US again lashes out at Israeli settlements in West Bank

[webfact]

US again lashes out at Israeli settlements in West Bank 
MATTHEW LEE, AP Diplomatic Writer

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration on Wednesday once again condemned Israelfor plans to construct housing on land claimed by the Palestinians, saying a new project announced last week profoundly hurts efforts to forge a two-state solution to the long-running conflict.

 

In unusually strong statements, the White House and State Department lashed out at a proposal announced last week to construct a significant new settlement of up to 300 housing units and establish an industrial zone in the West Bank. Both Israel and the Palestinians responded quickly with statements accusing each other of being the real obstacle to peace.

 

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said every U.S. administration since 1967 has opposed Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories, and the Obama administration has publicly restated that view because of the concern that settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem undermines the goal of a two-state solution.

 

"The actions of the Israeli government in announcing this settlement undermine the pursuit of peace," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. He added that the U.S. had also received public assurances from the Israeli government that contradicted the settlement announcement.

 

"I guess, when we're talking about how good friends treat one another, that's a source of serious concern as well," he said.

 

At the State Department, spokesman Mark Toner said moving ahead with the project would be "another step toward cementing a one-state reality of perpetual occupation that is fundamentally inconsistent with Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state."

 

"Such moves will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israelfrom many of its partners, and further call into question Israel's commitment to achieving a negotiated peace," he said.

 

Toner said the proposal was "deeply troubling" because Israel announced the proposal so soon after the U.S. agreed last month to a new 10-year, $38 billion military aid package for Israel. He also said it was "disheartening" as the announcement came the world was mourning the death of former Israeli leader Shimon Peres. U.S. officials said the administration was particularly disturbed because the announcement came as President Barack Obama was visiting Jerusalem last week for the Peres' state funeral.

 

"It is deeply troubling, in the wake of Israel and the U.S. concluding an unprecedented agreement on military assistance designed to further strengthen Israel's security, that Israelwould take a decision so contrary to its long-term security interest in a peaceful resolution of its conflict with the Palestinians," Toner said. "Furthermore, it is disheartening that while Israel and the world mourned the passing of President Shimon Peres, and leaders from the U.S. and other nations prepared to honor one of the great champions of peace, plans were advanced that would seriously undermine the prospects for the two-state solution that he so passionately supported."

 

In Jerusalem, the Israeli foreign ministry said only 98 units had been approved and said they do not constitute a new settlement. It said the new housing would be built on state-owned land in an existing settlement and would not change its boundaries or geographic footprint. It said the construction is necessary to relocate Jewish residents from another area who must leave their homes due to a court order.

 

"Israel remains committed to a solution of two states for two peoples, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state of Israel," the ministry said in a statement. "The real obstacle to peace is not the settlements — a final status issue that can and must be resolved in negotiations between the parties — but the persistent Palestinian rejection of a Jewish state in any boundaries."

 

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat fired back, saying the proposal "affirms Israel's resolve to destroy the two-state solution" and demanding the international community take action.

 

"Israel continues to impede international efforts to achieve peace in Palestine and the region amidst the complete inaction by the international community to hold Israel accountable for the crimes it continues to commit against the land and people of Palestine," he said. "Concrete measures and actions against all Israeli settlement activities should be taken in accordance with international law and United Nations resolutions."

 

The U.S., which has repeatedly criticized Israel for such projects over decades, has refrained from imposing consequences.

 

On Tuesday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also condemned the plans for the construction near Shiloh, west of Ramallah.

 

Palestinians want their new state in the West Bank with east Jerusalem as its capital.

___

Daniel Estrin in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-10-06

[Ulysses G.]

Luckily, Obama will be out soon and the two presidential candidates are friends of Israel. If the Palestinians want to stop the settlements, they need to stop stalling and sign a peace treaty.

[Steely Dan]

Nothing has been built yet. The carefully choreographed shitstorm is about talks relating to moving an existing settlement not building a new one. Meanwhile the Russians drop cluster bombs on hospitals in Aleppo.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

The US administration got every right to feel incensed with the the Israeli government's way of doing things. I think the unofficial understanding is that such announcements are to be avoided during or near visits by US officials and representatives. Had the Israeli government waited a bit, the condemnation would have been less harsh.

 

The US administration is  also correct when asserting that with regard to the chances of peace, it does not really matter whether this is a new illegal settlement or an extension of an existing illegal settlement.

 

@ Ulysses G.:

 

All US administration were against Israel's illegal settlement efforts. It is very doubtful that this policy will be reversed by the next president. Also, there is no peace treaty on offer which includes mass dismantling of illegal settlements, not by the current Israeli government, anyway.

