Israel’s PM slams US Secretary of State’s speech

[Credo]

US support for Israel will remain intact.   US support for some of Israel's policies will not and in the case of the expanding settlements, they need to reigned in.   It stokes for the fires and for no good reason.   

 

As far as discontinuing aid to Israel and alliances with Israel it would be a major problem.   I would much rather see the US and Israel on reasonable terms.   I would not want to have Israel as an enemy.   

 

Overall, US policy tends to support democracies where possible.   Israel, for all its faults, is a democracy and support is in everyone's best interest.   

 

Getting mixed up with the various alliances within the Palestinian sector would be a mistake.  If there is one lesson to be learned it is that Western pressure, both diplomatic and militarily  have not been productive with the Arab world and this is complicated by the fact that the Palestinians are basically pawns in the Arab world.   

[retarius]

Finally when it is all over Kerry makes his position clear. 

[Grouse]

Seems to me that the actual history is being distorted. May I ask if there is a NEUTRAL history that is respected by both sides? I'm pretty clear on the last 100 years but what about ancient history. Israel? Judah? Lost tribes? Are the Jews a subset of Israelites? Mount Zion is in Georgia? Please can some wise person recommend a suitable history ( not some anti Palestinian polemic). Thanks.

[Grouse]

Seems to me that the actual history is being distorted. May I ask if there is a NEUTRAL history that is respected by both sides? I'm pretty clear on the last 100 years but what about ancient history. Israel? Judah? Lost tribes? Are the Jews a subset of Israelites? Mount Zion is in Georgia? Please can some wise person recommend a suitable history ( not some anti Palestinian polemic). Thanks.

[craigt3365]

31 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Seems to me that the actual history is being distorted. May I ask if there is a NEUTRAL history that is respected by both sides? I'm pretty clear on the last 100 years but what about ancient history. Israel? Judah? Lost tribes? Are the Jews a subset of Israelites? Mount Zion is in Georgia? Please can some wise person recommend a suitable history ( not some anti Palestinian polemic). Thanks.

Hear, Hear!

[Grouse]

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

 

This is a good read!

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

 

This is a good read!

Unless you are an Israeli supporter that only looks at one side of the story????  Like you, I'd love to see a middle of the road analysis of this mess.

[simple1]

19 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Seems to me that the actual history is being distorted. May I ask if there is a NEUTRAL history that is respected by both sides? I'm pretty clear on the last 100 years but what about ancient history. Israel? Judah? Lost tribes? Are the Jews a subset of Israelites? Mount Zion is in Georgia? Please can some wise person recommend a suitable history ( not some anti Palestinian polemic). Thanks.

 

Perhaps really wishful thinking for a non biased history, maybe 'Morch' can point you in the right direction

 

In the meantime from previous readings believe the Israelite's forcefully took over and destroyed the Canaanites in the region now known as Israel and the surrounding area.. Likely someone will want to dispute, but a starting point.

 

"You shall destroy all the peoples that the LORD your God delivers to you, showing them no pity....The LORD your God will DISLODGE those peoples before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them at once, else the wild beasts would multiply to your hurt. The LORD your God will deliver them up to you, throwing them into utter panic until they are wiped out. He will deliver their kings into your hand, and you shall obliterate their name from under the heavens..." (Deuteronomy 7: 1-2, 5, 16, 22-24. Tanakh).

 

A link from a Jewish site that may be of interest; click through the tabs e.g. the Twelve Tribes.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Kingdoms1.html

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

What about the stats and the graphs.  Are they inaccurate?

 

As far as the Liberty, there seems to be 2 sides to this.  Not all agree it was a mistake.

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

 

So, I don't see how their positioning on this makes the info they present as incorrect.  Biased?  Probably. Just like the links you give.  Biased.

 

 

Because they did not present any evidence that there was another side to it. They act like it does not exist. CREDIBLE history websites at least mention both sides of the controversy. That is typical of the website, because it is really propaganda.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html

[Ulysses G.]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Unless you are an Israeli supporter that only looks at one side of the story????  Like you, I'd love to see a middle of the road analysis of this mess.

