Un, Uk Condemn Israel'S Legalization Of 'Illegal' Outposts In The West Bank

[Colin Yai]

I would suggest you do not take my word for it, just Google up the Hamas charter or Covenant.

Really I don't care............Both sides need to work it out...period

Zealots from BOTH sides will not help anything

Seems over the years I read more & more about the actual people of BOTH sides wanting peace.

It is the zealots of both sides that are in control that cause the problems.

Flying, its somewhat difficult to thrash out a peace deal when the opposing side refuses to recognize your right simply to exist , this is the position Hamas takes against Israel , I take it you have not read their Covenant then? , a satisfactory deal between both sides would have been struck long ago if Mahmoud Abbas on the West Bank was the sole arbitrator unfortunately this is not the case is it?

[flying]

, a satisfactory deal between both sides would have been struck long ago if

Yes this is the chicken & the egg scenario I spoke of earlier.

There is plenty of blame to go around ....again BOTH sides.

One thing this OP shows is that........Again if BOTH sides will behave as children

then an adult should step in or place them both in the corner of sanctions

We ( The USA ) have done so to many others who have transgressed less.

But.....as I said in my 1st post on this topic...Nothing shall come of it.

Edited April 27, 2012 by flying

[Colin Yai]

, a satisfactory deal between both sides would have been struck long ago if

Yes this is the chicken & the egg scenario I spoke of earlier.

There is plenty of blame to go around ....again BOTH sides.

One thing this OP shows is that........Again if BOTH sides will behave as children

then an adult should step in or place them both in the corner of sanctions

We ( The USA ) have done so to many others who have transgressed less.

But.....as I said in my 1st post on this topic...Nothing shall come of it.

, a satisfactory deal between both sides would have been struck long ago if

Yes this is the chicken & the egg scenario I spoke of earlier.

There is plenty of blame to go around ....again BOTH sides.

One thing this OP shows is that........Again if BOTH sides will behave as children

then an adult should step in or place them both in the corner of sanctions

We ( The USA ) have done so to many others who have transgressed less.

But.....as I said in my 1st post on this topic...Nothing shall come of it.

Flying I do believe you are cherry picking my words! do you honestly believe that Mahmoud Abbas is behaving like a Child?, he's a man of vision being held back by the total intransigence of Hamas. Edited April 27, 2012 by Colin Yai

[flying]

Flying I do believe you are cherry picking my words! do you honestly believe that Mahmoud Abbas is behaving like a Child?, he's a man of vision being held back by the total intransigence of Hamas.

No I just wanted to highlight how I see it.

I know folks can show bad things from both sides & it can go round & round.....What is the point in that?

I see in your case you choose to highlight the bad things of a single side....That is your perogative

But like those who cannot settle this it will only go round & round.

Chicken & the egg

Nothing more to say really

Thanks

[Colin Yai]

Flying I do believe you are cherry picking my words! do you honestly believe that Mahmoud Abbas is behaving like a Child?, he's a man of vision being held back by the total intransigence of Hamas.

No I just wanted to highlight how I see it.

I know folks can show bad things from both sides & it can go round & round.....What is the point in that?

I see in your case you choose to highlight the bad things of a single side....That is your perogative

But like those who cannot settle this it will only go round & round.

Chicken & the egg

Nothing more to say really

Thanks

Maybe we do not think alike ,but I do admire you honesty (as you see it) Edited April 27, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Steely Dan]

I have to say that I don't quite get it.

Alright, lets say "disputed" rather than "occupied". Great.

Is it legal (by international law) to have a massive settlement plan in such areas? I guess one could find learned legal interpretations supporting both points of view.

Even if it is technically legal, what exactly do those settlements promote? Yes, ok....the Palestinians aren't playing nice, sure. But how does building settlements help change that?

Let go of the notion that ANY Israeli government had a clear policy regarding this issue, or an idea how to deal with it other the spewing ad-hoc solutions and reiterating chewed up lines,

The difference between the words disputed and occupied is not a small one. Disputed suggests a resolution through either fighting, which happened and the Israelis won, or negotiation, which suggests compromises and promises by both parties. Occupation suggests one party took something illegally from another party and should give it back without anything being asked in return from the latter. Leftists would probably be less likely to print 'End the dispute' on their T-shirts as oppose to end the occupation.

