European members of UN Security Council condemn Israeli settlements

[Ulysses G.]

How Hamas can be described as controlling trade boggles the mind, I accept that what goes on inside the borders will be under its control but at the end of the day Israel blocks the ports, the trade routes, controls water, electricity and bans exports.

Hamas is shooting rockets into civilan areas of Israel all of the time. What other country would put up with that kind of violence? If Hamas want to control their borders, they need to stop the terrorism for a change and sign a peace treaty.

[Ulysses G.]

Yet now I see posters claiming that Gaza is flourishing.

No you don't. You see posters saying that Gaza is doing a lot better than the haters of Israel try to claim. Gaza is not doing well because of the hateful terrorist group that runs it, but it is not doing too badly compared to many places in the world.

[GentlemanJim]

How Hamas can be described as controlling trade boggles the mind, I accept that what goes on inside the borders will be under its control but at the end of the day Israel blocks the ports, the trade routes, controls water, electricity and bans exports.

Hamas is shooting rockets into civilan areas of Israel all of the time. What other country would put up with that kind of violence? If Hamas want to control their borders, they need to stop the terrorism for a change and sign a peace treaty.

I agree entirely they should stop firing rockets and Israel should immediately cease the illegal settlements, totally agree. However that is nothing to do with my post or the OP.

[Pakboong]

The settlers are an interesting bunch. They seem to be causing problems on both sides of the fence. I for one, when considering who benefits from these rocket attacks, would look very closely to the settlers. Hamas is trying to go peaceful so they have to get a handle on these attacks. The Israelis seem to know the minute these rockets were launched, where they came from and who launched them. That is a bit to convenient for me. Hamas has no idea and that also seems odd for many reasons.

This link is to a Haaretz article showing a group of terrorists taking a rocket out of a van and setting it up to fire. The claim is the terrorists are Palestinian. They may well be but the story is a bit odd for several reasons. The Israeli operating the drone chose to film the show and not fire its hellfire missiles to extinguish the threat. The rockets were fired and fell pretty much harmlessly in the Israeli desert. The Israelis responded with attacks from the air. A typical IDF news release would likely be that an Israeli F-16 killed the terrorists on their way home from the attack.

These Drones are pretty slow and noisy so it is strange that one would sit and hover above terrorists undetected. the newer versions can hover higher but they can be seen.

"Because it cannot evade radar detection, flies slow, is noisy, and must often hover at relatively low altitudes, the Predator is vulnerable to being shot down by enemy fire. In fact, an estimated 11 of the 25 Predators destroyed in crashes reportedly were caused by enemy ground fire or missiles"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/watch-gaza-militants-prepare-to-launch-rocket-at-israel-1.392651

Some 20 rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip on Saturday, exploding in Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gan Yavne, and west of Be'er Sheva.

[Ulysses G.]

So let's get this straight. You have posted a video of terrorists shooting 20 rockets from Gaza and are blaming it on Israeli settlers with absolutely no evidence other than your imagination?

Israel drones are small unarmed reconnaissance vehicles and for strikes they use planes or helicopters piloted by a human being who has the authority to abort the mission if he or she believes it will endanger civilians not connected with the terrorist activity. Your theory is yet another in a long string of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories with absolutely no basis in fact.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[GentlemanJim]

The settlers are an interesting bunch. They seem to be causing problems on both sides of the fence. I for one, when considering who benefits from these rocket attacks, would look very closely to the settlers. Hamas is trying to go peaceful so they have to get a handle on these attacks. The Israelis seem to know the minute these rockets were launched, where they came from and who launched them. That is a bit to convenient for me. Hamas has no idea and that also seems odd for many reasons.

This link is to a Haaretz article showing a group of terrorists taking a rocket out of a van and setting it up to fire. The claim is the terrorists are Palestinian. They may well be but the story is a bit odd for several reasons. The Israeli operating the drone chose to film the show and not fire its hellfire missiles to extinguish the threat. The rockets were fired and fell pretty much harmlessly in the Israeli desert. The Israelis responded with attacks from the air. A typical IDF news release would likely be that an Israeli F-16 killed the terrorists on their way home from the attack.

These Drones are pretty slow and noisy so it is strange that one would sit and hover above terrorists undetected. the newer versions can hover higher but they can be seen.

"Because it cannot evade radar detection, flies slow, is noisy, and must often hover at relatively low altitudes, the Predator is vulnerable to being shot down by enemy fire. In fact, an estimated 11 of the 25 Predators destroyed in crashes reportedly were caused by enemy ground fire or missiles"

http://www.haaretz.c...israel-1.392651

Some 20 rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip on Saturday, exploding in Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gan Yavne, and west of Be'er Sheva.