 

Maybe, but you just posted a link that is anything but.

[Ulysses G.]

40 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Seems to me that the actual history is being distorted. May I ask if there is a NEUTRAL history that is respected by both sides?

 

 

Probably not. However, some of the real Israel haters link to this one constantly. It is supportive of Israel, but more balanced than most and gives both sides of the story.

Morch strides both side's views, but I am not sure what he thinks about the Jewish Virtual Library.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Because they did not present any evidence that there was another side to it. They act like it does not exist. CREDIBLE history websites at least mention both sides of the controversy. That is typical of the website, because it is really propaganda.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html

History aside, which is easily biased, what about the stats?  Are they inaccurate?  From what I've researched, they seem to be accurate.

http://ifamericansknew.org/

 

As far as blasting Kerry's speech, that's out of order.  Even HRW agrees.  Pretty damning info here.  Look at those numbers!  I have to say, I'm shocked.

 

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/israel/palestine

Quote

 

Israel continued in 2015 to enforce severe and discriminatory restrictions on Palestinians’ human rights, and to build unlawful settlements in and facilitate the transfer of Israeli civilians to the occupied West Bank. Israeli authorities also arbitrarily detained peaceful Palestinian demonstrators, including children.

 

There was a sharp rise in killings and injuries related to Israeli-Palestinian hostilities beginning in October. Overall, Palestinians killed at least 17 Israeli civilians and 3 Israeli soldiers, and injured 87 Israeli civilians and 80 security officers in the West Bank and Israel as of November 27. Israeli security forces killed at least 120 and injured at least 11,953 Palestinian civilians in West Bank, Gaza, and Israel as of the same date, including bystanders, protesters, and suspected assailants.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28439404

 

Look at the stats here.  WAY more Palestines killed than Israelis.  NO comparison.  Not sure how you can stand by your facts.  You're fighting a losing battle....

[Grouse]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Probably not. However, some of the real Israel haters link to this one constantly. It is supportive of Israel, but more balanced than most and gives both sides of the story.

Morch strides both side's views, but I am not sure what he thinks about the Jewish Virtual Library.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html

 

Thank you one and all.

 

I shall pour a glass and start reading.....

 

And then deliver my verdict ?

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

 

 

Look at the stats here.  WAY more Palestines killed than Israelis.  NO comparison.  Not sure how you can stand by your facts.  You're fighting a losing battle....

 

Actually, you are. As mentioned before, the West has killed many more ISIS, than they have killed us, but that does not make ISIS right. What a silly argument.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Actually, you are. As mentioned before, the West has killed many more ISIS, than they have killed us, but that does not make ISIS right. What a silly argument.

Off topic...and you know it....

[gk10002000]

  I am not sure Israel should be arguing too much publicly or slamming their allies.  Israel is in a tough spot.  But what would you expect when you force the creation of a nation right in the middle of surrounding arab states?  I do not mean to support nor attack the formation of the country.  I am just saying that it is probably an untenable situation and the worst is yet to come.  Several Arab nations have tried a few times to get rid of Israel in the past.  I just don't see any peaceful resolution or agreement on borders happening.  Peace would be nice, but extremists and population issues will probably assure that peace won't happen.

[gamini]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

 

News flesh... Palestine will NOT be come to be, and the Palestinians WILL NOT have their own country one minute before Israel will decide on it and when Israel will feel that they're absolutely safe in allowing them to have a country, Not Kerry, not Obama, Not anybody will decide for Israel how to protect itself...

So let all the talking heads talk and hate and preach to Israel what to do, It will not matter....

There is no hate for Israel. It's hate for the zionist facist government and thier treatment of the Palistinians. I have many Jewish friends and they deplore the government in Israel and are embarrassed by their actions.  Your support and consistent posts for the Zionists shows that it's you that has all the hate and racism  against the Palestinians. You call their freedom fighters terrorists, we call them heroes.

