US again lashes out at Israeli settlements in West Bank

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

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.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

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

 

Write your representatives in DC and let them know how you feel.

You are aware that there are quite a lot of "working men" employed by the so called "military complex", right?

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

Again, I think you're not factoring in the PENCE factor in case of a President trump. trump, as I reckon you realize, would not seriously do the job of president. He's neither competent to do that or interested. He'd be into the bully pulpit glory stuff only. PENCE would be the heavy.

 

 

Quote

Pence: Obama 'bullying' Israel

Pence said Tuesday that further building does not undermine the peace process.

“The time has come for this administration to stop bullying Israel,” Pence said. “And the whole suggestion that the construction of settlements in undisputed areas of Jerusalem is somehow an affront to the United States or an affront to the peace process is absurd.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2010/03/pence-obama-bullying-israel-034864#ixzz4MJunWh5k 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Jingthing

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, gemini81 said:

 

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

 

A constitution is not a requisite for democracy.

And Israel is not run by Talmud/religion.

 

This on the off chance that I'm replying to ignorance rather than trolling....

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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.

 

 

It's always time for obsessive Israel demonization. False charges of genocide  ... why, of course!

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

A constitution is not a requisite for democracy.

And Israel is not run by Talmud/religion.

 

This on the off chance that I'm replying to ignorance rather than trolling....

You're not. 

[notmyself]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Write your representatives in DC and let them know how you feel.

You are aware that there are quite a lot of "working men" employed by the so called "military complex", right?

 

How much is spent on the military? Are they just scraping by?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Again, I think you're not factoring in the PENCE factor in case of a President trump. trump, as I reckon you realize, would not seriously do the job of president. He's neither competent to do that or interested. He'd be into the bully pulpit glory stuff only. PENCE would be the heavy.

 

 

 

 

Things said on the campaign trail are not actions taken in office. There's a very wide gap between the two.

Doubt that Pence will be pulling any strings or making major calls. Again, far as I'm aware, the US administration doesn't quite work like that.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, notmyself said:

 

How much is spent on the military? Are they just scraping by?

 

I dunno, maybe ask your representatives in DC.

The US aid package allows Israel to purchase from US firms, not from the US armed forces.

 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Things said on the campaign trail are not actions taken in office. There's a very wide gap between the two.

Doubt that Pence will be pulling any strings or making major calls. Again, far as I'm aware, the US administration doesn't quite work like that.

Yes, but the Pence quote I supplied was from 2010. He's clearly a far right wing hawk. Nothing to do with the campaign. That's what he is. 

trump wouldn't be a normal president. Remember what Kasich said and Kasich is a very credible person? He said he was offered the VP and offered to do basically EVERYTHING the president normally does. Pence is similarly capable. 

You can correctly say I'm speculating, but your assumption of any kind of NORMALITY in a trump presidency is similarly speculative, given who trump is. 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Jingthing

[notmyself]

Still doesn't answer the settlement issue.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, but the Pence quote I supplied was from 2010. He's clearly a far right wing hawk. Nothing to do with the campaign. That's what he is. 

trump wouldn't be a normal president. Remember what Kasich said and Kasich is a very credible person? He said he was offered the VP and offered to do basically EVERYTHING the president normally does. Pence is similarly capable. 

You can correctly say I'm speculating, but your assumption of any kind of NORMALITY in a trump presidency is similarly speculative, given who trump is. 

 

If we are to disregard most of what Trump says, promises and declares - why regard a supposed offer to a VP candidate in any other way? There are posters with far better knowledge of the US government, but to the best of my knowledge, even such offers would not be that easy to implement. In other words, the President cannot delegate any thing or everything to the VP's discretion.

 

With regard to the US position on the Israeli illegal settlements - there's nothing to be gained from supporting it, there's some to be lost. If Pence is half as competent a politician as suggested, he will not do anything much about it.

 

As discussed on another topic, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is less center stage nowadays, bigger troubles (from US point of view, at least) elsewhere. With both sides not showing much willingness to engage productively, there is little reason to think that the next US administration will jump into the fray and try to sort things out (again). Trump wouldn't because foreign policy isn't this thing, and HRC because she knows the score all too well.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

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

 

 

Many of their leaders are and the Palestinians elected them to govern. Hamas is an obvious example, but Fatah is not much better and they are the major force in the Palestinian Authority. Senior Fatah Central Committee member Marwan Barghouti recently demanded a sweeping change within Fatah abandoning the "illusion of achieving independence" through diplomatic negotiations. Much of Fatah feels this way.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[notmyself]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

With regard to the US position on the Israeli illegal settlements - there's nothing to be gained from supporting it, there's some to be lost.

 

Amalekites. Understand that and the problem is solved.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, notmyself said:

 

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?

 

Many Palestinians feel that all they have to do is wait - keep up the terrorism - and eventually they will win. The settlements are a clear message that that is not going to happen. Make peace before there is nothing much worthwhile left to bargain for.

[JetsetBkk]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It will be Clinton and she will have the same attitude about new building.

