Un: Israel Settlement Activity Violates Law

[thaibeachlovers]

Israel / Palestine map.

It looks like the Arabs should have agreed to the land that they were offered in 1948 instead of declaring war on Israel and refusing to make peace ever since.

So if the UN came and said that half of your country was going to be taken to allow people that were already trying to kill you ( Begin et al ) to live in it, you would be OK with that?

And, you'd be happy to make peace with someone that was kicking you in the head every day??????

Edited February 10, 2013 by thaibeachlovers

[Jingthing]

Israel / Palestine map.

It looks like the Arabs should have agreed to the land that they were offered in 1948 instead of declaring war on Israel and refusing to make peace ever since.

So if the UN came and said that half of your country was going to be taken to allow people that were already trying to kill you ( Begin et al ) to live in it, you would be OK with that?

And, you'd be happy to make peace with someone that was kicking you in the head every day??????

When the UN did the partition the region was a BRITISH mandate not owned by the Arabs or the Jews. So the UN did not "take" the Arab's country because it wasn't their country. So your hypothetical has nothing to do with what actually happened.

Also, if you're going to bring up old scores like Begin, keep in mind that the most important leader of the region's Arabs was living in Berlin during WW2 actively supporting Hitler's genocide of European Jews and openly advocating that the Nazis make a special trip to Palestine to liquidate all the Jews there as well. The only reason that didn't happen was that the Nazis started to lose the war.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

Israel / Palestine map.

It looks like the Arabs should have agreed to the land that they were offered in 1948 instead of declaring war on Israel and refusing to make peace ever since.

The issue is never going to be resolved while they both fight over Jerusalem.

Perhaps they should turn it into a Vatican-like state that isn't owned by either party.

[thaibeachlovers]

Israel / Palestine map.

It looks like the Arabs should have agreed to the land that they were offered in 1948 instead of declaring war on Israel and refusing to make peace ever since.

So if the UN came and said that half of your country was going to be taken to allow people that were already trying to kill you ( Begin et al ) to live in it, you would be OK with that?

And, you'd be happy to make peace with someone that was kicking you in the head every day??????

When the UN did the partition the region was a BRITISH mandate not owned by the Arabs or the Jews. So the UN did not "take" the Arab's country because it wasn't their country. So your hypothetical has nothing to do with what actually happened.

Also, if you're going to bring up old scores like Begin, keep in mind that the most important leader of the region's Arabs was living in Berlin during WW2 actively supporting Hitler's genocide of European Jews and openly advocating that the Nazis make a special trip to Palestine to liquidate all the Jews there as well. The only reason that didn't happen was that the Nazis started to lose the war.

So because it was a mandate rather than a country, it was OK to evict people that had been living there for thousands of years?????? Under that theory, Australians have no need to return land to Aboriginals, because before the British occupied it, it wasn't a country!

My comment on Begin was because some people call Palestinian patriots terrorists.

[thaibeachlovers]

Israel / Palestine map.

It looks like the Arabs should have agreed to the land that they were offered in 1948 instead of declaring war on Israel and refusing to make peace ever since.

The issue is never going to be resolved while they both fight over Jerusalem.

Perhaps they should turn it into a Vatican-like state that isn't owned by either party.

Under the original partition plan, Jerusalem was an international city, not owned by either party. So how does Israel claim it as belonging to Israel? They only have a legal right to land given by the partition. The rest is illegally occupied.

I'm just waiting till Israeli Arabs outnumber Israeli Jews to see what happens then.

[Jingthing]

Israel / Palestine map.

It looks like the Arabs should have agreed to the land that they were offered in 1948 instead of declaring war on Israel and refusing to make peace ever since.

The issue is never going to be resolved while they both fight over Jerusalem.

Perhaps they should turn it into a Vatican-like state that isn't owned by either party.

Under the original partition plan, Jerusalem was an international city, not owned by either party. So how does Israel claim it as belonging to Israel? They only have a legal right to land given by the partition. The rest is illegally occupied.

