck, Much of the Arab spring is supported by the US, they want many of these current governments/regimes out. So they (US) can prop up a fresh set of puppets, the old ones are a bit worn.
But that is of course not the case with all of the 'spring' and all of these regimes.
take note, I also originally referred to it as the "so called arab spring". Because to be honest, it's not a 'pure' spring. at least not anymore. Sadly,
But this is the nature of the world we currently live in is, it's marketing, propaganda, the Military–industrial complex, Media lies, lobby's, etc.
It's all connected, the entire system needs to be torn down, taken apart. This is how I feel. Anything less, is just surface shine.
I agree that the entire system needs to be torn down, obviously. Economic policy especially is what runs these countries, and as long as corporate and foreign investment plays as large a role as it does in these economies, the people will continue to suffer, their political freedom will be all in name, even if they do have a democracy. The people need to make sure they keep demanding more, but so far in Tunisia and egypt atleast, they have done that. And in Syria they are not backing down.
What do I base it on? I base it on the fact that they are facing mass protests against them, what sign can be greater that your regime is worn then Your own people willing to die to see you go in such large numbers? But that is just stating the obvious. Like really, What do I base this on? Have you seen Saleh's skin lately? The US is all to eager for him to go so they can throw in a new hand toy. In fact, Salah just reiterated his passion to stay in power, the US advising not to.
fuck, things are changing, we are in a mist of a Paradigm shift. Remember it took the US a while for it to change it's view/policy (regarding him staying in power) on Mubarak, even the Israelis called the US out on it, saying that they "sold him out".
Yeah they (US) were happy with him (Mubarak) at one point before the start of the spring, but we are talking about what is NOW, events after the spring, and seeing that he had no future ruling the country, they (US)slightly shifted policy on him. Sure, if the protests were not happening and Tunisia never happened, then yes, as you say the US would of wanted someone else to come in and take his place and follow along keep the machine running, etc, but so what? That is not what happened.
In the same sense that the US would love to see the Syrian regime fall and a puppet come in, also the US no doubt has it's people on the ground in Syria, like they do in Libya. Like they had in Iran, in 1950's overthrowing Mossedeq. That was the original, the first CIA coup.
I totally agree, the Israelis are the most scared, the last thing they like is instability. Then again, who does? (that's a joke)
Not necessarily. instability can be useful in some cases. Take a look at the current disunity between Hamas and Fatah. who has this helped, if not the Israelis?
What Israel and the U.S. truly do not like is the Arab people speaking for themselves, representing themselves. because the Arab people, unlike their governments, are against Israel and U.S. hegemony. Israel sees the tide turning, which is why some people are shocked that Israel keeps refusing to accept a two-state solution on the '67 borders while it still can. Eventually once democracy spreads to all Arab and Muslim countries, the same option won't be available. The reality on the ground will force the conversation to cease discussing the possibility of a two-state solution (or as some, including myself, would argue, already has). Thus, the only discussion possible will be a one-state solution that incorporates Palestinians and Israelis into a single state. but this would be the death of Zionism. so if Israelis want Zionism to continue to exist (or atleast, temporarily), then they should try for a two-state solution while they still can. unfortunately for them, their Zionist ideology is also what drives them to continue to pursue these settlements and take more land. so how can you save something that is self-destructive to begin with?
just a couple of things,the US will support any spring, as long as they feel that they can influence or gain something from it in some way, this is historically what they have done and is what they still do now.
One more thing..you say, 'to say the U.S. supports the Arab Spring is simply incorrect. They want to maintain it is all."
Maintaining something, is supporting something.
Yes I agree, they do not support it's inherent principle.
I don't care what they want, they want to contain it? let them try, they will not be able to do it. They know they can't, they are better off, putting agents on the ground and trying to prop up puppets when the old ones fall down.
Yes, I know it (instability) can be useful in some cases, that's why I said I was joking after I said it, like as in something not to be taken seriously. A joke.
I honestly feel that the Saudis will fall one day, but will be one of the last major Arab states/countries to 'fall'.
