Israeli cabinet approves first West Bank settlement in 20 years

[webfact]

Israeli cabinet approves first West Bank settlement in 20 years

By Maayan Lubell

REUTERS

 

FILE PHOTO: A man helps direct the removal of a pre-fabricated home in the recently evicted illegal Israeli settler outpost of Amona, in the occupied West Bank February 6, 2017. REUTERS/Baz Ratner/File Photo

 

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel's security cabinet on Thursday approved the building of the first new settlement in the occupied West Bank in two decades, even as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu negotiates with Washington on a possible curb on settlement activity.

 

The unanimous vote in favour of construction of the new settlement in an area called Emek Shilo came after Netanyahu earlier told reporters: "I made a promise that we would establish a new settlement ... We will keep it today."

 

The result of the vote was announced in a government statement.

 

Palestinian officials swiftly condemned the move.

 

"Today's announcement once again proves that Israel is more committed to appeasing its illegal settler population than to abiding by the requirements for stability and a just peace," said Hanan Ashrawi, an executive committee member of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

 

There was no immediate reaction from U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, which is in discussions with Israel on limiting the construction of settlements on land Palestinians seek for a state.

 

Such settlements, in territory that Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war, are deemed illegal by most of the world. Israel cites biblical, historical and political links to the land, as well as security interests, to defend its actions.

 

Netanyahu first promised the new settlement at Emek Shilo in February, shortly before dozens of Israeli families were evicted from another West Bank settlement called Amona. Their houses were razed after Israel's Supreme Court said they were built illegally on privately owned Palestinian land.

 

Establishing a new settlement may be a way for Netanyahu to appease far-right members of his coalition government who are likely to object to any concessions to U.S. demands for restraints on building.

 

Israeli political sources, however, said the new construction would actually take place within the boundaries of an existing settlement. The new community would then be declared its own settlement, a nuance that might be enough to stave off possible U.S. opposition to the move.

 

Trump, who had been widely seen in Israel as sympathetic towards settlements, appeared to surprise Netanyahu during a White House visit last month when he urged him to "hold back on settlements for a little bit".

 

The two then agreed that their aides would try to work out a compromise on how much Israel can build and where.

 

Trump's Middle East envoy, Jason Greenblatt, this week wrapped up a second trip to the region aimed at reviving Middle East peace talks that collapsed in 2014.

 

A new settlement would be the first built in the West Bank since 1999. About 400,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank which is also home to 2.8 million Palestinians. Another 200,000 Israelis live in East Jerusalem.

 

Palestinians want the West Bank and East Jerusalem for their own state, along with the Gaza Strip.

 

(Additional reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi; Editing by Richard Lough)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-31

[dexterm]

Israel once again thumbing its nose at the UN, its Arab neighbors who only this week at the Arab summit 're-affirmed' commitment to peace through a two state solution, and even at the Trump administration who recently urged restraint "a little bit" .

 

But I have no doubt the White house was made fully aware of this announcement beforehand. We may get a perfunctory tut tut from them, if that..there's a new pro settlement ambassador in town.

 

Not to worry. It's pretty clear that Israel is heading for a one state solution..they have created too many irreversible facts on the ground, and are intransigent over a shared Jerusalem.

If the legislation on the table at the moment to annex the large settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, followed by others, and the law recognizing illegal rabid settler outposts on privately owned Palestinian land are passed, they will be the final nails in the coffin.

 

If that's the way Israel wants it, Palestinians now need to abandon the two state solution also, and start pressing for equal rights in a single state. They will have no other choice. It will probably be a messy period of full blown apartheid first, but at least the world will see Israel for what it really is..a racist land grabbing colonialist state.

[ddavidovsky]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Israel once again thumbing its nose at the UN, its Arab neighbors who only this week at the Arab summit 're-affirmed' commitment to peace through a two state solution, and even at the Trump administration who recently urged restraint "a little bit" .

 

But I have no doubt the White house was made fully aware of this announcement beforehand. We may get a perfunctory tut tut from them, if that..there's a new pro settlement ambassador in town.

 

Not to worry. It's pretty clear that Israel is heading for a one state solution..they have created too many irreversible facts on the ground, and are intransigent over a shared Jerusalem.

