US again lashes out at Israeli settlements in West Bank

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

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.

 

You stated that "Why wouldn't we support Israel over a bunch of erratic Islamic terrorists?". Well, the Palestinians are not all "erratic Islamic terrorists", and the US openly rejects those factions leaning this way (Hamas being a prime example).

 

Barghouti's views are somewhat more complex than presented, in a recent interview (2016, as opposed to the 2014 quote) he did express support for a two state solution, and for a non-violent resistance drive. His observation that negotiations with Israel failed to achieve Palestinian independence is correct. So is his assessment that under current leaderships, this will not change.

 

 

[Morch]

11 hours 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.

 

The Illegal settlements are not there to be used as a negotiation tool. They are there because right wing, religious, messianic groups act to make their vision a reality. This does not include much by way of compromise or negotiation.

 

Even if the suggested role was ever intended as such, then over the years the illegal settlements turned from bargaining chips to a core issue.

 

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Xircal said:

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.

 

 

There is Arab World, in the sense that it has a united purpose and well specified goals. Egypt and Jordan are Arab nations, yet both have long lasting peace agreements with Israel.

 

The Palestinian rockets fired on Israel is a Gaza Strip thing, none from the West Bank. One is ruled by Hamas, the other governed by the PA (essentially Fatah). The only Israeli illegal settlements are in the West Bank, though. As for "street attacks", not daily and most are being carried out in the West Bank, not within Israel proper. While Palestinian violence certainly does not contribute to resolving the conflict, things are not as clear cut as presented above.

 

 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, notmyself said:

 

Amalekites. Understand that and the problem is solved.

 

One track mind at work....

 

[thaibeachlovers]

19 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. 

Exactly. If Obama was serious, he would have made it a condition of the loan that not one new brick would be laid on Palestinian land, and that is ALL the West Bank. I guess it would be a step too far to expect him to insist the Israelis vacate Palestinian land.

If he had any guts, he'd lead a flotilla of US navy ships to break the illegal siege on Gaza, but I'm not holding my breath.

Edited October 7, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[Xircal]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There is Arab World, in the sense that it has a united purpose and well specified goals. Egypt and Jordan are Arab nations, yet both have long lasting peace agreements with Israel.

 

The Palestinian rockets fired on Israel is a Gaza Strip thing, none from the West Bank. One is ruled by Hamas, the other governed by the PA (essentially Fatah). The only Israeli illegal settlements are in the West Bank, though. As for "street attacks", not daily and most are being carried out in the West Bank, not within Israel proper. While Palestinian violence certainly does not contribute to resolving the conflict, things are not as clear cut as presented above.

 

 

 

Jordan is indeed a country with a democratic government which has a peace agreement with Israel. That's a good point.

 

Egypt while not technically at war with Israel has an appalling record of human rights abuses which aren't just confined to their own people as the death of Giulio Regeni clearly illustrates.

 

As regards attacks on Israeli citizens going about their daily business does it really matter where they happen to be located? If the Palestinians want peace with Israel they should cease their hostile actions against its citizens.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

The Palestinians should welcome all these settlements in the West bank, as if there ever is a settlement of the seemingly never-ending conflict, they will own them.  

Edited October 7, 2016 by Retiredandhappyhere
Sorry but I forgot the emoticon.

[johnnywishbone]

Israeli citizenry consists of both Jews and Muslims.
I will neither judge condemn or applaud anything Israel does.
I've never been there.
Never fought or lived there.
Try to keep my predjuduced opinions to myself.
Try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

Jordan is indeed a country with a democratic government which has a peace agreement with Israel. That's a good point.

 

Egypt while not technically at war with Israel has an appalling record of human rights abuses which aren't just confined to their own people as the death of Giulio Regeni clearly illustrates.

 

As regards attacks on Israeli citizens going about their daily business does it really matter where they happen to be located? If the Palestinians want peace with Israel they should cease their hostile actions against its citizens.

 

Jordan is hardly a paragon of democracy and human rights. Not as bad as some ME countries, though. Not sure I get the reference to Egypt as being "not technically at war" with Israel. There's a peace agreement in place, which withstood both the sustained unpopularity with the masses and the brief term of Morsi's term in office.