[gk10002000]

30 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Hear, Hear!

 

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Seems to me that the actual history is being distorted. May I ask if there is a NEUTRAL history that is respected by both sides? I'm pretty clear on the last 100 years but what about ancient history. Israel? Judah? Lost tribes? Are the Jews a subset of Israelites? Mount Zion is in Georgia? Please can some wise person recommend a suitable history ( not some anti Palestinian polemic). Thanks.

I suggest that the wiki pedia site on Israel is pretty good.  I am not a middle eastern scholar nor theologian by any means.  My heritage is Greek.  But back in the 70s my grandmother here in the States was some sort of honorary high level bishop in the Greek Orthodox church and took my eldest sister and cousin on a tour of the holy lands.  Church of the holy Sepulchar etc.  So over the years I do some reading.  Then I was in the USAF and studied some military things, the 7 day war, etc.    Israel's response to some terrorists attacks in the past was interesting.  Since you can't punish the suicidal terrorist that died, isreal would find out who his family was and go bulldoze that house in Palestine or wherever it was.  Arguably crude but in some cases it got the message across.  Frankly, the 1947 UN mandate to create the country of Israel is fascinating, even though it did not firmly establish borders as the India Split to Pakistans did.   But history aside, just creating borders.  interesting regardless of the historical claims.

[craigt3365]

30 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Thank you one and all.

 

I shall pour a glass and start reading.....

 

And then deliver my verdict ?

I researched that a bit.  It's kinda like listening to the Voice of America radio station to get an unbiased opinion on the Ukraine crisis. LOL

 

As mentioned above, Wikipedia might be a better source.  Less biased.  Some interesting discussions about the bias of the JVL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJewish_Virtual_Library

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict

 

[geriatrickid]

5 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

Israel has 'peace'.  when was the last time a single israeli was killed by a palestinian militant?   few and  far between.. and when it does happen it is from a lone wolf frustrated palestinian, not part of a broader militant group that orders such attacks.. the attacks that have taken place are with kitchen knives! this is despite the fact that 4 million palestinians are hemmed into disconected bantustans that together comprise less than 10% of the overall territory - israel/palestine.  So israelis have freedom of movement in that entire area, appox 90% continuous and palestinians can hardly leave the small mostly run down built up area's that they are walled into.  It's peace and apartheid and NO sanctions + 40 billions $s in foreign aid, and yet the israelis still bitch endlessly because they think the world is here to serve them, they rule the USA-dictating that it fight wars like Iraq and we have to give them money all the time, AND they don't want any back-talk; we must follow their orders with a smile on our face while we serve them.

 

The separation barrier that Israel erected   along the west bank  was instrumental in reducing the attacks on Israelis. Also, a more interventionist policy in terms of striking   border infiltrators and rocket launchers in Gaza  helped.  The wall is  the greatest contribution to keeping the peace.

 

 

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Perhaps defusing the situation would help them to get rid of the extremists?

 Cute. The extremists would still be there. Sunnis killing Shiite, Shiite   killing everyone else. Iran seeking to expand its dominance  in the Gulf, Turkey seeking to re-establish its empire and Egypt seeking to  once again dominate the region. Toss in the Russians, looking to  expand and one has continuing turmoil.

 

Guess who is funding it all. Go on.  Why, it's the hypocritical Europeans seeking out their cheap oil. Add in the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Koreans and Thais all willing to pay  anyone for cheap oil and not caring if it comes ISIL. The Turkish and Iranian intermediaries  are more than happy to help out.  SO yes, it is convenient to blame Israel, but the reality is that  there are a lot of dirty hands implicated.

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

 

This is a good read!

Al-Nakba very good documentary series, with some excellent footage and eye witness accounts from both sides in later episodes.

 

4 episodes available on Youtube

Part 1 here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7FML0wzJ6A
 

Edited December 29, 2016 by dexterm

[KenKadz]

Why is noone asking about the vote?

The vote was not a unilateral decision by the U.S.A.