I would don a kevlar suit Pakboong and prepare for some incoming flak and a flaming or two Just to correct you slightly, the predator cannot hover, it is a fixed wing aircraft and flies the same as any other fixed wing aircraft. If any aircraft is flying at height and downwind of you it can be very difficult to hear and also to see. Otherwise what you suggest may have some validity or it may not, but once again be reminded of the motto of the Israeli secret service " By way of Deception, thou shalt do War". It is a known fact that in previous times Israeli 'terrorists were apprehended in Mexico with Arab passports, they were eventually freed and deported after high level discussions, Israeli 'terrorists' had infiltrated and were active members of Pakistani and Afghan mujahadeen and taliban, again carrying Arab passports, they were freed and deported, and so on and so on and....so on and so on.

[philw]

You people are unbelievable sometimes.

Sometimes?

Pretty consistent IMO....ie: always the same

They can do no wrong.....all others can do no right

*They* will claim no peace can be found & the illegal settlements continue because the

Palestinians keep attacking....

Yet the Palestinians keep attacking because of the illegal settlements.

Also note the Palestinians are not alone in seeing these as illgal settlements...

The world see's it as the same & the only reason it is not stopped is the illogical support given by one country bought & paid for in exchange for a bought & paid for alliance/presence.

No solution in sight as long as the illegal settlements keep expanding.

**they* claim the others want to destroy them & push them into the sea...

Yet the reality is only one side is pushing the other off their rightful lands

well and truthfully said.

[lannarebirth]

You people are unbelievable sometimes.

Sometimes?

Pretty consistent IMO....ie: always the same

They can do no wrong.....all others can do no right

*They* will claim no peace can be found & the illegal settlements continue because the

Palestinians keep attacking....

Yet the Palestinians keep attacking because of the illegal settlements.

Also note the Palestinians are not alone in seeing these as illgal settlements...

The world see's it as the same & the only reason it is not stopped is the illogical support given by one country bought & paid for in exchange for a bought & paid for alliance/presence.

No solution in sight as long as the illegal settlements keep expanding.

**they* claim the others want to destroy them & push them into the sea...

Yet the reality is only one side is pushing the other off their rightful lands

well and truthfully said.

I agree, and i don't think anyone would color me as anti-Israeli. They're long time and continued expansion onto lands they hold no historical claim to is IMO, at best, bad faith, if they are looking to be considered as legitimate negotiators towards a peace between these two nations. They should stop their settle expansion immediately and begin to dismantle those which have already been constructed.

Israel DOES have very legitimate security concerns, as do the Palestinians, but more and more this is looks only like a land grab and the offensive\defensive machinations that go on in the background are only noise to draw attention away from that indisputable fact.

[Ulysses G.]

the offensive\defensive machinations that go on in the background are only noise to draw attention away from that indisputable fact.

You mean the rockets pouring into Israel? If the Arabs would stop the attacks and start negotiating for peace, they would have a much better chance of stopping the settlements. As long as they continue waging war, there is little reason to pay attention to their demands.

.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[lannarebirth]

the offensive\defensive machinations that go on in the background are only noise to draw attention away from that indisputable fact.

You mean the rockets pouring into Israel? If the Arabs would stop the attacks and start negotiating for peace, they would have a much better chance of stopping the settlements. As long as they continue waging war, there is little reason to pay attention to their demands.

.

Let's say I agree with you UG (though I didn't watch the video). Let's say they still are at a state of war. How does that excuse the theft of these lands in perpetutity? Sure, leave it as a buffer zone if peace can't be established, but how does it excuse the settlement of these lands by Israelis? It is extremely hard to see it any other way than as theft and bad faith negotiations.

[Steely Dan]

@Pakboong, I see you are at it again, demonizing the victim with the acts of the perpetrator, not as ambitious as blaming 9/11 on the Jews but you get my drift.

These threads remind me of a magician mis-directing the gaze of the audience so they don't focus on what the other hand is doing, which is how the UN gets sidetracked to Israeli settlement plans when there is wholesale slaughter all around. There are two questions which bear answering, though I suspect no answers will be forthcoming.

1) Can anyone find ANY reference to anyone complaining about either Egypt occupying the Gaza strip from 1948 through to 1967 or indeed Jordan occupying the so called west bank over the same time period? In other words it only counts as occupation if Israelis are doing the occupying.