If the legislation on the table at the moment to annex the large settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, followed by others, and the law recognizing illegal rabid settler outposts on privately owned Palestinian land are passed, they will be the final nails in the coffin.

 

If that's the way Israel wants it, Palestinians now need to abandon the two state solution also, and start pressing for equal rights in a single state. They will have no other choice. It will probably be a messy period of full blown apartheid first, but at least the world will see Israel for what it really is..a racist land grabbing colonialist state.

Agreed with you until the conclusion. Israel is certainly bent on taking over the West Bank completely in the long term. The Palestinians have so far put up hopeless resistance (like the North American Indians), which is an entirely natural response but like the Indians they will be bulldozed, with their resistance being used as an excuse.

 

There is now only one chance for the Palestinians: unite and accept the de facto reality of Israel's existence, which is an historic fait accompli (no matter how odiously it was accomplished), and agree to entirely peaceable terms.

 

Of course, that is the last thing Israel wants as it would completely undermine their lebensraum push for the West Bank, and Israel will work hard to provoke the Palestinians into resistance again. However, if the Palestinians can show incredible forbearance to these deliberate provocations they at least have some chance of coming out of this with something, if only because the rest of the world will be morally obliged to support their case.

 

And of course, it won't happen, because of human nature - people are more provokable than they are rational. Israel knows that, and the final outcome is depressingly inevitable - depressing because this situation will continue to fuel Muslim low self-esteem and thereby cause more terrorism worldwide. Thanks a bunch, Israel, for throwing the world in turmoil just so you can get patch of land.

 

 

[dexterm]

25 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Agreed with you until the conclusion. Israel is certainly bent on taking over the West Bank completely in the long term. The Palestinians have so far put up hopeless resistance (like the North American Indians), which is an entirely natural response but like the Indians they will be bulldozed, with their resistance being used as an excuse.

 

There is now only one chance for the Palestinians: unite and accept the de facto reality of Israel's existence, which is an historic fait accompli (no matter how odiously it was accomplished), and agree to entirely peaceable terms.

 

Of course, that is the last thing Israel wants as it would completely undermine their lebensraum push for the West Bank, and Israel will work hard to provoke the Palestinians into resistance again. However, if the Palestinians can show incredible forbearance to these deliberate provocations they at least have some chance of coming out of this with something, if only because the rest of the world will be morally obliged to support their case.

 

And of course, it won't happen, because of human nature - people are more provokable than they are rational. Israel knows that, and the final outcome is depressingly inevitable - depressing because this situation will continue to fuel Muslim low self-esteem and thereby cause more terrorism worldwide. Thanks a bunch, Israel, for throwing the world in turmoil just so you can get patch of land.

 

 

Depends what the peaceable terms are. If it means a patchwork quilt of semi autonomous non contiguous bantustans in 8% of what used to be 100% their Palestine, before the European colonists arrived, I think they would be mad to accept that. Israel would still have total de facto control of their lives, and they would become 2nd class non citizens.

 

But I get your point about Native Americans. Although they still suffer discrimination, like many other colonized indigenous peoples in the world, but at least they are now full citizens. One difference between their stuggle and the Palestinian one, is that in this digital age of instant social and international media, Israel is finding it harder to hide their evil activities, and external pressures may eventually help Palestinians in their right to self determination.

 

But if by way of a referendum on a final peace deal, the majority of Palestinians are willing to accept such a status, so be it; who am I to say differently?

 

But we are dealing with hypotheticals here. All I am saying is with the OP continued settlement expansion, it looks like Israel is heading towards permanently annexing most of the occupied territories, which IMO will ultimately lead to a single state.

 

But let's see what Trump's negotiating team come up with. The way forward will be clearer then.

Edited March 31, 2017 by dexterm

[Jingthing]

Expect Israel to even more aggressively expand West Bank settlements as long as so called president trump is in office. While he recently gave some very lame lip service politely asking Israel to cool if for awhile, the real message from Washington is loud and clear in Israel. There will be NO consequences under trump. 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, dexterm said:

Israel once again thumbing its nose at the UN, its Arab neighbors who only this week at the Arab summit 're-affirmed' commitment to peace through a two state solution, and even at the Trump administration who recently urged restraint "a little bit" .