 

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

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

 

I don't know how you can be so sure... oh, never mind.

 

 

[notmyself]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Many Palestinians feel that all they have to do is wait - keep up the terrorism - and eventually they will win. The settlements are a clear message that that is not going to happen. Make peace before there is nothing much worthwhile left to bargain for.

 

I know why and you know why. The question is why the U.S. supports it.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, gemini81 said:

 

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

 

Claiming that Israel is "Apartheid" is just plain silly. Israeli Palestinians have the same legal rights as the Jews and it is - indeed - a democracy with Palestinian political parties and Palestinian voters.

 

As Morch pointed out:

 

"A constitution is not a requisite for democracy.

And Israel is not run by Talmud/religion."

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

I know why and you know why. The question is why the U.S. supports it.

 

Because the US supports Israel and I already told you why:

 

"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?"

[Ulysses G.]

7 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

 

I don't know how you can be so sure... oh, never mind.

 

 

 

 I agree with Jingthing about many things, but the over-the-top demonization of Trump is not one of them

[notmyself]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Because the US supports Israel and I already told you why:

 

"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?"

 

A land grab. Amalekites.

[Ulysses G.]

6 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

A land grab. Amalekites.

 

Amalek was the first foe to attack the people of Israel after they had come out of Egypt as a free nation and they got their butts kicked. They have that in common with the Palestinians.

 

The American Indians, Australian Aborigines, etc.. Ancient history.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Xircal]

A few things to consider:

 

1. The goal of the Arab world is the destruction of the State of Israel.
2. The Jewish vote in the US elections is substantial and they usually side with the Democrats.
3. Israel provides the US with valuable intelligence in the Middle East

If the Palestinians were to cease firing rockets into Israeli territory peace might have a chance. But while that continues coupled wih daily street attacks on Israeli citizens in which many have died on both sides, peace initiatives have little hope of succeeding.

 

It's coming up to election time in the US and Obama will be retiring soon. So a little bit of critical rhetoric for the benefit of the Press won't cause too much of an upset. Both sides don't want to agitate the Jewish vote too much for fearing of pushing them to one side or the other so don't expect a lot of pressure on Israel to take place until post-election  time. The Israelis can exploit that by building more settlements knowing that any protests in the US won't find much favour with either side until after the 2016 US Presidential Election in November.

 

Last but not least, Israel provides a huge amount of intelligence to the US which it cannot obtain by any other means. For that reason alone, the US will make the right noises to address concerns, but will continue to support Israel through thick and thin even if it doesn't approve of settlements expansion.

 

[notmyself]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

The American Indians, Australian Aborigines, etc.. Ancient history.

 

You sound like a theist mate. A question is somehow invalid because it has not been answered in 'x' time.

 

It is all about the promised land. If it was just about land it would have been solved long ago. Bibi told everyone why.... did he lie?

[notmyself]

19 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Amalek was the first foe to attack the people of Israel after they had come out of Egypt as a free nation and they got their butts kicked.

 

Jesus wept. What is this 'free nation' mate? They, as a group, invaded land on the basis that it had been given to them by their god and the occupants fought back. What followed is the definition of genocide by any standard but the point is the occupation of land for non rational reasons. Israel will not give that 'promised land' back and it has nothing to do with security issues. You want to get off of Fox News and RT mate. 

[DaddyWarbucks]

US Government criticism of Israeli settlement building and expansion in the occupied territories is toothless.

Nothing is ever done to really discourage it, meanwhile the heavily armed little state continues its depredations as part of America's New World Disorder.

[Ulysses G.]

6 hours ago, notmyself said:

 

Jesus wept. What is this 'free nation' mate? They, as a group, invaded land on the basis that it had been given to them by their god and the occupants fought back. What followed is the definition of genocide by any standard but the point is the occupation of land for non rational reasons. Israel will not give that 'promised land' back and it has nothing to do with security issues. You want to get off of Fox News and RT mate. 

 

You need to read some history. Israel has been perfectly willing to make deals for some of that land. However, after the Palestinians refused these deals and Israel invested so much blood and treasure, they are a lot more reticent about deals with someone that they have fought with and beaten over and over again.

[tonray]

The settlers are the worst neighbors ever. In many cases they will chainsaw 100 year old olive groves in the middle of the night, denying the Palestinian residents an income, thereby making it easier to legally seize their land. The come off as pioneers and oppressed but many of them are militant tools used by the hard right wing religious zealots in Israel who want nothing short of taking everything.

[cdnvic]

Anti-Semitic conspiracy nonsense removed. Any more will earn the poster a long time out.

[Rancid]

On 06/10/2016 at 9:48 AM, 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.

Any president serious about being elected is a friend of Israel, they oppose the Israel Lobby and its massive funding at their peril. Odd that isn't viewed as a foreign interests manipulating domestic politics, guess they lobbied against that as well.

 

Seems that as the US has just given Israel the largest military grant in history from its taxpayers hard earned receipts would suggest that things are going along to the script. Would seem there is some other motivation to pretend to be concerned about settlers stealing land.