 

1. UN Security Council votes 14-0 to condemn Israeli ...

   CBS News5 days ago

   Dec 23, 2016 · UN Israel Vote. Saturday Trump take on foreign ... The UN Security Council passed a resolution 14-0 condemning the construction of Israeli settlements in ...

[Kiwiken]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You are suggesting the US give military aid to Islamic extremists? We help Israel militarily because they help us with intelligence and with technology and are on our side.

I am sure any of the surviving members of the USS Liberty love israel. 

[Grouse]

I can see this is going to take SEVERAL bottles ( Famous Grouse of course!)

[Cook my sock]

 

Sad, but Palestinians did the same thing to Jews in numerous cases.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, just talking about these particular people not Jews in general... settlers I guess. Thought it was very depressing to see livelihoods and personal space unrightfully being taken away, let alone destroying ancient trees

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 

The separation barrier that Israel erected   along the west bank  was instrumental in reducing the attacks on Israelis. Also, a more interventionist policy in terms of striking   border infiltrators and rocket launchers in Gaza  helped.  The wall is  the greatest contribution to keeping the peace.

 

 

 Cute. The extremists would still be there. Sunnis killing Shiite, Shiite   killing everyone else. Iran seeking to expand its dominance  in the Gulf, Turkey seeking to re-establish its empire and Egypt seeking to  once again dominate the region. Toss in the Russians, looking to  expand and one has continuing turmoil.

 

Guess who is funding it all. Go on.  Why, it's the hypocritical Europeans seeking out their cheap oil. Add in the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Koreans and Thais all willing to pay  anyone for cheap oil and not caring if it comes ISIL. The Turkish and Iranian intermediaries  are more than happy to help out.  SO yes, it is convenient to blame Israel, but the reality is that  there are a lot of dirty hands implicated.

 

There are extremists in every country in the world.  Israel is no exception.  Plenty of them there.  And plenty of "dirty" hands to go around.

 

But yes, it's a religious mess, that's perhaps not 100% about religion.  An interesting read:

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/4/10708682/sunni-shia-iran-saudi-arabia-war

 

Quote

 

The cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran that's tearing apart the Middle East, explained

The supposedly ancient Sunni-Shia divide is in fact very modern — and it's not really about religion.

 

 

[Trouble]

13 hours ago, ezzra said:

 

News flesh... Palestine will NOT be come to be, and the Palestinians WILL NOT have their own country one minute before Israel will decide on it and when Israel will feel that they're absolutely safe in allowing them to have a country, Not Kerry, not Obama, Not anybody will decide for Israel how to protect itself...

So let all the talking heads talk and hate and preach to Israel what to do, It will not matter....

That may well be the case, but I would bet that after the Security Council vote we will see more countries start to back off from Israel as they will just become worn out from the intransigence of Israel. Palestine does not need a Security Council vote to make it a country. There are over 150 nations that recognize Palestine as a state. Palestinians might not have complete sovereignty over their state, but that does not keep it from being a state just because Israel occupies by force. Further, keep in mind that even within Israel there are two different camps. Unfortunately at the moment those pushing for settlements are winning the fight.  I'm not a big fan of Kerry but he sure did nail the situation very clearly in my mind. The continued building of settlements is nothing more than a land grab, hindering true progress in negotiating  a peace agreement. 

[Morch]

18 hours ago, dexterm said:

Kerry's speech was absolutely spot on.

 

With Netanyahu as engineer, Trump as fireman, and Kerry in the caboose (trying belatedly to apply brakes) out of control right wing dominated Israel is heading for a one state solution.

 

And as Kerry said in his speech:
"So the settler agenda is defining the future in Israel. And their stated purpose is clear: They believe in one state: greater Israel. In fact, one prominent minister who heads a pro-settler party declared just after the U.S. election that “the era of the two state solution is over,” and many other coalition ministers publicly reject a Palestinian state. " http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761881

 

And more to the point the elephant in the room question that no-one seems willing to address, but which Trump will very soon have to tackle, creating his first self inflicted headache. What to do with 2.8 million Palestinians that a one state solution would immediately encompass? And another 3 to 7 million in the diaspora?