 

But I have no doubt the White house was made fully aware of this announcement beforehand. We may get a perfunctory tut tut from them, if that..there's a new pro settlement ambassador in town.

 

Not to worry. It's pretty clear that Israel is heading for a one state solution..they have created too many irreversible facts on the ground, and are intransigent over a shared Jerusalem.

If the legislation on the table at the moment to annex the large settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, followed by others, and the law recognizing illegal rabid settler outposts on privately owned Palestinian land are passed, they will be the final nails in the coffin.

 

If that's the way Israel wants it, Palestinians now need to abandon the two state solution also, and start pressing for equal rights in a single state. They will have no other choice. It will probably be a messy period of full blown apartheid first, but at least the world will see Israel for what it really is..a racist land grabbing colonialist state.

 

The faux indignation is expected and scripted.

 

The Israeli government's approval was, for all intents and purposes, a forgone conclusion. No one - not the US, not Arab countries nor the Palestinians, could have been really surprised. 

 

As often commented on these topics, and as mentioned in the OP, Netanyahu operates within certain political constraints, and is being constantly challenged by taken his coalition partners. Going back on his earlier promise would have further undermined his political standing. Considering the options, and the timing - this is not an outcome favored by any of the aforementioned parties (US, Arab countries, Palestinians).

 

Abbas is due to meet with Trump in April, and a number of other ME leaders are scheduled similar meetings as well. There is a certain expectation, I think, that a clearer notion of the current administration's policy will be manifested by June. If things are to be set in motion, it is in sides best interests to retain their respective political stability, and avoid leaders getting politically hamstrung  by rivals.

 

Taking the above into account, makes it unlikely that the matter did not come up in recent conversations held by Trump's emissary with all sides. A good measure of this would be the actual fallout (as opposed to scripted indignation). I do not believe that either the Palestinians nor the Arab league will withdraw over the decision.

 

It is worth noting that the Israeli cabinet decision was adopted in conjunction with others, effectively placing certain constraints on illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank. While these were claimed to be unilateral, I seriously doubt this is the case. More like a face saving solution for all sides involved.

 

US expresses understanding for new settlement, as it was promised months ago

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-expresses-understanding-for-new-settlement-as-it-was-promised-months-ago/

 

Netanyahu Announces Policy of Restrained Settlement Construction in 'Show of Good Will' to Trump
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780641

 

 

As for the tail end of the script - doesn't seem like further legislation concerning possible annexation will be promoted, at least not until the US administration goals will be made clear. And no, the US ambassador does not set US policy, even if you push this notion on every occasion possible.

 

Regardless of your pronouncements and sage advice, most Palestinians do not see a cooperative one-state solution as the choice of preference. That you either care little or know little of the prevalent aspirations is not exactly news. Your goals have little to do with these. Your position can be summed as anti-Israel more than pro-Palestinian.

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Agreed with you until the conclusion. Israel is certainly bent on taking over the West Bank completely in the long term. The Palestinians have so far put up hopeless resistance (like the North American Indians), which is an entirely natural response but like the Indians they will be bulldozed, with their resistance being used as an excuse.

 

There is now only one chance for the Palestinians: unite and accept the de facto reality of Israel's existence, which is an historic fait accompli (no matter how odiously it was accomplished), and agree to entirely peaceable terms.

 

Of course, that is the last thing Israel wants as it would completely undermine their lebensraum push for the West Bank, and Israel will work hard to provoke the Palestinians into resistance again. However, if the Palestinians can show incredible forbearance to these deliberate provocations they at least have some chance of coming out of this with something, if only because the rest of the world will be morally obliged to support their case.

 

And of course, it won't happen, because of human nature - people are more provokable than they are rational. Israel knows that, and the final outcome is depressingly inevitable - depressing because this situation will continue to fuel Muslim low self-esteem and thereby cause more terrorism worldwide. Thanks a bunch, Israel, for throwing the world in turmoil just so you can get patch of land.

 

 

 

The policies carried out in the West Bank are not a reflection of a unified Israeli aim, goal or political view. That you pronounce it a certainty does not make it so. And the same goes for provocations, which are carried out by both sides. Obviously, this doesn't sit well with seeing any Palestinian violence as justified, or ignoring schisms among Palestinian factions.