I'm just waiting till Israeli Arabs outnumber Israeli Jews to see what happens then.

That might be true if the (multinational) Arabs hadn't declared war against the Jews immediately after the partition. When you do that (repeatedly) and lose, the borders change just like after wars in many regions all over the world throughout history after borders existed. Nobody is talking about going back to partition borders. That's silly and totally out of date.

Basically, in the Israeli-Palestinian endless standoff, we're at where we're at NOW. History is good to know and of course told entirely differently on different sides. But the only way forward is to start in the PRESENT.

The MAINSTREAM actually serious discussions from people in favor of a real two state solution, on both sides, and internationally, are generally based starting with the 1967 borders.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Netanyahu is a poor leader for the two state solution, but compared to Hamas which does not accept the existence of any Jewish state of Israel with any borders ... could be worse.

[khunken]

Netanyahu is a poor leader for the two state solution, but compared to Hamas which does not accept the existence of any Jewish state of Israel with any borders ... could be worse.

Considering that Netanyahu would'nt even recognise Palestine's right to exist as far as the UN is concerned, he is in the same company as Hamas.

[Jingthing]

Netanyahu is a poor leader for the two state solution, but compared to Hamas which does not accept the existence of any Jewish state of Israel with any borders ... could be worse.

Considering that Netanyahu would'nt even recognise Palestine's right to exist as far as the UN is concerned, he is in the same company as Hamas.

That is oversimplifying the Israeli government position. The Israeli position has been that negotiations about future borders need to be done DIRECTLY between Israel and the Palestinians and that also a Palestinian leadership like in Gaza that is against the existence of Israel can't be negotiated with at all. The result (no progress) may be the same but they are not the same thing as you describe. I agree with you that Netanyahu has not been serious about a two state solution but I disagree with how you color the U.N. aspect. Blame about why there has been no solution can indeed be found on BOTH sides. Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Briggsy]

The more land that the Israelis can ethnically cleanse now will mean they have more to bargain with in thirty, fifty, two hundred years when the current balance of strength shifts to the Palestinians.

Hence the walls, the bulldozers, the grabbing of the strategic hilltops by settlers, the destruction of Palestinian livelihoods, etc. The policy is a steady annexation of land along with a removal of Palestinians from it.

[simple1]

Netanyahu is a poor leader for the two state solution, but compared to Hamas which does not accept the existence of any Jewish state of Israel with any borders ... could be worse.

Considering that Netanyahu would'nt even recognise Palestine's right to exist as far as the UN is concerned, he is in the same company as Hamas.

That is oversimplifying the Israeli government position. The Israeli position has been that negotiations about future borders need to be done DIRECTLY between Israel and the Palestinians and that also a Palestinian leadership like in Gaza that is against the existence of Israel can't be negotiated with at all. The result (no progress) may be the same but they are not the same thing as you describe. I agree with you that Netanyahu has not been serious about a two state solution but I disagree with how you color the U.N. aspect. Blame about why there has been no solution can indeed be found on BOTH sides.

A few cracks are starting to appear, but would imagine the biggest stumbling block is the claim for Jerusalem to be the Palestinian capital. As you said maybe some form of compromise can be attained based on the 1967 borders. If, a big if, a negotiated settlement could be achieved, a secret war between the various factions will probably be resolved by those in power with the back channel intelligence assistance from Israel.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/02/new-plo-hamas-fatah.html

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/02/hamas-debates-recognizing-israel.html

[khunken]

Netanyahu is a poor leader for the two state solution, but compared to Hamas which does not accept the existence of any Jewish state of Israel with any borders ... could be worse.

Considering that Netanyahu would'nt even recognise Palestine's right to exist as far as the UN is concerned, he is in the same company as Hamas.