And lets face facts when Israel did unilaterally end the 'Occupation of Gaza' asking nothing in return they were rewarded with a hail of missiles, which has not stopped to this day. And still some nations persist in calling Gaza occupied, which is patently dishonest. It is little wonder Israel treats the U.N with contempt and unilaterally deals with its own internal political reality. Finally, as for Flying's shrinking Palestine map, let it be remembered that Israel settled for half of the territory west of the Jordan and none of the much larger area east of it, which was originally envisaged as theirs by Lord Balfour. Jordan is the true Palestinian state.

[Morch]

Even if it is technically legal, what exactly do those settlements promote? Yes, ok....the Palestinians aren't playing nice, sure. But how does building settlements help change that?

I do not pretend to know what the Israelis reasons are, but it seems possible to me that they are trying to convey that they only have so much patience and if the Palestinian Arabs are not willing to make peace, they might end up with nothing. They have been offered very good terms and always refuse to sign a peace treaty.

If Scott allows me, here is another video by the same narrator that goes into the terms that the Arabs have been offered - and turned down - as well as more history on the conflict.

!

How does building settlements convey that? The Zionist (in its original meaning, not the anti-Israel one) ethos was one of building settlements as means to secure control over an area, not of building settlements to be used as future bargaining chips in negotiations.

Both sides had their share of missed opportunities, saying it's all one side saying "no" isn't correct. Not even when presented by a very right wing politician with accompanying animations.

All those clips still dodge the question - what are those settlements good for? They been around for about 40 years now, what have they achived in promoting anything conductive to peace in the area?

Saying that they are technically legal - ok, but what's the point? There are many legal actions you can do to annoy your neighbor, most people just don't go there. Laying out the whole history of the conflict is fine, but are those settlements contributing anything either to security or peace?

[Morch]

With the recent protests in Israel demanding more housing I can see this will not end well.

300,000 were in the streets back in August 2011. That is equal to 12 million Americans turning out in the US when compared by population.

But at the same time they are also asking for "more attention for the Palestinian question."

So it is interesting. We will see where it all goes.

There is only so much land.

Historic protest in Israel: over 300,000 demand social justice

Errr....

The protests weren't just about housing, more about the economic situation in general, cost of living, sharing the burden etc.

While some of the leaders of these demonstration are indeed left-wing peace activists, the general theme was against binding the social/economical aspects with the political one. Each time they tried to go there, there was some backlash and lose of support.

This has little to do with the OP.

[Steely Dan]

All those clips still dodge the question - what are those settlements good for? They been around for about 40 years now, what have they achived in promoting anything conductive to peace in the area?

Saying that they are technically legal - ok, but what's the point? There are many legal actions you can do to annoy your neighbor, most people just don't go there. Laying out the whole history of the conflict is fine, but are those settlements contributing anything either to security or peace?

I would need to consult a map to see exactly where said settlements are, but I don't think I need tell you how narrow Israel is at it's narrowest part. Some of the settlements in the West bank undoubtedly serve to widen the defensible area Israel has and in so doing do contribute to security. I could attach a video to demonstrate this, but I think I've made my point.

[flying]

Errr....

The protests weren't just about housing, more about the economic situation in general, cost of living, sharing the burden etc.

While some of the leaders of these demonstration are indeed left-wing peace activists, the general theme was against binding the social/economical aspects with the political one. Each time they tried to go there, there was some backlash and lose of support.

This has little to do with the OP.

Sorry bout that...........recently here in the US the news showed many marching in protest of housing shortages

I did not bother looking very hard at the google list but noted this one said...

protest against the unaffordable cost of housing in the country, has put immense pressure on the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Only offered it as a possible reason for more settlements....meaning not enough land to go around for affordable housing.

Was not meant to imply right or wrong on either side

[Morch]

I have to say that I don't quite get it.

Alright, lets say "disputed" rather than "occupied". Great.

Is it legal (by international law) to have a massive settlement plan in such areas? I guess one could find learned legal interpretations supporting both points of view.

Even if it is technically legal, what exactly do those settlements promote? Yes, ok....the Palestinians aren't playing nice, sure. But how does building settlements help change that?

Let go of the notion that ANY Israeli government had a clear policy regarding this issue, or an idea how to deal with it other the spewing ad-hoc solutions and reiterating chewed up lines,

The difference between the words disputed and occupied is not a small one. Disputed suggests a resolution through either fighting, which happened and the Israelis won, or negotiation, which suggests compromises and promises by both parties. Occupation suggests one party took something illegally from another party and should give it back without anything being asked in return from the latter. Leftists would probably be less likely to print 'End the dispute' on their T-shirts as oppose to end the occupation.