2) Given the precedent of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and dismantling of settlements being met with a constant hail of missiles who in their right mind would give an inch of land more without cast iron guarantees the same would not follow any withdrawal from the west bank?

[GentlemanJim]

Ulysees G

Please lets quit it with the Krauthammer stuff ! As discussed on a previous thread he is a columnist and a journo, that's it.

[koheesti]

Travel ban for all citizens of any country because of their government policies? What an ignorant, hateful idea. Happily, except for rabidly antisemitic countries like Malaysia, that's not going to happen.

Which is how I feel about the US gov't travel ban on American citizens going to Cuba. Grrrr.

If the Europeans were REALLY serious about putting the pressure on Israel, they wouldn't impose a travel ban on Israeli citizens, they would ban Israel from taking part in the Eurovision Song Contest. That would cause riots in the streets throughout Israel!

[koheesti]

How does that excuse the theft of these lands in perpetutity? Sure, leave it as a buffer zone if peace can't be established, but how does it excuse the settlement of these lands by Israelis? It is extremely hard to see it any other way than as theft and bad faith negotiations.

Sometimes building new homes in the disputed land if the land ever changes hands in the future. I bet there are a lot of happy Palestinians in Gaza who got to move in the vacated Israeli settlements after they left. Ironic if there were mostly Hamas living in Jewish homes. Does anyone know what happened to the settlements? Destroyed or now occupied?

[Steely Dan]

Here's another question that never gets answered, let's start with a quiz, who wrote the following?

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/18157

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a

Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle

against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality

today there is no difference between Jordanians,

Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and

tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of

a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand

that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian

people' to oppose Zionism.

Answer PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein in 1977 in an interview with a Dutch newspaper.

Which kind of begs the question, exactly whose land have the Israelis supposedly occupied and would giving some back make one iota of difference to the annhialationists.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Steely Dan

[lannarebirth]

Here's another question that never gets answered, let's start with a quiz, who wrote the following?

http://www.danielpip.../comments/18157

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a

Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle

against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality

today there is no difference between Jordanians,

Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and

tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of

a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand

that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian

people' to oppose Zionism.

Answer PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein in 1977 in an interview with a Dutch newspaper.

Which kind of begs the question, exactly whose land have the Israelis supposedly occupied and would giving some back make one iota of difference to the annhialationists.

I'm not even asking them to give the land back presently. For the sake of argtument, I accept your side's premise they still have hostile relations with their neighbor and it would be imprudent to re-cede these lands back the previous occupiers at this time. That said, what on earth could be the good faith argument for settling these lands? With each passing year it looks like they have absolutely no intention of EVER returning these lands and that IMO makes a mockery of any so called negotiations.

Edited December 22, 2011 by lannarebirth

[Steely Dan]

I'm not even asking them to give the land back presently. For the sake of argtument, I accept your side's premise they still have hostile relations with their neighbor and it would be imprudent to re-cede these lands back the previous occupiers at this time. That said, what on earth could be the good faith argument for settling these lands? With each passing year it looks like they have absolutely no intention of EVER returning these lands and that IMO makes a mockery of any so called negotiations.

The settlements are as much an internal Israeli issue as an external one, Israel has a shortage of affordable housing and a tiny Country on which to build, indeed there were large demonstrations within Israel partly over this issue. You could also invert your question and ask when the Palestinians have ever themselves shown good faith in restraining themselves from violent attacks on Israel, indeed this was the reciprocal precondition in UN res 242 twinned with the one calling on Israel not to build on so called disputed land. It would appear the UN focus ever since has been one sided and not reciprocal.

[lannarebirth]

I'm not even asking them to give the land back presently. For the sake of argtument, I accept your side's premise they still have hostile relations with their neighbor and it would be imprudent to re-cede these lands back the previous occupiers at this time. That said, what on earth could be the good faith argument for settling these lands? With each passing year it looks like they have absolutely no intention of EVER returning these lands and that IMO makes a mockery of any so called negotiations.

The settlements are as much an internal Israeli issue as an external one, Israel has a shortage of affordable housing and a tiny Country on which to build, indeed there were large demonstrations within Israel partly over this issue.

I snipped the remainder of your quote due it's irrelavance to the question put to you. Thank you for your response.

Israel isn't the first country where the inhabitants couldn't afford to live in their own country any longer. What they usually ended up doing is emigrating to places where opportunities were more prevalent. It's what the Irish did. It's what Phillipinos and many Thai's do. It's what the Burmese here have done. It's what many expats here have done. In none of the cited examples did they feel that moving into "disputed" areas and claiming it as their own was warranted or justifiable. It shouldn't be in the Israeli case either.