That is oversimplifying the Israeli government position. The Israeli position has been that negotiations about future borders need to be done DIRECTLY between Israel and the Palestinians and that also a Palestinian leadership like in Gaza that is against the existence of Israel can't be negotiated with at all. The result (no progress) may be the same but they are not the same thing as you describe. I agree with you that Netanyahu has not been serious about a two state solution but I disagree with how you color the U.N. aspect. Blame about why there has been no solution can indeed be found on BOTH sides.

I don't deny that blame can be found on both sides. Painting Hamas as a terrorist group is one-sided as the Israeli military is even worse when it comes to killing civilians. Hamas won an election & that was the main problem because Israel - with the support of the US - refused to recognise that fact. It's not a simple 'we won't talk to them' from the Palestinians as it's the same from the Israelis about Hamas (who are not going away any time soon).

It's a pity that Israel has never allowed an independent negotiator to knock heads together.

[Jingthing]

The more land that the Israelis can ethnically cleanse now will mean they have more to bargain with in thirty, fifty, two hundred years when the current balance of strength shifts to the Palestinians.

Hence the walls, the bulldozers, the grabbing of the strategic hilltops by settlers, the destruction of Palestinian livelihoods, etc. The policy is a steady annexation of land along with a removal of Palestinians from it.

These are different issues you mentioned. As far as the wall is concerned, the wall has basically ended the suicide bomber threat. It is popular in Israel because of that and with good reason. Personally, I also feel the west bank settlements are illegal and that in the long run if a decent two state solution fails to be worked out, the two choices for Israelis will be getting even more extremely right wing (hard to sustain forever and ugly) or losing their state to demographics.

I feel there are roughly two schools of criticism against Israeli government policies. The first and in my view more popular school doesn't really support the future existence of the Jewish state of Israel in any form (even though they may give lip service differently). The second school supports the existence of Israel long term and in my view the best hope for that is a two state solution. But it takes two to tango, and there isn't consensus on both sides to actually do that.

To expand that further, I think those that fail to see the unbalanced anti-Israel bias of the UN and take the UN's obsession with mostly Israeli violations seriously (when compared to violations of so many other countries globally), even if they mouth support for the existence of Israel, are usually in the former class.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

Basically, in the Israeli-Palestinian endless standoff, we're at where we're at NOW. History is good to know and of course told entirely differently on different sides. But the only way forward is to start in the PRESENT.

The MAINSTREAM actually serious discussions from people in favor of a real two state solution, on both sides, and internationally, are generally based starting with the 1967 borders.

That's all well and good but Israel keep building settlements.

[Chicog]

Painting Hamas as a terrorist group is one-sided as the Israeli military is even worse when it comes to killing civilians.

Hamas puposely targets civilians and uses their own civilians as human shields. Israel does neither. Hamas are terrorists.

You might argue that Israel doesn't target civilians, but it sure doesn't give a toss if it kills a load to wipe out one person.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

[Briggsy]

The more land that the Israelis can ethnically cleanse now will mean they have more to bargain with in thirty, fifty, two hundred years when the current balance of strength shifts to the Palestinians.

Hence the walls, the bulldozers, the grabbing of the strategic hilltops by settlers, the destruction of Palestinian livelihoods, etc. The policy is a steady annexation of land along with a removal of Palestinians from it.

These are different issues you mentioned. As far as the wall is concerned, the wall has basically ended the suicide bomber threat. It is popular in Israel because of that and with good reason. Personally, I also feel the west bank settlements are illegal and that in the long run if a decent two state solution fails to be worked out, the two choices for Israelis will be getting even more extremely right wing (hard to sustain forever and ugly) or losing their state to demographics.

All one issue

Walls extend well into current-day Palestinian residential and farmland. Farmers cut off from their farmlands by the wall and removed from their property by the building of the wall. Wall extends way out into Palestinian land. Same thing on both Gaza and West Bank. ISSUE = LAND

Bulldozers destroy Palestinian houses. Palestinians forced off the land. ISSUE = LAND

Hilltops grabbed by settlers. ISSUE = LAND

Destruction of Palestinian livelihoods by cutting of water supplies, forcing grazing animals off pasture or destruction of crops forces the Palestinians off the land. ISSUE = LAND

The goal is to get the Palestinians off the land and make it Israeli land.