And lets face facts when Israel did unilaterally end the 'Occupation of Gaza' asking nothing in return they were rewarded with a hail of missiles, which has not stopped to this day. And still some nations persist in calling Gaza occupied, which is patently dishonest. It is little wonder Israel treats the U.N with contempt and unilaterally deals with its own internal political reality. Finally, as for Flying's shrinking Palestine map, let it be remembered that Israel settled for half of the territory west of the Jordan and none of the much larger area east of it, which was originally envisaged as theirs by Lord Balfour. Jordan is the true Palestinian state.

My point is that it doesn't matter all that much if you call it "occupied" or "disputed". Might mean something from a legal point of view or as a justification, sure. But coming right down to it - those are semantics. Say it's "disputed", ok - colonizing disputed territories is usually seen as problematic at the very least. If those territories are "disputed", how does it make building settlements ok? This is sort a land grab argument, isn't it? Plot ownership is in dispute, so build a temporary house on it to protect rights, once it's up upgrade it to permanent setting, then say it's your home. Works fine, but doesn't leave a good taste or makes future relationship any better.

Israel mostly ignoring UN condemnations is understandable, seeing it's not exactly the impartial body it supposed to be. Doesn't make building those settlments either right or smart.

[folium]

Finally, as for Flying's shrinking Palestine map, let it be remembered that Israel settled for half of the territory west of the Jordan and none of the much larger area east of it, which was originally envisaged as theirs by Lord Balfour. Jordan is the true Palestinian state.

And such opinions just underline why so many people walk away exasperated from trying to find a settlement in the Middle East. Squabbling about the existence of Palestine, Palestinians, Israel, the extent of promises made or not made by parties who had absolutely no right to do so, Biblical territories etc, etc would be laughable as they so obviously overlook the reality on the ground as perceived by both sides, were it not so serious. Bottom line you have 2 sets of people who can't/won't live with each other, with conflicting claims to a ridiculously small, insignificant (at least to secular types) bit of real estate. Perhaps this time the Judgement of Solomon should be to chop the baby in half as the 2 halves might be able to survive on their own, and they sure can't live as a single entity.

Unless both sides genuinely want to reach a settlement and are prepared to make the hard compromises that any lasting, sustainable agreement requires, nothing will change.

It is depressing, sad and hugely unhelpful in the bigger global context.

Edited April 27, 2012 by folium

[Morch]

All those clips still dodge the question - what are those settlements good for? They been around for about 40 years now, what have they achived in promoting anything conductive to peace in the area?

Saying that they are technically legal - ok, but what's the point? There are many legal actions you can do to annoy your neighbor, most people just don't go there. Laying out the whole history of the conflict is fine, but are those settlements contributing anything either to security or peace?

I would need to consult a map to see exactly where said settlements are, but I don't think I need tell you how narrow Israel is at it's narrowest part. Some of the settlements in the West bank undoubtedly serve to widen the defensible area Israel has and in so doing do contribute to security. I could attach a video to demonstrate this, but I think I've made my point.

Sorry Dan, you'll be wasting your time.

This argument goes back to the founding days of Israel, and was correct at the time.

Having the settlements inside the Gaza strip, for example, did very little to reduce casualties - they were actually creating easier targets for terrorists attacks, and took quite a lot of military effort to protect. That's even without figuring in the financial cost of maintaining defense, constructing special roads etc.

With long ranged weapons available today, there is no way Israel can have achieve strategic depth, probably not much of a tactical one as well. Not by adding a small civilian settlement located in a predominantly Palestinian populated area.

[Pakboong]

The way I read it is that after winning a war of survival in 1967 Israel gained territories which would have been earmarked for Palestinians had they accepted the U.N partition plan in 1948, (though they were not called Palestinians at this time). So Israel's 'military occupation' was a direct result of attempts by her enemies to take all the land she had. The UN then called for land to be given back in exchange for undertakings by Israel's opponents to cease armed aggression against her. To this day this reciprocal side of the bargain has never been honoured.

It is of little wonder that Israel has concluded the Palestinians have never negotiated in good faith and that the U.N has never been balanced in it's treatment of Israel, therefore the 'legalization' of these settlements is merely reflecting this reality.

This is correct and the factual history of "Palestine" - which was never a country - and how the Arabs surrounded Israel and threatened them for weeks before the 67 war was "initiated" has been posted here many times, but I will be happy to post it again if Scott allows me to.

The truth is that the Palesinian Arabs have repeatedly refused to sign a peace treaty and the land will not be theirs until they do.

I cannot imagine why anybody would sign a peace treaty when only they can violate that treaty. Sounds a bit like signing a death warrant to me. Regardless, there simply is more than one way to look at this situation. There may actually be no right and wrong, just different.