 

The "logic" of the post above seems to assume general Palestinian naivety pitted versus Israeli cunning. No shred of support is offered in support, other than asserting it is so. And of The Palestinians are portrayed as essentially passive, easily provoked and lacking in rational reasoning. Somehow, Israel is faulted for that as well.

 

This conflict involves two sides. Absolving one of them from any accountability, any responsibility for actions and choices is not an honest, nor productive or even rational proposition.

[IsThisForReal]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The policies carried out in the West Bank are not a reflection of a unified Israeli aim, goal or political view. That you pronounce it a certainty does not make it so. And the same goes for provocations, which are carried out by both sides. Obviously, this doesn't sit well with seeing any Palestinian violence as justified, or ignoring schisms among Palestinian factions.

 

The "logic" of the post above seems to assume general Palestinian naivety pitted versus Israeli cunning. No shred of support is offered in support, other than asserting it is so. And of The Palestinians are portrayed as essentially passive, easily provoked and lacking in rational reasoning. Somehow, Israel is faulted for that as well.

 

This conflict involves two sides. Absolving one of them from any accountability, any responsibility for actions and choices is not an honest, nor productive or even rational proposition.

Even if the conflict can't be summerized in a simple way, I am 1000% sure if the Israeli stopped all settlements for a couple of years, they would have a much bigger support worldwide.

Currently, and whatever you try to say (most of the time with goodwill) the fact is Israel is seen as the one inciting the problems with their never ending settlements

[DeaconJohn]

There are exactly no valid arguments in support of Israel's land grabs and crimes against the Palestinian people.

None! from the BS that Israel didn't declare any borders, to whatever Mark Twain wrote, cherry tomatoes , Nobel prizes, mobile phones, "we made the desert bloom", It's all nonsense that has absolutely no bearing on Israel's recognized borders and the Jewish State's illegal, immoral, unethical activities outside of those borders since May 15th 1948.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

Depends what the peaceable terms are. If it means a patchwork quilt of semi autonomous non contiguous bantustans in 8% of what used to be 100% their Palestine, before the European colonists arrived, I think they would be mad to accept that. Israel would still have total de facto control of their lives, and they would become 2nd class non citizens.

 

But I get your point about Native Americans. Although they still suffer discrimination, like many other colonized indigenous peoples in the world, but at least they are now full citizens. One difference between their stuggle and the Palestinian one, is that in this digital age of instant social and international media, Israel is finding it harder to hide their evil activities, and external pressures may eventually help Palestinians in their right to self determination.

 

But if by way of a referendum on a final peace deal, the majority of Palestinians are willing to accept such a status, so be it; who am I to say differently?

 

But we are dealing with hypotheticals here. All I am saying is with the OP continued settlement expansion, it looks like Israel is heading towards permanently annexing most of the occupied territories, which IMO will ultimately lead to a single state.

 

But let's see what Trump's negotiating team come up with. The way forward will be clearer then.

 

The Palestinians never controlled or owned 100% of the territory. To be clear, not even 1%. There was no Palestinian state, and even a distinct Palestinian identity is a rather new construct.

 

There is no two-state solution seriously discussed between the sides confirming to your hyperbole nonsense. Most of the territorial solutions revolve around the 1967 lines, with bilaterally agreed adjustments. As such, the supposed offer which the Palestinians would be "mad to accept" is nothing but a straw man.

 

That you postulate a Palestinian referendum on accepting "such a status" is nothing but a loaded proposition. To begin with, there is no such referendum mechanism in existence. Even if there was, the Palestinians are having ongoing trouble agreeing even when it comes to conducting elections. And, of course, would a majority of, say, 51%, be acceptable?  Then, of course, there that pesky aforementioned issue of such a proposal not being real. No Palestinian leader will put this forward to his people. Last and not least, your positions, aired on many a topic, preclude that you will cease spewing your hateful diatribes even if the sides were to reach an agreement. Nothing short of a scenario fully manifesting your extreme views will suffice.That your positions are not in line with most Palestinian views does not deter you from posting otherwise even now.

 

But let's see what Trump's negotiating team come up with. The way forward will be clearer then.

 

Almost too funny. Posting this bit after each hyperbole tirade, filled with crystal ball predictions.