[Jingthing]

Let's split the difference. The wall/fence/whatever is not one thing but from the Israeli public opinion point of view, the fact that there is direct relation between it's construction and the end of suicide bombers makes it quite popular. In the press outside the USA we mostly hear about the negative impact on Palestinians. That coverage is needed of course, but both sides stories have merit. Do you think the wall would have been built if there hadn't been years of suicide attacks resulting in the murders of hundreds of mostly civilian Israelis? If you say yes, how could you really KNOW that?

Yes there is lots of cause and effect going on there. Predictably someone is going to say, they had to do the suicide bombings that was their only viable weapon. So if you do go there, didn't the Israelis HAVE to defend themselves from it? Endless loop. Optimists are thin on the ground.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

The more land that the Israelis can ethnically cleanse now will mean they have more to bargain with in thirty, fifty, two hundred years when the current balance of strength shifts to the Palestinians.

Hence the walls, the bulldozers, the grabbing of the strategic hilltops by settlers, the destruction of Palestinian livelihoods, etc. The policy is a steady annexation of land along with a removal of Palestinians from it.

These are different issues you mentioned. As far as the wall is concerned, the wall has basically ended the suicide bomber threat. It is popular in Israel because of that and with good reason. Personally, I also feel the west bank settlements are illegal and that in the long run if a decent two state solution fails to be worked out, the two choices for Israelis will be getting even more extremely right wing (hard to sustain forever and ugly) or losing their state to demographics.

All one issue

Walls extend well into current-day Palestinian residential and farmland. Farmers cut off from their farmlands by the wall and removed from their property by the building of the wall. Wall extends way out into Palestinian land. Same thing on both Gaza and West Bank. ISSUE = LAND

Bulldozers destroy Palestinian houses. Palestinians forced off the land. ISSUE = LAND

Hilltops grabbed by settlers. ISSUE = LAND

Destruction of Palestinian livelihoods by cutting of water supplies, forcing grazing animals off pasture or destruction of crops forces the Palestinians off the land. ISSUE = LAND

The goal is to get the Palestinians off the land and make it Israeli land.

Facts do not support your argument. Israel unilaterally gave back LAND when they vacated Gaza. If land was the Issue then why was this action greeted by hails of missiles from Gaza ever since? Are you perhaps suggesting that giving back a little more land would have a different effect, Israel would be insane to fall for that trick again.

[Pakboong]

It is very difficult for non-Jews to recognize Israel in the same light as Jews seem to. Kind of like being faced with telling a mother that her child is not as handsome as the mother thinks he is. I expect the bias perceived regarding the UN is typical of how the 7 billion non-Jews feel about the approximately 6 million Israelis. Even Jews (Goldstone report) don't always agree that Israel is wart free. I do hope we don't try to legislate a love for Israel.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Pakboong

[Jingthing]

It is very difficult for non-Jews to recognize Israel in the same light as Jews seem to. Kind of like being faced with telling a mother that her child is not as handsome as the mother thinks he is. I expect the bias perceived regarding the UN is typical of how the 7 billion non-Jews feel about the approximately 14 million Jews. Even Jews (Goldstone report) don't always agree that Israel is wart free. I do hope we don't try to legislate a love for Israel.

I don't know of one Jew that thinks Israel is perfect. Get 100 Jews in a room and hear 100 different opinions. Do most Jews love that the Jewish state exists in Israel and want it to keep existing? Yes. That's not even remotely the same as supporting all Israeli government policies.

Other than that, if there was a Kurdistan, for example, wouldn't you expect Kurds to have a special connection to that country that non-Kurds wouldn't feel?

Regarding the Goldstone report, Goldstone himself has adjusted his initial conclusions to reflect facts learned LATER:

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

http://articles.wash...sraeli-evidence

Your comment:

"I expect the bias perceived regarding the UN is typical of how the 7 billion non-Jews feel about the approximately 14 million Jews."