[Steely Dan]

I'm not even asking them to give the land back presently. For the sake of argtument, I accept your side's premise they still have hostile relations with their neighbor and it would be imprudent to re-cede these lands back the previous occupiers at this time. That said, what on earth could be the good faith argument for settling these lands? With each passing year it looks like they have absolutely no intention of EVER returning these lands and that IMO makes a mockery of any so called negotiations.

The settlements are as much an internal Israeli issue as an external one, Israel has a shortage of affordable housing and a tiny Country on which to build, indeed there were large demonstrations within Israel partly over this issue. You could also invert your question and ask when the Palestinians have ever themselves shown good faith in restraining themselves from violent attacks on Israel, indeed this was the reciprocal precondition in UN res 242 twinned with the one calling on Israel not to build on so called disputed land. It would appear the UN focus ever since has been one sided and not reciprocal.

Actually just to briefly revisit your point, can I ask you whether you would consider unilaterally giving back Gaza was acting in good faith or not, or indeed offering no less than 97% of the territory won in 1967 during the peace talks in 2000? I would suggest your suggestion that the Israeli position will never change doesn't bear historical scrutiny. Furthermore the Palestinian response to both these events showed zero intention to ever negotiate in good faith, which is indeed the one thing they have been 100% consistent with.

[Ulysses G.]

the offensive\defensive machinations that go on in the background are only noise to draw attention away from that indisputable fact.

You mean the rockets pouring into Israel? If the Arabs would stop the attacks and start negotiating for peace, they would have a much better chance of stopping the settlements. As long as they continue waging war, there is little reason to pay attention to their demands.

.

Let's say I agree with you UG (though I didn't watch the video). Let's say they still are at a state of war. How does that excuse the theft of these lands in perpetutity?

Your premise is flawed. You nead to read the history of the confict. It is not theft as there was never a country called Palestine and the Arabs - most who emigrated from surrounding parts of the Middle East - refused the deal offered by the UN, They went to war many times instead.

If they do not make peace, it is not their land and they seem to have no intention to do so.

[lannarebirth]

I'm not even asking them to give the land back presently. For the sake of argtument, I accept your side's premise they still have hostile relations with their neighbor and it would be imprudent to re-cede these lands back the previous occupiers at this time. That said, what on earth could be the good faith argument for settling these lands? With each passing year it looks like they have absolutely no intention of EVER returning these lands and that IMO makes a mockery of any so called negotiations.

The settlements are as much an internal Israeli issue as an external one, Israel has a shortage of affordable housing and a tiny Country on which to build, indeed there were large demonstrations within Israel partly over this issue. You could also invert your question and ask when the Palestinians have ever themselves shown good faith in restraining themselves from violent attacks on Israel, indeed this was the reciprocal precondition in UN res 242 twinned with the one calling on Israel not to build on so called disputed land. It would appear the UN focus ever since has been one sided and not reciprocal.

Actually just to briefly revisit your point, can I ask you whether you would consider unilaterally giving back Gaza was acting in good faith or not, or indeed offering no less than 97% of the territory won in 1967 during the peace talks in 2000? I would suggest your suggestion that the Israeli position will never change doesn't bear historical scrutiny. Furthermore the Palestinian response to both these events showed zero intention to ever negotiate in good faith, which is indeed the one thing they have been 100% consistent with.

To be honest with you, I have a higher opinion of the Israelis than I do of the Palestinians; therefore much higher expectations of their integrity.

[lannarebirth]

the offensive\defensive machinations that go on in the background are only noise to draw attention away from that indisputable fact.

You mean the rockets pouring into Israel? If the Arabs would stop the attacks and start negotiating for peace, they would have a much better chance of stopping the settlements. As long as they continue waging war, there is little reason to pay attention to their demands.

.

Let's say I agree with you UG (though I didn't watch the video). Let's say they still are at a state of war. How does that excuse the theft of these lands in perpetutity?

Your premise is flawed. You nead to read the history of the confict. It is not theft as there was never a country called Palestine and the Arabs - most who emigrated from surrounding parts of the Middle East - refused the deal offered by the UN, They went to war many times instead.

If they do not make peace, it is not their land and they seem to have no intention to do so.

Let's say you're right. There was a country called Israel in 1967 and it had well established borders.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes and it was attacked because of those borders, but the attackers lost and in return Israel took land that was occupied by Syria and Jordan and which neither one owned. The borders are much easier to defend now.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

The 1967 borders would be a good starting point for good faith negotiations. But the reality is now it is no longer 1967 and Israel has different security concerns than she did back then. There is in theory a place where people of good faith on both sides could come together. The trouble is there are way too many Israeli right wingers and way too many Palestinians who won't give up the dream of kicking all the Jews out. A formula for peace that ain't.