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, dexterm said:

That would be because it's off topic, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for you.

 

The OP subject is obviously very sensitive ; hence your attempt to muddy the waters.

 

But no issues bringing up other comparisons when it suits your narrative. Then it's on topic. 

Same old double standards.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Expect Israel to even more aggressively expand West Bank settlements as long as so called president trump is in office. While he recently gave some very lame lip service politely asking Israel to cool if for awhile, the real message from Washington is loud and clear in Israel. There will be NO consequences under trump. 

 

Netanyahu Announces Policy of Restrained Settlement Construction in 'Show of Good Will' to Trump
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780641

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, IsThisForReal said:

Even if the conflict can't be summerized in a simple way, I am 1000% sure if the Israeli stopped all settlements for a couple of years, they would have a much bigger support worldwide.

Currently, and whatever you try to say (most of the time with goodwill) the fact is Israel is seen as the one inciting the problems with their never ending settlements

 

That might be. But one thing to remember is that most times, leadership on both sides places more importance on political survival and support, over gaining international approval (or indeed, the best interest of their people).

 

Israel did put illegal settlement expansion on hold, to one degree or another, on past occasions. Can't say it improved Israel's image much. More like less flak than when pushing forward illegal settlement expansion plans.

 

I am not supportive of Israel's policies in the West Bank, certainly not of the illegal settlement effort. This position has nothing to do with how things are perceived worldwide, but more to do with the whole thing being wrong.

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, DeaconJohn said:

There are exactly no valid arguments in support of Israel's land grabs and crimes against the Palestinian people.

None! from the BS that Israel didn't declare any borders, to whatever Mark Twain wrote, cherry tomatoes , Nobel prizes, mobile phones, "we made the desert bloom", It's all nonsense that has absolutely no bearing on Israel's recognized borders and the Jewish State's illegal, immoral, unethical activities outside of those borders since May 15th 1948.

 

And nobody but you aired such claims on this topic.

 

Other than that, no one but hardcore loons uses 1948 as a reference point when discussing realistic future territorial solutions.

[Jingthing]

53 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Netanyahu Announces Policy of Restrained Settlement Construction in 'Show of Good Will' to Trump
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780641

Depends how you define restrained. He's not doing exactly as trump asked. It's a game. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, DeaconJohn said:

There are exactly no valid arguments in support of Israel's land grabs and crimes against the Palestinian people.

None! from the BS that Israel didn't declare any borders, to whatever Mark Twain wrote, cherry tomatoes , Nobel prizes, mobile phones, "we made the desert bloom", It's all nonsense that has absolutely no bearing on Israel's recognized borders and the Jewish State's illegal, immoral, unethical activities outside of those borders since May 15th 1948.

Seems extremist and one sided typical demonization rhetoric that does bupkis to bring any good faith dialogue forward, but I guess there are also no valid arguments in support of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians, right? 

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Depends how you define restrained. He's not doing exactly as trump asked. It's a game. 

 

Thing is Trump didn't ask for anything specific. At least not publicly. So as to "exactly" - who knows? Given that his guy was intensively meeting with all sides previously to this announcement, and the run of the mill responses from the US and the Palestinians (nothing over the top), I'd say it's likely things were coordinated. At least to some extent.

[Jingthing]

OK, if you say. My perception is that most Israelis are on board with trump now, because most Israelis are more right wing, and most Israelis don't believe trump will ever spank them in a consequential way for anything they do. Explicitly communicated or coordinated or not, I think that's what most Israelis think and I think they're right. Just my perception. 

Honestly there weren't all that many real "consequences" from Obama either except the Iran deal which was a big deal and the recent lame duck move in the U.N.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Jingthing

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

OK, if you say. My perception is that most Israelis are on board with trump now, because most Israelis are more right wing, and most Israelis don't believe trump will ever spank them in a consequential way for anything they do. Explicitly communicated or coordinated or not, I think that's what most Israelis think and I think they're right. Just my perception. 

Honestly there weren't all that many real "consequences" from Obama either except the Iran deal which was a big deal and the recent lame duck move in the U.N.

 

I doubt that there's much of a clear unified view among Israelis when it comes to Trump. Polls notwithstanding. What does seem obvious is that his term isn't going to be quite the joyride imagined by the illegal settlers and their political representatives.

