European members of UN Security Council condemn Israeli settlements

[lannarebirth]

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.

But WHY are the settling in these disputed territories? If they're trying to ensure their survival shouldn't they leave huge void space between combatting sides? It really looks like they're stealing this land to me and i had every reason to give Israel the benefit of the doubt for decades. I just don't see it that way anymore. It looks like what it is; a land heist. I'm not "pro" Palestinian BTW, but one doesn't need to be to see what's going on here.

[Steely Dan]

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.

As with your views on the late Christopher Hitchens I find myself largely agreeing with you. There is a religious right wing in Israel which punches more than it's own weight unfortunately due in part to the proportional representation element of the electoral system. Alas the views on the Arab mainstreet are far more entrenched and extreme due largely to the hate propaganda they are fed from birth. If you examine the instances where Israel has signed peace treaties with Muslim majority nations you will find one democracy, Turkey and two autocracies Egypt and Jordan, never ever will you get an Islamic theocracy making peace with Israel, just read their theology to realize why. It is estimated that Saudi Arabia has spent $89 billion trying to spead it's Wahhabi doctrine throughout the west; this is quite explicit in calling for the elimination of Israel. This underlines what I have always suspected; this is not about land at all, the dispute is between Israel and Islamism the so called Palestinians don't even have it within their gift to make peace unless the Islamic theocracies also agree to, which they never will any more than they will relinquish a single blade of grass anywhere on Earth where they once ruled over.

[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.

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 establishing 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.

The usual penalty imposed by the Israeli government in response to the rocket attacks is to expand the settlements.

When challenged for the illegal settlements by the international community, it is a common Israeli response to state "When the Palestinians stop firing rockets at innocent civilians, we will stop expanding the settlements' or words to that effect.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Pakboong

[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 establishing 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.

The usual penalty imposed by the Israeli government in response to the rocket attacks is to expand the settlements.

When challenged for the illegal settlements by the international community, it is a common Israeli response to state "When the Palestinians stop firing rockets at innocent civilians, we will stop expanding the settlements' or words to that effect.

Ah, it's the old " I wouldn't be beating my wife if she wasn't such a nag" defense. That one usually fails to garner sympathy amongst objective observers.

[Jingthing]

The settlements would obviously be used as a negotiation item IF the Palestinians ever become a reasonable entity to enter into good faith negotiations. Now with their firm ideology of unlimited right of return into all of Israel, it's obvious that isn't going to happen anytime soon (or ever).

[Scott]

A series of off-topic posts has been deleted.

Please stay on-topic.

[Steely Dan]

My first reaction to this thread was that the Countries condemning Israel were indulging in a bit of free politicking to placate their own large and ever increasingly problematic immigrant populations. Well it looks like there are some in Israel who have had the same thought.

[geriatrickid]

As a side note, the UN offered a few minutes of silence in memory of the deceased dear leader of North Korea.

Think about it. Offering respect to a despot and this condemnation. Do you think reasonable people will pay heed?

There is no argument that some of these settlements must go as they are illegal. The Israelis are trying to do that and they are often met with violence from the settlers. I think things will soon change as the general that the settlers hate/despise has now been put in charge of central command and the most annoying settlements will come under him. He's a secular guy and doesn't like the holy rollers.

Attitude are changing in Israel. One need only look at the recent case of Israel's "Rosa Parks" that transfixed the nation. (The woman refused to move to the back of the bus for some charedim.) However, attitudes must also change on the arab side and the demand for all of Israel to be taken has to be dropped. If you were an Israeli and were met with the continued threats of we're going to anhilate you and take back your nation, wouldn't you just say f*ckit and do whatever you had to do to build some buffer space? I know I would.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Scott
formatting

[Ulysses G.]

Ah, it's the old " I wouldn't be beating my wife if she wasn't such a nag" defense. That one usually fails to garner sympathy amongst objective observers.

"Objective observers" probably realize that shooting rockets at civilians and promoting suicide bombers is a little different from "nagging"..

[lannarebirth]

Ah, it's the old " I wouldn't be beating my wife if she wasn't such a nag" defense. That one usually fails to garner sympathy amongst objective observers.

"Objective observers" probably realize that shooting rockets at civilians and promoting suicide bombers is a little different from "nagging"..

A wiser government might say, "hey those guys are shooting rockets into this disputed territory, let's not settle families there, particularly as the land doesn't belong to us anyway."

[Ulysses G.]

Only one problem with that, the terrorists are shooting rockets into undisputed territory and the land does belong to Israel.

[Steely Dan]

Only one problem with that, the terrorists are shooting rockets into undisputed territory and the land does belong to Israel.

And doing so from land unilaterally given back to them by the Israelis.

[Ulysses G.]

The Palestinian Arabs have never seriously considered making peace and have waged war on the Jews for over a century. Why anyone thinks that Israel should avoid building on that land as long as it is obvious that the Arabs intend to destroy the Jews and never sign a peace agreement is beyond me.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

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.

Thank you for your candour. I suspect your view is widely held both here and amongst European governments, the trouble with it is that if you allow someone to get away with a lower standard of behaviour they will not disappoint you - Indeed perhaps this is why Hamas were against the Fatah led application for statehood as with it might come some undesired accountability.

[Pakboong]

The settler situation seems to be quite unique. I have tried to do some research on who they are and why they ended up in the settlements. I get mixed answers. Many of them are actually segregating themselves from the mainstream Israeli population. Many are from groups of Jews who banded together during WW2 and have stayed together for a couple of generations. They have also brought history and its baggage with them to Israel. A lot seems connected to levels of commitment to Judaism. Hard to figure it all out.

I get the impression that there are lobby groups who constantly pressure the government to give more land and build houses for settlers which would seem to be at the expense of the Palestinians. There are many stories of the behavior of the settlers in the territories that cause the IDF lots of grief. It is often the case that the settlers refuse to obey the laws that are set up to control the Palestinians such as running check points instead of standing in line with the Palestinians. The young IDF soldiers manning the checkpoints often get more put out by the settlers than the Palestinians. The settlers demand special treatment as Jews and make life difficult because of it.