[Morch]

Errr....

The protests weren't just about housing, more about the economic situation in general, cost of living, sharing the burden etc.

While some of the leaders of these demonstration are indeed left-wing peace activists, the general theme was against binding the social/economical aspects with the political one. Each time they tried to go there, there was some backlash and lose of support.

This has little to do with the OP.

Sorry bout that...........recently here in the US the news showed many marching in protest of housing shortages

I did not bother looking very hard at the google list but noted this one said...

protest against the unaffordable cost of housing in the country, has put immense pressure on the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Only offered it as a possible reason for more settlements....meaning not enough land to go around for affordable housing.

Was not meant to imply right or wrong on either side

Oh dear :-).

Said right-wing government takes a lot of flak for on economic grounds, even from ardent political supporters. If anything, said protests were partly in response to government's spending priorities (among those, increased budgets for supporting settlements in the West Bank). Most Israelis would not consider living in those settlements a viable option. There's enough unpopulated land to go around, more an issue of transportation, really.

And again, those aren't new settlements, just a proposed change of status. As you said in your first post, could very well that nothing will come it, as well.

[nurofiend]

it doesn't matter what israel's 'reasons' are, this is justifiably being condemned.

[Ulysses G.]

I cannot imagine why anybody would sign a peace treaty when only they can violate that treaty.

Don't you mean when they know that they will violate that treaty? The Palestinian Arabs have never had any intention to stop fighting.

[Colin Yai]

I cannot imagine why anybody would sign a peace treaty when only they can violate that treaty.

Don't you mean when they know that they will violate that treaty? The Palestinian Arabs have never had any intention to stop fighting.

Hamas has NEVER signed any peace treaty with Israel ,how could it,according to Hamas's own Charter they want the whole of Israel to be turned into an Islamic state , a totally impossible bargaining tool! , in between Fattah on the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza there is a sort of uneasy peace at present, how long this will last!??? Edited April 28, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Colin Yai]

Just a thought ,If Israel is a land hungry aggressor who takes no notice of anyone who many like to portray it as, why with it's vastly superior firepower does it not just go in and take whatever takes its fancy ?.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Colin Yai

[flying]

Just a thought ,If Israel is a land hungry aggressor who takes no notice of anyone who many like to portray it as, why with it's vastly superior firepower does it not just go in and take whatever takes its fancy ?.

ummm doesn't the map in post #28 pretty much suggest just that?

also this superior firepower does come at a cost to their benefactors

who seem to be going broke themselves.

[Colin Yai]

Just a thought ,If Israel is a land hungry aggressor who takes no notice of anyone who many like to portray it as, why with it's vastly superior firepower does it not just go in and take whatever takes its fancy ?.

ummm doesn't the map in post #28 pretty much suggest just that?

also this superior firepower does come at a cost to their benefactors

who seem to be going broke themselves.

If they so wished they could take it all ,just like Hamas wants to do with the whole state of Israel .

[Ulysses G.]

Just a thought ,If Israel is a land hungry aggressor who takes no notice of anyone who many like to portray it as, why with it's vastly superior firepower does it not just go in and take whatever takes its fancy ?.

ummm doesn't the map in post #28 pretty much suggest just that?

Whose fault is that? This territory is what the Palestinian Arabs turned down because they wanted the whole pie.

[Morch]

Just a thought ,If Israel is a land hungry aggressor who takes no notice of anyone who many like to portray it as, why with it's vastly superior firepower does it not just go in and take whatever takes its fancy ?.

It sort of did.

There's this "minor" issue of having to deal with the local population, though.

A big difference between what one can do and what's good for you.

[Morch]

also this superior firepower does come at a cost to their benefactors

who seem to be going broke themselves.

A bit OT, but actually most of this military aid is spent on USA contracts. Sure, those are tax dollars, but then those arms manufacturers do employ a fair share of people too. Goes from one pocket to the other more like. Can have issues with that, of course, but it's not as straightforward as you present.

[folium]

Just a thought ,If Israel is a land hungry aggressor who takes no notice of anyone who many like to portray it as, why with it's vastly superior firepower does it not just go in and take whatever takes its fancy ?.

As Israel found out in its second invasion of Lebanon in 2006 "vastly superior firepower" has little value against asymmetric warfare waged by a determined, well-equipped enemy fighting on its home turf (ie shades of Iraq and Afghanistan), particularly when there are no clear political objectives. Israel's withdrawl from Gaza and partial withdrawl from the West Bank underline that they have little to gain by military incursions into hostile territory.