 

As for "being on board with Trump"...dunno even what that means. Other than assessments and his usual mumbo jumbo public statements, not to clear where he actually stands on things.

 

If Netanyahu's reactions to Trump are anything of an indication, he does worry about getting spanked by Trump. None of the bravado and rudeness exhibited during Obama's terms.

 

 

[metisdead]

A post containing off topic generalizations about the indigenous population of the USA has been removed. Another post containing unsourced images has been removed. 

[Jingthing]

 
I doubt that there's much of a clear unified view among Israelis when it comes to Trump. Polls notwithstanding. What does seem obvious is that his term isn't going to be quite the joyride imagined by the illegal settlers and their political representatives.
 
As for "being on board with Trump"...dunno even what that means. Other than assessments and his usual mumbo jumbo public statements, not to clear where he actually stands on things.
 
If Netanyahu's reactions to Trump are anything of an indication, he does worry about getting spanked by Trump. None of the bravado and rudeness exhibited during Obama's terms.
 
 

I see it differently. The choice of ambassador speaks volumes.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I see it differently. The choice of ambassador speaks volumes.

 

I don't think he chose the ambassador because of his opinions. More to do with trust. And once the choice was criticized, he was obviously going to stick with it, as Trump does. Similar stories with other appointments.

 

Even if Trump was actually ideologically invested in the issue, doubtful he sees it as worth damaging relations with Arab countries. So yes, he did say he'll move the embassy, and yes, he did appoint said ambassador. But so far, the embassy didn't move, and there's no free pass on illegal settlement activities in the West Bank.

[Jingthing]

I agree the embassy won't move. I think he's owned by the evangelicals more than AIPAC. I agree he personally lacks any coherent ideology.

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The faux indignation is expected and scripted.

 

The Israeli government's approval was, for all intents and purposes, a forgone conclusion. No one - not the US, not Arab countries nor the Palestinians, could have been really surprised. 

 

As often commented on these topics, and as mentioned in the OP, Netanyahu operates within certain political constraints, and is being constantly challenged by taken his coalition partners. Going back on his earlier promise would have further undermined his political standing. Considering the options, and the timing - this is not an outcome favored by any of the aforementioned parties (US, Arab countries, Palestinians).

 

Abbas is due to meet with Trump in April, and a number of other ME leaders are scheduled similar meetings as well. There is a certain expectation, I think, that a clearer notion of the current administration's policy will be manifested by June. If things are to be set in motion, it is in sides best interests to retain their respective political stability, and avoid leaders getting politically hamstrung  by rivals.

 

Taking the above into account, makes it unlikely that the matter did not come up in recent conversations held by Trump's emissary with all sides. A good measure of this would be the actual fallout (as opposed to scripted indignation). I do not believe that either the Palestinians nor the Arab league will withdraw over the decision.

 

It is worth noting that the Israeli cabinet decision was adopted in conjunction with others, effectively placing certain constraints on illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank. While these were claimed to be unilateral, I seriously doubt this is the case. More like a face saving solution for all sides involved.

 

US expresses understanding for new settlement, as it was promised months ago

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-expresses-understanding-for-new-settlement-as-it-was-promised-months-ago/

 

Netanyahu Announces Policy of Restrained Settlement Construction in 'Show of Good Will' to Trump
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780641

 

 

As for the tail end of the script - doesn't seem like further legislation concerning possible annexation will be promoted, at least not until the US administration goals will be made clear. And no, the US ambassador does not set US policy, even if you push this notion on every occasion possible.

 

Regardless of your pronouncements and sage advice, most Palestinians do not see a cooperative one-state solution as the choice of preference. That you either care little or know little of the prevalent aspirations is not exactly news. Your goals have little to do with these. Your position can be summed as anti-Israel more than pro-Palestinian.

 

>>The faux indignation is expected and scripted.
...your usual ad hominem preamble against me is expected and scripted.

Have you ever thought about just answering the issues without the constant personal attacks. It diminishes the power of your argument, since you have to resort to personal attack to bolster your own point of view. Just an observation.

 

>>most Palestinians do not see a cooperative one-state solution as the choice of preference.