 

These two examples were intended as demonstrating the absence of a supposed unified policy regarding Israel, as far as the Arab World is concerned.

 

Stressing this again, Palestinian violence is not contributing anything to the conflict's resolution, and in many ways acts as a setback. That said, if most "street attacks" are directed at illegal settlers and security forces on the West Bank, it does raise a question of the role the illegal settlements play in prolonging the conflict. To apply a mirror image, the Palestinians face a daily dose of being under military occupation, with all that this entails. The violence is hardly as one sided as some imagine.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Exactly. If Obama was serious, he would have made it a condition of the loan that not one new brick would be laid on Palestinian land, and that is ALL the West Bank. I guess it would be a step too far to expect him to insist the Israelis vacate Palestinian land.

If he had any guts, he'd lead a flotilla of US navy ships to break the illegal siege on Gaza, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Some posters seem to think that the US foreign policy ought to act as an extension of their own views. The bill mentioned is not a "loan", and it's newest version does better represent US interests. Another thing some posters seem to have trouble grasping is that the US president does not posses unlimited powers and authority with regard to dictating certain actions (such as suggested above).

 

 

[Saladin]

Nobody has addressed my fundamental question. How can we take US concern regarding internationally illegal settlements seriously when only two weeks ago they gave Israel $30 billion in military aid? Methinks they speak with a forked tongue.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Saladin said:

Nobody has addressed my fundamental question. How can we take US concern regarding internationally illegal settlements seriously when only two weeks ago they gave Israel $30 billion in military aid? Methinks they speak with a forked tongue.

 

[notmyself]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

One track mind at work....

 

 

This reminds me of something I was told many years ago. Imagine you are sitting on a piece of hot metal and it is burning your bottom. You have a choice of either standing up or taking pain killers... One addresses the symptoms while the other the cause. I could write a diatribe but it would be off topic.

 

There is still the issue of what is the reason for the illegal settlements. To suggest it is for defence is insulting to any thinking person as the area could be turned into a no-man's-land with close to no international objection. They could landmine the entire area and the U.S. would give them a voucher to pay for the job no doubt. The U.S. pays lip service in that they condemn but history shows they are unwilling to actually do anything about it. Why is that? I would avoid an answer which is based on some way out conspiracy theory.

[Jingthing]

Nobody has addressed my fundamental question. How can we take US concern regarding internationally illegal settlements seriously when only two weeks ago they gave Israel $30 billion in military aid? Methinks they speak with a forked tongue.

You can take it that settlement policy wasn't part of the conditions. Write your congresswoman for next time.

[Morch]

The New York Times editorial piece:

 

At the Boiling Point With Israel

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/opinion/a-way-to-keep-the-2-state-option-alive.html

 

The gist is in the closing paragraph, calling on Obama to promote a UNSC sponsored move. Considering how the current administration used the media to prepare the ground for some actions, got to wonder if this reflects its actual intentions.

 

The UNSC is scheduled to hold a non-formal meeting next week, which will deal with Israeli illegal settlements in the West Bank. While there will be no voting or resolutions, it could set the tone for the of the formal UNSC ME session at the end of the the month.

[notmyself]

31 minutes ago, Morch said:

The bill mentioned is not a "loan", and it's newest version does better represent US interests. Another thing some posters seem to have trouble grasping is that the US president does not posses unlimited powers and authority with regard to dictating certain actions (such as suggested above).

 

 

Obama must have some clout because the Republicans were up in arms as they felt it was too low. But this is about the U.S. and not the President in any case.

 

I fully agree that it was not a loan but rather a Wal-Mart type voucher that can only be redeemed with U.S. companies. Even the most myopic would feel happy to say they are not going to spend it on Twinkies.

 

[Xircal]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Jordan is hardly a paragon of democracy and human rights. Not as bad as some ME countries, though. Not sure I get the reference to Egypt as being "not technically at war" with Israel. There's a peace agreement in place, which withstood both the sustained unpopularity with the masses and the brief term of Morsi's term in office.

 

These two examples were intended as demonstrating the absence of a supposed unified policy regarding Israel, as far as the Arab World is concerned.