[GentlemanJim]

The 1967 borders would be a good starting point for good faith negotiations. But the reality is now it is no longer 1967 and Israel has different security concerns than she did back then. There is in theory a place where people of good faith on both sides could come together. The trouble is there are way too many Israeli right wingers and way too many Palestinians who won't give up the dream of kicking all the Jews out. A formula for peace that ain't.

This is why in my first post on the thread I put there is no solution. I would not say that anyone on this thread is a 'fanatic'. We can't agree and to be honest if most of us met down the pub we would get on famously despite our entrenched views on here where part of our alter ego can flex. However in both Israel and Palestine there are people who are frighteningly fanatical, there ego is not something that emerges on an anonymous internet site, it is real. These people are violent and will never relent or compromise under any circumstance. the net result is that it is doubtful there will ever be peace in the region in our lifetimes.

[Pakboong]

The cycle of events is a simple one. The Palestinians fire rockets, the Israelis respond with missiles fired from jets, the settlers ultimately benefit by getting more settlements. The Palestinians do not benefit, the Israelis inside Israel do not benefit; only the settlers benefit. It is clear that Hamas is powerless to stop the rocket attacks. It is clear that the justification for settlement expansion is the rocket attacks and I am sure the Settlers are very much aware of this.

It is over simplified here but it is not that much of a reach. Why wouldn't the only group who benefits, insure that the rocket fire continues? The lobbying for more settlement is a daily topic.

[Ulysses G.]

The Palestinians fire rockets

Correct.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

It is clear that Hamas is powerless to stop the rocket attacks.

Horsesh*t!

Edited December 23, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[SAffer]

The 1967 borders would be a good starting point for good faith negotiations. But the reality is now it is no longer 1967 and Israel has different security concerns than she did back then. There is in theory a place where people of good faith on both sides could come together. The trouble is there are way too many Israeli right wingers and way too many Palestinians who won't give up the dream of kicking all the Jews out. A formula for peace that ain't.

This is why in my first post on the thread I put there is no solution. I would not say that anyone on this thread is a 'fanatic'. We can't agree and to be honest if most of us met down the pub we would get on famously despite our entrenched views on here where part of our alter ego can flex. However in both Israel and Palestine there are people who are frighteningly fanatical, there ego is not something that emerges on an anonymous internet site, it is real. These people are violent and will never relent or compromise under any circumstance. the net result is that it is doubtful there will ever be peace in the region in our lifetimes.

However, in Israel there are various factions represented in their society, and the full political spectrum has a voice. In Palestine the situation is different, there is no allowance for different view points.

The Arabs have the whole of the middle East, and no-one cared about this tiny piece of land until Israelis actually made a success where the Palestinians lived in squalor before.

When I am surrounded by enemies who wish to destroy me, and my back is to the wall (or sea in this case) you may excuse me for trying to ensure my survival.

The settlements are being hotly disputed in Israel by Israelis, and as I said... they have very different and opposing views internally. Debate continues... whilst in Palestinian areas there is no such allowance for the people- hate Israel or else!

I have been in personal contact with both sides, and have never heard hate speech from the Israelis, yet; I have never heard the Palestinians say anything about Israel which is not hateful, and this is something they are taught at home, school, and mosque- to hate Israelis is sanctioned by the Koran. Hating Israel is a duty of all Arabs!

Those who blindly support the Arabs have no compassion for a nation which is surrounded by foes.

Peace in the region: no chance, and we all know it.

[lannarebirth]

The cycle of events is a simple one. The Palestinians fire rockets, the Israelis respond with missiles fired from jets, the settlers ultimately benefit by getting more settlements. The Palestinians do not benefit, the Israelis inside Israel do not benefit; only the settlers benefit. It is clear that Hamas is powerless to stop the rocket attacks. It is clear that the justification for settlement expansion is the rocket attacks and I am sure the Settlers are very much aware of this.

It is over simplified here but it is not that much of a reach. Why wouldn't the only group who benefits, insure that the rocket fire continues? The lobbying for more settlement is a daily topic.

I don't doubt what you say, but there's a disconnect for me here. What do skirmishes between the two sides have to do with Israelis estblishing settlements. One needn't follow from the other and indeed shouldn't. If anything continued skirmishes should require a "demilitarized zone" of non occupation by anyone.