.. technically yes at the moment, but times are a changing along with what Israel and Trump can offer in the "ultimate deal", as he calls it.

 

Note a recent June 2016 survey....

"A small majority of both Palestinians and Israelis support a two-state solution despite their differing views on the terms of a permanent settlement to peace negotiations, a survey published Monday found.
The survey, conducted jointly by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah and the Jerusalem-based Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), showed that 51 percent of Palestinians supported the two-state solution compared to 58.5 percent of Israelis – 53 percent among Jews and 87 percent among Palestinians with Israeli citizenship.
 Nonetheless, at least a quarter of the opposition to a permanent settlement on both sides is flexible and it is likely that its opinion might be changed with the right incentives,” the report stated.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/poll-support-one-state-solution-rise-among-palestinians/

 

We'll see what's on offer later in the year. If there is no hope of a viable two state solution, then what have the Palestinians got to lose in offering passive resistance, shaming Israel before the world, and demanding one man one vote in a single state and the start of an anti apartheid campaign in earnest?

 

I spoke too soon. Exactly as I said ..the times are a changing.. my previous poll was for June 2016. This is December 2016.

 

"According to the survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University, the survey, continued throughout December 2016 among a relatively large sample of 1,270 Palestinians and 1,207 Israelis, a two-state solution remains the preference of some 55 percent of Israelis and 44% of Palestinians."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/most-israelis-plurality-of-palestinians-still-favor-two-states-poll/

 

 

Edited March 31, 2017 by dexterm

[true word]

Only if the U.S stops its ugly bigotry supporting Israel.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>The faux indignation is expected and scripted.
...your usual ad hominem preamble against me is expected and scripted.

Have you ever thought about just answering the issues without the constant personal attacks. It diminishes the power of your argument, since you have to resort to personal attack to bolster your own point of view. Just an observation.

 

>>most Palestinians do not see a cooperative one-state solution as the choice of preference.

.. technically yes at the moment, but times are a changing along with what Israel and Trump can offer in the "ultimate deal", as he calls it.

 

Note a recent survey....

"A small majority of both Palestinians and Israelis support a two-state solution despite their differing views on the terms of a permanent settlement to peace negotiations, a survey published Monday found.
The survey, conducted jointly by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah and the Jerusalem-based Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), showed that 51 percent of Palestinians supported the two-state solution compared to 58.5 percent of Israelis – 53 percent among Jews and 87 percent among Palestinians with Israeli citizenship.
 Nonetheless, at least a quarter of the opposition to a permanent settlement on both sides is flexible and it is likely that its opinion might be changed with the right incentives,” the report stated.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/poll-support-one-state-solution-rise-among-palestinians/

 

We'll see what's on offer later in the year. If there is no hope of a viable two state solution, then what have the Palestinians got to lose in offering passive resistance, shaming Israel before the world, and demanding one man one vote in a single state and the start of an anti apartheid campaign in earnest?

 

Just calling spade a spade. Faux indignation is all it is. As for whining about ad hominems - those living in glass houses and all that. Try that nonsense on someone else.

 

Most Palestinians do not see a cooperative one-state solution as the choice of preference. Not "technically". This is a fact. Deflecting by "times are changing" isn't saying much, without an indication of which way the change. And despite the repetitive attempts to portray the Palestinians as passive, there are elements, in any peace agreement, which relate to commitments they will undertake. Whether you like it or not, whether you ignore it or not.

 

Misleading quotes are all very fine. The poll you used refers directly to the issue of a one-state solution:

 

Quote

One-State Solution: The joint poll sought to ascertain the current level of support for the idea of a one-state solution “by which Palestinians and Jews will be citizens of the same state and enjoy equal rights.” Support for the idea is highest among Israeli Arabs (standing at 52%). Only a minority among Palestinians (34%) and among Israeli Jews (20%) support this option.

 

If anything, the poll provides support for a way more complex state of things, as opposed to your extreme presentations.

 

Passive resistance is not a major element of Palestinian resistance. That you claim to think it ought to be doesn't actually make it so. That you think Palestinian interests (never mind those of Israelis) are best served by becoming citizens of Israel is not what they are about.

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The Palestinians never controlled or owned 100% of the territory. To be clear, not even 1%. There was no Palestinian state, and even a distinct Palestinian identity is a rather new construct.