 

Stressing this again, Palestinian violence is not contributing anything to the conflict's resolution, and in many ways acts as a setback. That said, if most "street attacks" are directed at illegal settlers and security forces on the West Bank, it does raise a question of the role the illegal settlements play in prolonging the conflict. To apply a mirror image, the Palestinians face a daily dose of being under military occupation, with all that this entails. The violence is hardly as one sided as some imagine.

 

It's true what you mentioned about Egypt and Israel not being at war. Having lost on two previous occasions during the '67 War of Attrition and the '73 Yom Kippur War Egypt finally decided that peace was a better path to take and Anwar Sadat signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979. It was a bold step to take and ultimately cost Sadat his life unfortunately.

 

Egypt is now pressing Israel to resolve their differences with the Palestinians which is a bridge too far in my opinion. The Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their own holy Islamic capital and there lies the stumbling block because no way will Israel relent on that issue. It already handed back the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians withdrawing its forces and demolishing the settlements in 2005. But do we see any gratitude from the Palestinians for that concession? I don't need to answer that one I think. 

 

And now Russia looks like it might try to poke its nose in the affair with Putin stating that he will fight for the right of Palestinians for their own State. Judging by Russia's actions in Syria it won't be pretty if they take up the banner against Israel and would very likely bring Russia into direct conflict with the US which fully supports Israel.

 

The Middle East is going to remain a tinderbox for decades to come I fear.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Xircal

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

This reminds me of something I was told many years ago. Imagine you are sitting on a piece of hot metal and it is burning your bottom. You have a choice of either standing up or taking pain killers... One addresses the symptoms while the other the cause. I could write a diatribe but it would be off topic.

 

There is still the issue of what is the reason for the illegal settlements. To suggest it is for defence is insulting to any thinking person as the area could be turned into a no-man's-land with close to no international objection. They could landmine the entire area and the U.S. would give them a voucher to pay for the job no doubt. The U.S. pays lip service in that they condemn but history shows they are unwilling to actually do anything about it. Why is that? I would avoid an answer which is based on some way out conspiracy theory.

 

My comment applied to the over-simplified reasoning apparent in your posts. Most people reducing such conflicts to singular causes are rarely familiar with relevant details, history and culture.

 

Not sure which reference to the illegal settlements being "defensive" is alluded to. IMO, they are actually a hindrance from a security point of view. Claiming their contribution to security ought to be considered in the context of the Israeli national ethos. Before 1948, and during its early years, various settlements were also serving security interests by virtue of location and presence. Equating the illegal settlement effort in the West Bank with settlements created during Israel's formative era is something often practiced by right wing politicians and the illegal settlers themselves. I doubt that the IDF would have much trouble controlling the West Bank while relying on army bases and outposts, rather than civilian settlements (which require further protection and increase friction with the Palestinians).

 

The alternative proposed in the post above are not applicable. The US will definitely NOT support mass land-mining of the West Bank (there are also certain international treaties on that), nor would it be realistic considering the terrain and distribution of Palestinian settlements.

 

As posted earlier (and on previous topics), the driving force of the illegal settlement effort lies with a mixture of nationalistic, religious and messianic motives. At least in its early days, the Israeli leadership which assisted (or turned a blind eye) was pretty much following the equation mentioned above - upholding the settlement legacy which featured in Israel's creation. Israel's general shift to the right and religiosity is a wider process, with its own host of causes and factors.

 

The US is not invested, as some posters are, in the Palestinian cause.

 

 

[notmyself]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

The New York Times editorial piece:

 

At the Boiling Point With Israel

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/opinion/a-way-to-keep-the-2-state-option-alive.html

 

The gist is in the closing paragraph, calling on Obama to promote a UNSC sponsored move. Considering how the current administration used the media to prepare the ground for some actions, got to wonder if this reflects its actual intentions.

 

The UNSC is scheduled to hold a non-formal meeting next week, which will deal with Israeli illegal settlements in the West Bank. While there will be no voting or resolutions, it could set the tone for the of the formal UNSC ME session at the end of the the month.

 

Ring-a-ring o' roses

A pocket full of posies

A platitude. A platitude

We all fall down

 

Why would the U.S. do a 180?