As all sides to the Middle East conflict know there is no military solution. The existentential threat from neighbouring countries has been ruled out by Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and Hamas, Hizbollah etc can do little more than be a nuisance in strategic terms. Whatever Hamas' charter may claim they have little chance of raising their flag in Tel Aviv.

In the meantime innocent civilians will continue to be killed on both sides with the occasional flare-up claiming more lives. All utterly pointless and tragic, and until all parties are prepared to sit down, make some compromises and actually want a peace deal more than the existing status quo (which will require facing down domestic opposition on both sides), nothing will change.

[Colin Yai]

Just a thought ,If Israel is a land hungry aggressor who takes no notice of anyone who many like to portray it as, why with it's vastly superior firepower does it not just go in and take whatever takes its fancy ?.

It sort of did.

There's this "minor" issue of having to deal with the local population, though.

A big difference between what one can do and what's good for you.

Morch Do you think that there would be a "local population" of Jews if Hamas got there way?

[folium]

Just a thought ,If Israel is a land hungry aggressor who takes no notice of anyone who many like to portray it as, why with it's vastly superior firepower does it not just go in and take whatever takes its fancy ?.

It sort of did.

There's this "minor" issue of having to deal with the local population, though.

A big difference between what one can do and what's good for you.

Morch Do you think that there would be a "local population" of Jews if Hamas got there way?

And quite how would Hamas take over Israel? There's a big difference between wishful thinking and reality.

[Colin Yai]

Just a thought ,If Israel is a land hungry aggressor who takes no notice of anyone who many like to portray it as, why with it's vastly superior firepower does it not just go in and take whatever takes its fancy ?.

As Israel found out in its second invasion of Lebanon in 2006 "vastly superior firepower" has little value against asymmetric warfare waged by a determined, well-equipped enemy fighting on its home turf (ie shades of Iraq and Afghanistan), particularly when there are no clear political objectives. Israel's withdrawl from Gaza and partial withdrawl from the West Bank underline that they have little to gain by military incursions into hostile territory.

As all sides to the Middle East conflict know there is no military solution. The existentential threat from neighbouring countries has been ruled out by Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and Hamas, Hizbollah etc can do little more than be a nuisance in strategic terms. Whatever Hamas' charter may claim they have little chance of raising their flag in Tel Aviv.

In the meantime innocent civilians will continue to be killed on both sides with the occasional flare-up claiming more lives. All utterly pointless and tragic, and until all parties are prepared to sit down, make some compromises and actually want a peace deal more than the existing status quo (which will require facing down domestic opposition on both sides), nothing will change.

This is possibly the crux of the matter Hamas will not denounce violence towards Israel ,and even refuses their right to exist hardly a platform for talks!!! ,making it totally impossible to negotiate ,maybe that's why Hamas regard Fattah's Mahmoud Abbas as a traitor for entering in dialogue with Israel .

[Colin Yai]

Just a thought ,If Israel is a land hungry aggressor who takes no notice of anyone who many like to portray it as, why with it's vastly superior firepower does it not just go in and take whatever takes its fancy ?.

It sort of did.

There's this "minor" issue of having to deal with the local population, though.

A big difference between what one can do and what's good for you.

Morch Do you think that there would be a "local population" of Jews if Hamas got there way?

And quite how would Hamas take over Israel? There's a big difference between wishful thinking and reality.

That is not the question , please stop playing around with words , The whole point is if they had the means they would do so without a seconds hesitation and drive the Israeli's into the sea ,do you disagree?, cos if you do you are arguing against Hamas's own Charter. Edited April 28, 2012 by Colin Yai

[folium]

The whole point is if they had the means they would do so without a seconds hesitation and drive the Israeli's into the sea ,do you disagree?, cos if you do you are arguing against Hamas's own Charter.

And pigs might fly if they had wings, but they don't and unless there is some bizarre evolutionary leap, never will.

Similarly Hamas does not and probably never will have the means to conquer Israel. Likewise, Israel can never militarily crush its opposition. All the military can do, as in all COIN ops, is hold the ring, minimize losses and wait for the politicians to actually sit down and work out a deal.

Sure the Arabs missed a fantastic opportunity in 1947 and they know that only to well with hindsight. The clock cannot be rewound and the problem needs to be addressed today, taking on board today's realities. The ridiculous thing is that 65 years on the 2 state solution

remains the only plausible outcome.

In the meantime people will die needlessly and one of the most festering sores on the planet today will remain unresolved, to the benefit of few people.