 

@Steely Dan:

 

It matters naught that nothing has been built yet. From a diplomatic point of view, it was a totally inappropriate announcement. If I was to take the "carefully choreographed" bit seriously, I'd ask by whom? For what aim? And why now? Not asking.

 

The Israeli announcement is another chapter in the saga of Amona (previously discussed on TVF - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/920654-west-bank-outposts-impending-evacuation-a-test-for-israel/). With the time for applying the court's final ruling on Amona's eviction drawing near, right wing politicians and illegal settlers are getting more desperate in finding solution. As for the announcement being an extension of an existing (and yet, illegal) settlement - the new units are to be built as an extension of a previous "extension". The fact is that the existing extension is, in practice, a separate (illegal) settlement, bearing it's own name. The same will be true for the newly announced project.

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Morch

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Luckily, Obama will be out soon and the two presidential candidates are friends of Israel. If the Palestinians want to stop the settlements, they need to stop stalling and sign a peace treaty.

It will be Clinton and she will have the same attitude about new building. It's clearly a deterrent to hope for two state peace negotiations. Neither side is serious about that. I consider the U.S. criticism fully legitimate. 

 

In the tragic event of a trump presidency, who knows what he will do about anything? He's a nutcase. His V.P. has positions radically opposite from his and clearly he would be the adult in the room and do the work (trump wouldn't be capable or interested) perhaps you're right that U.S. Israel policy may be more right wing under trump (because it will really be pence running things). 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

@Morch

Sorry I can't take this seriously with the carnage going on in the region and the fat lady gargling backstage to sing out the Obama administration. The Sultan is on good form here.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-deadly-israeli-house.html

There are few weapons as deadly as the Israeli house. When its bricks and mortar are combined together, the house, whether it is one of those modest one story hilltop affairs or a five floor apartment building complete with hot and cold running water, becomes far more dangerous than anything green and glowing that comes out of the Iranian centrifuges.

@Jingthing

Perhaps it would be best wait for the next U.S elections before pencilling a diplomatic thrombosis every time an Israeli Jew picks up a trowel.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Jingthing]

Anyway, more building or not, there is STILL some hope, just not very much!

 

 

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, Steely Dan said:

@Morch

Sorry I can't take this seriously with the carnage going on in the region and the fat lady gargling backstage to sing out the Obama administration. The Sultan is on good form here.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-deadly-israeli-house.html
 

@Jingthing

Perhaps it would be best wait for the next U.S elections before pencilling a diplomatic thrombosis every time an Israeli Jew picks up a trowel.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

Other than being a rant on a questionable blog, the link does not actually relate to the "carefully choreographed" bit.

 

And the US position will not be reversed, regardless of who will be the next president. The US got no issues when an "Israeli Jew picks up a trowel", only with construction in illegal settlements on occupied territories. As it happens, most of these houses will not actually be built by Jews - construction workers often being foreign laborers, and on many occasions, Palestinians.

 

 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Other than being a rant on a questionable blog, the link does not actually relate to the "carefully choreographed" bit.

 

And the US position will not be reversed, regardless of who will be the next president. The US got no issues when an "Israeli Jew picks up a trowel", only with construction in illegal settlements on occupied territories. As it happens, most of these houses will not actually be built by Jews - construction workers often being foreign laborers, and on many occasions, Palestinians.

 

 

I don't know how you can be so sure about what trump might do. 

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't know how you can be so sure about what trump might do. 

 

The US does not shift its foreign policy overnight. A US president, even Trump, would be bound by two houses, legal issues, international and bilateral agreements plus a pressure from host of interest groups. With Trump, its more that one cannot guess what he will say - can't see him as actually doing much one way or the other.

[Saladin]

Then why did the US give Israel billions of dollars in military equipment only a couple of weeks ago? I don't get it. Isn't it time the US played hardball with Netanyahu? These fascists are going to keep taking and taking and giving nothing in return until somebody (the US) makes them an offer they can't refuse. The actions of Israel exacerbate anti Semiticism, and Jews throughout the world who are not responsible must pay the price. 

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, Saladin said:

Then why did the US give Israel billions of dollars in military equipment only a couple of weeks ago? I don't get it. Isn't it time the US played hardball with Netanyahu? These fascists are going to keep taking and taking and giving nothing in return until somebody (the US) makes them an offer they can't refuse. The actions of Israel exacerbate anti Semiticism, and Jews throughout the world who are not responsible must pay the price. 