But again, I have no interest in what the US wants regarding these events, they want to contain something they can not, and have not been able to do truly successfully. Bahrain is still boiling, though not like how it was. It's silly to expect all revolutions to be as quick as Egypt. Morocco was also about to set off, but sure enough has cooled for now.
Time will tell, it's still early, I still feel that the US knows that trying to contain this is useless and rather short term. I think some things have truly shifted, but again, don't mistake me saying "shifted" as me thinking or feeling that things have shifted in the 'right' direction.
The American agenda is still on the table and it's own goals of spreading its reach are still very apparent, like I said earlier, the entire system needs to be torn down. Anything else, is just surface.
By Dean Malik
First they invaded; five Arab armies, from Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq all descended. Israel was a state newly formed of a small core of native Sabras from the first five Aliyas along with the battered survivors of the Holocaust and a small cadre of American and British WWII veteran volunteers. After two years of desperate fighting and a cumulative loss to Israel of over one and a half percent of its population, the conflicted ended in a stalemate, with Israel holding a swath of land measuring 9 miles in width at its narrowest, and 71 miles at its broadest, extending 263 miles from the Lebanon border in the north through the Negev Desert in the south.
Three more wars followed in 1956, 1967 and 1973, then an airline hijacking campaign, multiple hostage seizures, civilian bus and car ambushes in the 1970s and 1980s, dozens of suicide bombings in the 1980s and 1990s, and a barrage of over eight thousand short and medium range rockets right up to the present.
This September, what the Arab world could not win in war, and would not accept in peace, it will ask the United Nations to give to it through a non-binding resolution, proving in a surreal twist on Von Clauswitz, that politics is in fact the continuation of war by other means.
Initially, the dynamic between Israel and the Arabs was straightforward. The land between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea -- geographic "Palestine" -- had been under Muslim sovereignty since the fall of the Crusader Kingdoms in the 13th century; it was Muslim land, and the Arab world fought to get it back. The invading countries clearly had designs upon the disputed territory, with Jordan and Egypt actualizing their goals by annexing the West Bank and the Gaza strip, respectively.
But in the post-WWII era, the West underwent a seismic shift in political philosophy. Western Europe began shedding its colonies and adopted a left-wing, socialist outlook. The normal inclination for nations to expand -- the very instinct that prompted the creation of the Muslim World -- was labeled "imperialism." a morally reprobate remnant of a bygone era.
As the West struggled to come to terms with its post-colonial guilt, the irredentist goal of eliminating Israel and recapturing the Levantine territory took on a new form. The objective was thus re-invented as a "struggle for liberation" and as "resistance to occupation." The achievement of Palestinian statehood is looked upon as the first critical victory in this ongoing revanchist war.
While the West has fully accepted the Palestinians-as-victims narrative, the way that the Muslim World internalizes the conflict continues to be the opposite.
The world of Islam has no affinity for the concepts of self-determination or individual rights as understood in the West and enshrined within the writ of "international law." Calls for Kurdish independence, implicating a homeland that straddles Turkey, Syria and Iran, are not supported by the Muslim world. The movements for Berber ("Amazigh") independence in Algeria and other North African Nations have been put down with ruthless efficiency, and much bloodshed, also without a word of protest from the world's Islamic nations. Baloch insurgencies in Iran and Pakistan similarly receive no support across the Muslim world.
Accordingly, with regard to Palestine, the message broadcast and to and heard by the Muslim world is devoid of western legalisms, and remains firmly ensconced within the rhetoric of conquest and adding to the greater glory of Islam.
The Arabic phrase "Ummah" means generally, "the community of believers" -- i.e., the Muslim world. Concomitant with this concept is the notion that among believers there is no distinction, and the Muslim world is, and should be, unified. This aspiration is expressed within the foundational principles of a trans-national ideology known as the "Khilafah Movement", which seeks restoration of a global "Caliphate", and is the true motivating force behind Palestinian nationalism, and the Muslim world's preoccupation with Israel.