Could you clarify/expand exactly what you tried to communicate with that sentence? I don't get it.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

OK, back on topic.

Final Warning: this thread is about settlement activity.

[Chicog]

There are a lot of Jews that believe there should not even be a state of Israel, let alone one that's expanding with settlements all the time.

[simple1]

I have provided a URL below that may stimulate further debate on this topic.

http://www.ifamerica...ettlements.html

Also we know the US condemned the building of yet more settlements in the West Bank as a deliberate policy by Israel to divide the contiguous Palestinian territory; source:

http://www.globalpos...em-west-bank-e1

Please forgive if this info has been previously posted.

Edited February 12, 2013 by simple1

[Pakboong]

It is very difficult for non-Jews to recognize Israel in the same light as Jews seem to. Kind of like being faced with telling a mother that her child is not as handsome as the mother thinks he is. I expect the bias perceived regarding the UN is typical of how the 7 billion non-Jews feel about the approximately 14 million Jews. Even Jews (Goldstone report) don't always agree that Israel is wart free. I do hope we don't try to legislate a love for Israel.

I don't know of one Jew that thinks Israel is perfect. Get 100 Jews in a room and hear 100 different opinions. Do most Jews love that the Jewish state exists in Israel and want it to keep existing? Yes. That's not even remotely the same as supporting all Israeli government policies.

Other than that, if there was a Kurdistan, for example, wouldn't you expect Kurds to have a special connection to that country that non-Kurds wouldn't feel?

Regarding the Goldstone report, Goldstone himself has adjusted his initial conclusions to reflect facts learned LATER:

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

http://articles.wash...sraeli-evidence

Your comment:

"I expect the bias perceived regarding the UN is typical of how the 7 billion non-Jews feel about the approximately 14 million Jews."

Could you clarify/expand exactly what you tried to communicate with that sentence? I don't get it.

I would generally expect that the UN with its representation, reflects world opinion. No way of course to prove it.

[Pakboong]

It is very difficult for non-Jews to recognize Israel in the same light as Jews seem to. Kind of like being faced with telling a mother that her child is not as handsome as the mother thinks he is. I expect the bias perceived regarding the UN is typical of how the 7 billion non-Jews feel about the approximately 14 million Jews. Even Jews (Goldstone report) don't always agree that Israel is wart free. I do hope we don't try to legislate a love for Israel.

I don't know of one Jew that thinks Israel is perfect. Get 100 Jews in a room and hear 100 different opinions. Do most Jews love that the Jewish state exists in Israel and want it to keep existing? Yes. That's not even remotely the same as supporting all Israeli government policies.

Other than that, if there was a Kurdistan, for example, wouldn't you expect Kurds to have a special connection to that country that non-Kurds wouldn't feel?

Regarding the Goldstone report, Goldstone himself has adjusted his initial conclusions to reflect facts learned LATER:

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

http://articles.wash...sraeli-evidence

Your comment:

"I expect the bias perceived regarding the UN is typical of how the 7 billion non-Jews feel about the approximately 14 million Jews."

Could you clarify/expand exactly what you tried to communicate with that sentence? I don't get it.

JT, you know I respect your opinion and you have often been critical of Israel. The Kurdistan example is not quite the same. Today for example, Huckabee is in Israel and he has press conferences. JP and Haartz are busy getting his quotes on the wires.

Out of his mouth comes: He asked how senators Chuck Shumer (D-New York) and Carl Levin (D-Michigan), who are both Jewish, could vote for Hagel and ever have credibility again with the Jewish community, “or with that matter with the rest of America.”

He is apparently spending some time in the settlements so his opinion will be interesting.