Dude, people that hate Jews don't need any "rational" excuse to hate Jews. Why do you think Israel needed to exist in the first place?

 

It's a fair question why U.S. aid didn't come with more strings. There were strings but not that.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Jingthing

[yardrunner]

8 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Luckily, Obama will be out soon and the two presidential candidates are friends of Israel. If the Palestinians want to stop the settlements, they need to stop stalling and sign a peace treaty.

And the Israelis and Palestinians both need to obey international law and it would help if the USA could encourage both sides to sign a fair peace treaty

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, yardrunner said:

And the Israelis and Palestinians both need to obey international law and it would help if the USA could encourage both sides to sign a fair peace treaty

Apparently, the USA doesn't quite have that kind of power over BOTH sides. Both sides have excellent reasons not to trust the other. Solve this in real life and you win a big prize!

Edited October 6, 2016 by Jingthing

[GinBoy2]

Shimon Peres was the last Israeli leader who actually believed in a two state solution.

 

Netanyahu doesn't want it for a second, but plays the US administration with words. His idea of the two State solution is almost apartheid South African Bantustans. Islands of Palestinians with Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank with corridors connecting them all.

 

Now, who do I blame for all this, well it ain't America, or even Israel...it's the UK (with a minor supporting role, France)

 

They set the scene for generally all of the chaos that is the Middle East. From Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Imperialism drew the arbitrary lines from 1918 through 1947. They were the architects of the disaster we live with today.

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

Why stop there?

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.  References to stories as ''click bait' will get your post removed.   Thaivisa doesn't write them.   Take such comments to the source.

 

 

[Steely Dan]

 
Other than being a rant on a questionable blog, the link does not actually relate to the "carefully choreographed" bit.
 
And the US position will not be reversed, regardless of who will be the next president. The US got no issues when an "Israeli Jew picks up a trowel", only with construction in illegal settlements on occupied territories. As it happens, most of these houses will not actually be built by Jews - construction workers often being foreign laborers, and on many occasions, Palestinians.
 
 

Two observations. Firstly president Obama didn't waste the opportunity to have a dig at Netanyahu' when speaking following the funeral of Shimon Peres. This was picked up by the Israeli press at the time and is just the latest example of tit for tat squabbling between the two. I would view the o.p with this in mind.
Secondly the EU has funded illegal Palestinian construction in areas assigned to Israel in the Oslo accords. They even threatened Israel with repercussions for demolishing them. Stones and glass houses spring to mind.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[notmyself]

Blame the UK as much as you wish but the entire area has been in conflict for thousands of years. If you want to know why then you have to address what happened to the Amalekites. When you understand that, you understand why the U.S. gives them so much support.

[GinBoy2]

17 minutes ago, notmyself said:

Blame the UK as much as you wish but the entire area has been in conflict for thousands of years. If you want to know why then you have to address what happened to the Amalekites. When you understand that, you understand why the U.S. gives them so much support.

The Ottomans ruled the region with a regime of provinces, roughly based on ethnicity, which for better or worse maintained the peace

 

After WW1 the British & French Imperialists  decided to carve up the region with zero regard to ethnic or religious belief, and lets not even get started on the Balfour Declaration.

 

Iraq is quite analogous to Yugoslavia, an artificial State created out of WW1, with I suspect a similar future; return to a pre-WW1 separate ethnic States.

 

As for Israel, let us not forget; it was French weapons that the Israelis used during the 1967 war. It was French nuclear technology that created Dimona

 

Quite easy to blame to US in all of this, but the players over the years are hardly exclusive!

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by GinBoy2

[notmyself]

5 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Quite easy to blame to US in all of this, but the players over the years are hardly exclusive!

 

 

I'm not blaming the U.S. but rather why they give Israel so much support.

 

The terms 'lash out' and 'condemned' were used. How many times have we heard this before? What does it even mean in the context of anything more than just empty words? None of it makes any sense until you understand the Amalekites

[gemini81]

About time. Boycott Israel, stop the genocide.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, notmyself said:

 

I'm not blaming the U.S. but rather why they give Israel so much support.

 

 

A Western-style democracy that is - in effect - our gigantic aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we support Israel over a bunch of erratic Islamic terrorists?

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Saladin said:

Then why did the US give Israel billions of dollars in military equipment only a couple of weeks ago? I don't get it. Isn't it time the US played hardball with Netanyahu? These fascists are going to keep taking and taking and giving nothing in return until somebody (the US) makes them an offer they can't refuse. The actions of Israel exacerbate anti Semiticism, and Jews throughout the world who are not responsible must pay the price. 