 

 

[notmyself]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

The US is not invested, as some posters are, in the Palestinian cause.

 

 

 

Should that read 'interested'?

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

It's true what you mentioned about Egypt and Israel not being at war. Having lost on two previous occasions during the '67 War of Attrition and the '73 Yom Kippur War Egypt finally decided that peace was a better path to take and Anwar Sadat signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979. It was a bold step to take and ultimately cost Sadat his life unfortunately.

 

Egypt is now pressing Israel to resolve their differences with the Palestinians which is a bridge too far in my opinion. The Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their own holy Islamic capital and there lies the stumbling block because no way will Israel relent on that issue. It already handed back the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians withdrawing its forces and demolishing the settlements in 2005. But do we see any gratitude from the Palestinians for that concession? I don't need to answer that one I think. 

 

And now Russia looks like it might try to poke its nose in the affair with Putin stating that he will fight for the right of Palestinians for their own State. Judging by Russia's actions in Syria it won't be pretty if they take up the banner against Israel and would very likely bring Russia into direct conflict with the US which fully supports Israel.

 

The Middle East is going to remain a tinderbox for decades to come I fear.

 

 

 

Egypt and Israel are not "not being at war". There is a peace agreement in place, and it's been in place for over 30 years now. Egypt was always "pressing" Israel to sort things out with the Palestinians, nothing new there. Egypt is actually one of the most efficient brokers whenever the Israelis and the Palestinians have trouble dealing with each other. Might be well to remember that the same Egypt maintains its own version of a "siege" on the Gaza Strip - not conditional on anything Israel does.

 

The Palestinian official position is that they wish for East Jerusalem to serve as their future capital, not the whole of Jerusalem. Surely not very popular with Israelis, but not all that unthinkable to anyone familiar with the actual state of things at the city nowadays. Israel did not "hand back" the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, but rather withdrew unilaterally. As there was no agreement or even consultation with the Palestinians, "concession" is not quite an applicable term.

 

Putin is seeking a more prominent role for Russia in ME affairs. Nothing new there. Nothing new also about Russian policy with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If anything, the current Israeli government got closer ties with Moscow than ever before. Russia is not about to open a front with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

 

But this topic is about the US position with regard to the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and we're kinda drifting away.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Morch

[notmyself]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

My comment applied to the over-simplified reasoning apparent in your posts. Most people reducing such conflicts to singular causes are rarely familiar with relevant details, history and culture.

 

The alternative proposed in the post above are not applicable. The US will definitely NOT support mass land-mining of the West Bank (there are also certain international treaties on that), nor would it be realistic considering the terrain and distribution of Palestinian settlements.

 

As posted earlier (and on previous topics), the driving force of the illegal settlement effort lies with a mixture of nationalistic, religious and messianic motives. At least in its early days, the Israeli leadership which assisted (or turned a blind eye) was pretty much following the equation mentioned above - upholding the settlement legacy which featured in Israel's creation. Israel's general shift to the right and religiosity is a wider process, with its own host of causes and factors.

 

 

There are also international rules on building settlements.

 

We seem to agree on why Israel has pursued the settlements (the Amalekites tell you everything about that) but why does the U.S. actively work against doing anything about it?

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

Ring-a-ring o' roses

A pocket full of posies

A platitude. A platitude

We all fall down

 

Why would the U.S. do a 180?

 

 

 

I don't see anything resembling a 180 turn. The US is not about to denounce Israel, cut all ties, impose sanctions and deploy forces.

 

What is on the table is a possible deviation from the standard practice of blocking one-sided anti-Israeli motions by using the US veto right. Alternatively, the US could also vote in favor of a resolution, propose (or support) an actual framework for negotiations or to 

 

Then again, possibly nothing out of the ordinary will happen.

 

As to why? Because Israel, especially under the current government is not playing nice, and over-steps the US comfort zone in supporting Israel internationally.

[notmyself]

We seem to agree on why Israel has pursued the settlements (the Amalekites tell you everything about that) but why does the U.S. actively work against doing anything about it?

 

[edit]

 

Why do they try to project that they object when they obviously don't?

[notmyself]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't see anything resembling a 180 turn.