[Jingthing]

Huckabee is an extremely right wing Christian fundamentalist American politician. Right wing Americans, especially many Christian fundamentalists who feel directed to fanatical support for Israel due to their interpretation of scripture "end times" are generally supportive of more right wing Israeli government policies such as illegal settlements. More liberal American politicians and public, including American Jews who are mostly liberal and mostly in a different party than people like Huckabee, are much less likely to be supportive of right wing Israeli policies such as illegal settlements. You present a quote from Huckabee as if that is representative of American Jews and it is simply not even close to the actual truth. Americans Jews OVERWHELMINGLY supported Obama who has been critical of illegal Israeli settlements.

It's so easy to simply things that are actually quite more complicated by taking a quote from an EXTREMIST out of context of the larger picture. I would be the first to agree that Obama's opposition to illegal Israeli settlements has not had strong teeth or consequences to it, but that's another matter.

Huckabee's future quotes about the settlements are totally predictable. He is a right wing fundamentalist ideologue and he will continue to voice strong support for the settlements.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Jingthing

[Pakboong]

Huckabee is an extremely right wing Christian fundamentalist American politician. Right wing Americans, especially many Christian fundamentalists who feel directed to fanatical support for Israel due to their interpretation of scripture "end times" are generally supportive of more right wing Israeli government policies such as illegal settlements. More liberal American politicians and public, including American Jews who are mostly liberal and mostly in a different party than people like Huckabee, are much less likely to be supportive of right wing Israeli policies such as illegal settlements. You present a quote from Huckabee as if that is representative of American Jews and it is simply not even close to the actual truth. Americans Jews OVERWHELMINGLY supported Obama who has been critical of illegal Israeli settlements. It's so easy to simply things that are actually quite more complicated. I would be the first to agree that Obama's opposition to illegal Israeli settlements has not had strong teeth or consequences to it, but that's another matter.

We do not disagree, I was merely pointing out the mixing and matching of Jews and Israel when it comes to making certain points. He is supposed to be in Israel dealing with matters Israeli. When the two are confused by the press and politicians, the two get confused much greater at the bottom of the heap.

Like the idea of "Jewish Only" settlements, I personally have no problem with it but in order to have no problem with it, you would think one must be prepared for a "No Jews allowed" policy.

[Jingthing]

...

Like the idea of "Jewish Only" settlements, I personally have no problem with it but in order to have no problem with it, you would think one must be prepared for a "No Jews allowed" policy.

Again, I have no idea what you are really talking about with your rather cryptic coded phrasing.

Israel contains TWENTY PERCENT Arab population. These are Israeli citizens who are Arabs. Yes those offensive settlements are Jewish only and that is offensive but the settlements themselves are offensive so what would you expect? However, consider this in the context of statements from authoritative Palestinians that in a Palestinian state not even ONE Jew will be allowed to be a citizen.

BTW, Huckabee is a public figure and media personality, but he HOLDS NO OFFICE. So his opinion is just the voice of a private American citizen, not a representative of the American government.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

Let's split the difference. The wall/fence/whatever is not one thing but from the Israeli public opinion point of view, the fact that there is direct relation between it's construction and the end of suicide bombers makes it quite popular. In the press outside the USA we mostly hear about the negative impact on Palestinians. That coverage is needed of course, but both sides stories have merit. Do you think the wall would have been built if there hadn't been years of suicide attacks resulting in the murders of hundreds of mostly civilian Israelis? If you say yes, how could you really KNOW that?

Yes there is lots of cause and effect going on there. Predictably someone is going to say, they had to do the suicide bombings that was their only viable weapon. So if you do go there, didn't the Israelis HAVE to defend themselves from it? Endless loop. Optimists are thin on the ground.

I, and I'm sure most, would have no objection to a wall built on the 1967 borders.

Our objection is that they have intruded it into Palestinian land to de facto remove Palestinians from their legally owned land.

The English/ Irish conflict lasted over 600 years. Fancy the Israel/ Palestinian conflict being over more quickly without Israel withdrawing from illegal occupation of Palestine? They can build a wall a thousand feet high for all I care, but they have to stop occupying Palestine.