 

These billions of dollars will all be spent on buying from US firms. Quite a nice earner for some companies, and jobs aplenty. Compared with the previous aid packages, this is already a major change (earlier versions allowed Israel to spend some of the funds buying from its own manufacturers).

 

If Netanyahu's government would have followed the expected diplomatic give and take, to, the Israeli announcement would not come in conjunction with the US aid package bill and the major league US presence at Peres's funeral.

 

What would the US gain from playing "hardball" (whatever that means) with Israel? Although a common fantasy, the conflict will not be resolved by unilateral actions or by applying  pressure on one of the sides.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Steely Dan said:

Two observations. Firstly president Obama didn't waste the opportunity to have a dig at Netanyahu' when speaking following the funeral of Shimon Peres. This was picked up by the Israeli press at the time and is just the latest example of tit for tat squabbling between the two. I would view the o.p with this in mind.
Secondly the EU has funded illegal Palestinian construction in areas assigned to Israel in the Oslo accords. They even threatened Israel with repercussions for demolishing them. Stones and glass houses spring to mind.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

I thought Obama speech was a good one. Narrowing it down to "having a dig" at Netanyahu is a rather simplistic analysis. Bringing up the two state solution, and questions regarding where Israel is heading, ought to have been aired on that occasion. At least it wasn't as embarrassing as Netanyahu posthumously hugging Peres as a friend and singing his praises.

 

If there, indeed, a tit for tat between the Israeli government and the Obama administration, it is quite clear who's at fault. Netanyahu's intervention in US politics crossed the line a long time ago. Even if some wish to argue the point, this is the US. It says Superpower on their business card. It is not a relationship between equals.

 

Not sure what the EU got to do with this topic. And C area was not "assigned to Israel" with the notion that it will curtail all Palestinian development.

 

Both observations still do not support the "carefully choreographed" notion.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, gemini81 said:

About time. Boycott Israel, stop the genocide.

 

About time what? It's just a verbal condemnation from an outgoing administration, albeit more strongly worded than usual. There are no US boycotts or sanctions on the horizon. And there is no genocide.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Morch

[notmyself]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

A Western-style democracy that is - in effect - our gigantic aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we support Israel over a bunch of erratic Islamic terrorists?

 

You miss the point UG but re-reading what I wrote shows I did not make it at all clear. Topic is about settlement building and why the U.S. puts no pressure on Israel to stop their activity. They say a few words here and there but that is your lot mate. As you know, I don't think Israel should exist as a state but it does, so they have the right to defend themselves. If the U.S. wants to help then go for it dog have at it.

 

Thing is.... what does this have to do with building housing for over half a million people on occupied land. In what way is that defensive? We all know why Israel is doing it because Bibi make it public on the last voting day to help him win. The 'promised land' basically, and he will never give it back. I wonder if HRC told him to cut it out. Why would the U.S. actively block any action with regard to international law in the case of illegal settlement building? The U.S. considers this perfectly reasonable yet they still wonder why places such as Iraq are not particularly on this system of government.

 

What is really funny is that without Judaism you would not have Islamic terrorists. You reap what you sow.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

A Western-style democracy that is - in effect - our gigantic aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we support Israel over a bunch of erratic Islamic terrorists?

 

The Palestinians are not a "bunch of erratic Islamic terrorists", surely not all or even most.

Support does not have to be "over" or at the absolute expense of the opposing side.

 

The US does not support the Israeli occupation, nor does it support illegal settlements in the West Bank. 

 

[notmyself]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

These billions of dollars will all be spent on buying from US firms. Quite a nice earner for some companies, and jobs aplenty. Compared with the previous aid packages, this is already a major change (earlier versions allowed Israel to spend some of the funds buying from its own manufacturers).

 

If Netanyahu's government would have followed the expected diplomatic give and take, to, the Israeli announcement would not come in conjunction with the US aid package bill and the major league US presence at Peres's funeral.

 

What would the US gain from playing "hardball" (whatever that means) with Israel? Although a common fantasy, the conflict will not be resolved by unilateral actions or by applying  pressure on one of the sides.

 

Spend the money back home fixing the roads etc. Give the working man a job and not a military complex.

[gemini81]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

A Western-style democracy that is - in effect - our gigantic aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we support Israel over a bunch of erratic Islamic terrorists?

 

and an apartheid police state of segregation/racism of indigenous people, lacking a constitution run by Talmud/religion is hardly a 'democracy'!