In the West liberal supporters of the Palestinian cause go to great lengths to devise uniquely western criticisms of Israel's actions, holding the nation to the highest level of scrutiny under international law. These supporters, including groups such as the "International Solidarity Movement" ("ISM"), oblivious to the cognitive dissonance between their pious sentiments and the true geopolitical motivation of Palestinian nationalism, bemoan the "oppressed" status of the Palestinians. Yet passion to end to oppression, itself, is not the fuel that feeds Palestinian nationalism in the Muslim world; rather it is a passion to restore lost glory, and to re-conquer formerly Muslim dominions, for the sake of honor, that drives the fight.
The moral and factual inconsistency is profound. A comparison between statements made by western advocates and those emanating from the Muslim world, from an Islamic perspective, leaves no room for doubt:
ISM - Western
Israel's apartheid regime challenges Palestine's right to exist, and is met with a Palestinian struggle for freedom, self-determination and human rights.
Khilafah Movement - Islamic
Palestine and Jerusalem belong to the Islamic Ummah and one inch of this land cannot be compromised by any "traitor" or their laws.
Hamas Ideology - Islamic
The Palestinian territory, from the sea to the river, is an Islamic endowment; no inch of which should be compromised.
The existence of these two parallel and conflicting streams of rhetoric, one messianic, militant and oriented towards conquest, and the other styled as a simple quest for cultural survival resonating with victimhood, sustains Palestinian nationalism in the Muslim world and in the West simultaneously.
Samuel Huntington, in his 1996 work, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, argued that the Islamic world and the West are on an inevitable collision course due to the conflicting and irreconcilable value systems that they each hold. To maintain the western basis of support for Palestinian nationalism, advocates in the West must convince themselves that the aggressive language and tactics employed by the Muslim world, as discussed by Huntington, are simply a combination of valid and easily mollified historical grievances and mere theatrics.
But this attempt to explain away the dissonance is unsupportable; believers in Islamic nationalism are clearly at odds with western apologists, and are unambiguous in their conviction that Huntington is, in fact, correct:
Huffington Post, 1 March 2011
But in a world of universal democracy, America the Global Policeman would not be necessary. The paradigm of "us versus them" that produced the 9/11, the War on Terror and the Clash of Civilizations would be rendered obsolete.
Khilafa Movement - Islamic
The 'Clash of Civilizations' first discussed by Samuel Huntington is real and inevitable. We endorse the notion that there is a civilizational difference between Islam and the West and that the problem for the West is Islam and the problem for Islam is the West.
What so many in the West do not understand, and what the Muslim world collectively knows all too well, is this: Palestinian nationalism will never be a spent force until the ultimate goal of elimination of Israel is achieved.
Given this reality, it is hard to understand how the addition of a territory roughly the size of the State of New Jersey, to a Muslim world extending from the Maghreb in North Africa to the islands of Indonesia and comprising a geography over two and a half times the size of the United States can be anything other than conquest. It is equally difficult to see how ceding any territory whatsoever by Israel is either morally required or in the best interest of the nation and its future generations.
But the memory of past Islamic glory is enduring, and the desire and willingness to fight to the death in a perpetual war of attrition for its restoration is far from being quenched.
If Israel and its supporters desire the Jewish state's survival, they best prepare to hold their ground, and fight with courage and conviction and endure great sacrifice for a very, very long time.
— Socrates
That is mostly trash, propaganda. Where did you find it? I'm curious, is that what's going around the internet now?
Not quite the full story this though is it.
If a 14 year old presented the above as part of a school assignment he'd get a 'fail'.
Do you support the continued building of illegal, Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land stolen after the 1967 war?
'UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.'
Do you support the continued building of Jewish settlements on Israeli land in dispute since the 1967 war?
Yes
— Socrates
The land isn't disputed. The whole of the international recognizes the land as belonging to the Palestinians. The only people who dispute it are the Zionists, based on a spurious 2000 year old Biblical claim.
U.N Resolution 242 refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and calls for an immediate 'Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict'. The recent conflict being the 1967 war.
What part of that don't you understand?
If someone broke into your house and then declared that the ownership was disputed, they wouldn't be taken seriously.
Still, thanks for letting us know that you support ethnic cleansing and ethnic nationalism.
Here's a question for you:
Did you support the Nazi occupation of much of Europe during WWII?
Because as far as the Nazis were concerned that land was disputed.