 

"But here is a fundamental reality: If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic - it cannot be both - and it won't ever really be at peace."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/israel-palestine-peace-solution-jeopardy-161228164553383.html

 

If Netanyahu thought the Palestinian issue had been put on the back burner, Kerry and Trump are certainly highlighting the fact that the Palestinian conflict has not gone away.

 

Trump, like a bull in a china shop will ensure it remains a focus of world attention.

 

So you're co-opting Kerry now too? Funny how he wasn't such a great guy when his words didn't quite suit your views. And as per script, not a word in your post about the Palestinians, even though they were mentioned, and not necessarily in a positive tone, in Kerry's speech. In your world, it is all about Israel (cue the usual slogan response, I guess).

 

Peace is a two way street, and it is not that the Palestinians are ready and willing. Far from it. Ignoring this is just another dishonest way to address the issues.

 

There is no denying the obvious dilemmas right wing policies spell for Israel. And it doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of rational thinking involved among the more extremist of the lot, but that's to be expected from zealots.

 

In realistic terms, it is somewhat doubtful that things on the international arena will dramatically change anytime soon, as certain posters seem to fantasize. For one thing, like it or not (I don't) Trump is going to be the next US president, and he's not on board any of this. So no effective sanctions and no UNSC resolutions for the next few years. Europe is going through a phase seeing rise of right wing parties (even without them winning elections all over) - a good example will be France (hosting and promoting the upcoming peace conference). The EU may not crumble, but lost quite a bit of pull and cohesion of purpose, it seems. Russia and the PRC aren't usually into sanctions, doubt that will change.

 

The more relevant changes will be those related directly to both Israel and the Palestinians. In Israel,  encouraged by Trump's supposed support, the extreme elements of right wing politics might gain strength. That's bad news - both for Israel and the Palestinians. A full blown annexation is still not in the cards in terms of public support, even among right wing voters. But other, more limited steps which could still make matters worse are a likely possibility. How far will this go, and how far it will push the Palestinians is anyone's guess. I expect that if Netanyahu rides this wave, he will concentrate efforts in further crippling opposition and media, before anything else.

 

On the Palestinian side, thing could get messier. Abbas isn't popular and these are his swan song days, one way or another. As if the ongoing Fatah-Hamas split isn't enough (and isn't going anywhere), there are now rifts between supporters of various would-be Abbas successors, that could get out of hand. Until the Palestinian sort their own house, it would be almost impossible to imagine any from of meaningful negotiations, even if the Israeli government was interested. One worry is that either through "succession wars" or through the inertia of the conflict remaining unresolved, the Palestinians will be further torn apart by even more internal strife. This ain't good for no one, not even the Israelis.

[Morch]

16 hours ago, ezzra said:

 

News flesh... Palestine will NOT be come to be, and the Palestinians WILL NOT have their own country one minute before Israel will decide on it and when Israel will feel that they're absolutely safe in allowing them to have a country, Not Kerry, not Obama, Not anybody will decide for Israel how to protect itself...

So let all the talking heads talk and hate and preach to Israel what to do, It will not matter....

 

And on the other hand, Israel will never be absolutely safe as long as it doesn't have peace with the Palestinians. As for the rest of the bold words - there were more than one cases where foreign powers (mostly the US) dictated Israeli military actions, diplomatic issues and other matters relating to Israel's security. Bluster is all very nice, but useful to have some knowledge of history.

[Morch]

16 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

This has nothing to do with ISIS.  Stick to the topic.

 

Somehow don't see the same enthusiasm for sticking to topic when it comes to comparing Israel to any "evil" country and regime, present or past. Or when discussing the merits of various sources, unrelated past incidents, or ancient history. Seems like anything goes but the OP.

 

As for the supposedly off topic point raised. If it makes it easier, replace it with A and B. The damage inflicted by A on B is not necessarily a measure of B's righteousness or of A's vileness.