 

From actively blocking to actively working for something is a 180

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

 

 

[edit]

 

Why do they try to project that they object when they obviously don't?

 

Begging the question much?

 

The US current position with regard to the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank is something which evolved over time. To begin with it was not a major issue, and by the time it was, the US had a policy in place regarding support for Israel (linked earlier in the topic). IMO, what we see now is a gradual shift to a more balanced position, which will  maintain overall support of Israel, while addressing those parts of Israeli policies previously shielded by default.

 

While in diplomatic terms, this is quite heavy weight, I do appreciate that some posters see it as falling short of their fantasies of direct action and intervention.

[notmyself]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

The US current position with regard to the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank is something which evolved over time.

 

Drivel (babble). It was the U.S. that created the state of Israel and you have to ask yourself why.

 

You create something that should not exist and then complain when it all goes tits up. What kind of convoluted BS is this? Israel has no claim to its 'own land' any more than any other which is why they have spent so much money looking for the 'title deeds' and found nothing. Bibi already told the world why but the U.S. just ignored it. Why?

[Ulysses G.]

24 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

Drivel (babble). It was the U.S. that created the state of Israel and you have to ask yourself why.

 

 

 

 

Again. You need to read some history. The US did not "create" Israel and - in fact - did not give them a great deal of help until they won the 1967 war so decisively.  In fact, on December 5, 1947, the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on the region - they refused to sell arms to Israel. In the beginning years, the USSR helped Israel a lot, including selling them arms through Czechoslovakia.

[Steely Dan]

The New York Times editorial piece:
 
At the Boiling Point With Israel
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/opinion/a-way-to-keep-the-2-state-option-alive.html
 
The gist is in the closing paragraph, calling on Obama to promote a UNSC sponsored move. Considering how the current administration used the media to prepare the ground for some actions, got to wonder if this reflects its actual intentions.
 
The UNSC is scheduled to hold a non-formal meeting next week, which will deal with Israeli illegal settlements in the West Bank. While there will be no voting or resolutions, it could set the tone for the of the formal UNSC ME session at the end of the the month.

This is why the US made such a meal out of the Israeli government announcement, they are IMHO planning to not exercise their veto on a UNSC resolution so the ground work needs to be put in to paint Israel as the bad guy. I previously mentioned EU funding of illegal Palestinian settlements because as one of the so called quartet they are as much part of the process as the U.S. So we have the bizarre situation of one of the referees attempting to change facts on the ground whilst another is shouting at Israel for doing the same.

Meanwhile The NY Times you mentioned does a two page spread whining about Amona yet not a dickybird about 55 people killed in Syria yesterday including 16 children. Yes this is a concocted shit storm and no mistake.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

It's true what you mentioned about Egypt and Israel not being at war. Having lost on two previous occasions during the '67 War of Attrition and the '73 Yom Kippur War Egypt finally decided that peace was a better path to take and Anwar Sadat signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979. It was a bold step to take and ultimately cost Sadat his life unfortunately.

 

Egypt is now pressing Israel to resolve their differences with the Palestinians which is a bridge too far in my opinion. The Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their own holy Islamic capital and there lies the stumbling block because no way will Israel relent on that issue. It already handed back the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians withdrawing its forces and demolishing the settlements in 2005. But do we see any gratitude from the Palestinians for that concession? I don't need to answer that one I think. 

 

And now Russia looks like it might try to poke its nose in the affair with Putin stating that he will fight for the right of Palestinians for their own State. Judging by Russia's actions in Syria it won't be pretty if they take up the banner against Israel and would very likely bring Russia into direct conflict with the US which fully supports Israel.

 

The Middle East is going to remain a tinderbox for decades to come I fear.

 

 

But do we see any gratitude from the Palestinians for that concession?

Why would they be grateful? The Israelis left because the price in blood was too high to remain, and they destroyed everything before they left.

To say the Palestinians should be grateful is like saying you should be grateful to him if a man that occupied your house left because the police made him. They were there illegally in the first place.

 

Personally, I'd like to see Russia break the Gaza blockade for a start, though it would be more difficult to open up the West Bank.

If Clinton is elected, they probably think they can do what they like, as they know her well. Trump is more forceful on supporting Israel though.