 

There is no two-state solution seriously discussed between the sides confirming to your hyperbole nonsense. Most of the territorial solutions revolve around the 1967 lines, with bilaterally agreed adjustments. As such, the supposed offer which the Palestinians would be "mad to accept" is nothing but a straw man.

 

That you postulate a Palestinian referendum on accepting "such a status" is nothing but a loaded proposition. To begin with, there is no such referendum mechanism in existence. Even if there was, the Palestinians are having ongoing trouble agreeing even when it comes to conducting elections. And, of course, would a majority of, say, 51%, be acceptable?  Then, of course, there that pesky aforementioned issue of such a proposal not being real. No Palestinian leader will put this forward to his people. Last and not least, your positions, aired on many a topic, preclude that you will cease spewing your hateful diatribes even if the sides were to reach an agreement. Nothing short of a scenario fully manifesting your extreme views will suffice.That your positions are not in line with most Palestinian views does not deter you from posting otherwise even now.

 

But let's see what Trump's negotiating team come up with. The way forward will be clearer then.

 

Almost too funny. Posting this bit after each hyperbole tirade, filled with crystal ball predictions.

 

>>The Palestinians never controlled or owned 100% of the territory. To be clear, not even 1%.

... nor did the Zionists, although the resident Palestinian population outnumbered them 11:1 when the European Zionist colonizers arrived...and they still do! Foreign powers... Ottomans, British and now Isreal have dictated the lives of Palestinians for far too long. It's about time Palestinians were allowed self determination.

 

>>That you postulate a Palestinian referendum on accepting "such a status" is nothing but a loaded proposition. To begin with, there is no such referendum mechanism in existence. 

... I cannot see a lasting peace agreement being feasible without the transparent agreement of the Palestinian people. You are clutching at pedantic straws. Even Hamas agree on a referendum. 

 

"Hamas will also say that it backs any peace agreement that can be reached between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, if it can be approved in a popular referendum."

http://jfjfp.com/?p=91283

[dexterm]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Just calling spade a spade. Faux indignation is all it is. As for whining about ad hominems - those living in glass houses and all that. Try that nonsense on someone else.

 

Most Palestinians do not see a cooperative one-state solution as the choice of preference. Not "technically". This is a fact. Deflecting by "times are changing" isn't saying much, without an indication of which way the change. And despite the repetitive attempts to portray the Palestinians as passive, there are elements, in any peace agreement, which relate to commitments they will undertake. Whether you like it or not, whether you ignore it or not.

 

Misleading quotes are all very fine. The poll you used refers directly to the issue of a one-state solution:

 

 

If anything, the poll provides support for a way more complex state of things, as opposed to your extreme presentations.

 

Passive resistance is not a major element of Palestinian resistance. That you claim to think it ought to be doesn't actually make it so. That you think Palestinian interests (never mind those of Israelis) are best served by becoming citizens of Israel is not what they are about.

>>That you think Palestinian interests (never mind those of Israelis) are best served by becoming citizens of Israel is not what they are about.
...you have just contradicted yourself in the same post. As you quote...
"Support for the idea [of a one state solution]  is highest among Israeli Arabs (standing at 52%)."

 

I spoke too soon. Exactly as I said ..the times are a changing.. my previous poll was for June 2016. This is December 2016.
 
"According to the survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University, the survey, continued throughout December 2016 among a relatively large sample of 1,270 Palestinians and 1,207 Israelis, a two-state solution remains the preference of some 55 percent of Israelis and 44% of Palestinians."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/most-israelis-plurality-of-palestinians-still-favor-two-states-poll/

Edited March 31, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>The Palestinians never controlled or owned 100% of the territory. To be clear, not even 1%.

... nor did the Zionists, although the resident Palestinian population outnumbered them 11:1 when the European Zionist colonizers arrived...and they still do! Foreign powers... Ottomans, British and now Isreal have dictated the lives of Palestinians for far too long. It's about time Palestinians were allowed self determination.

 

>>That you postulate a Palestinian referendum on accepting "such a status" is nothing but a loaded proposition. To begin with, there is no such referendum mechanism in existence. 

... I cannot see a lasting peace agreement being feasible without the transparent agreement of the Palestinian people. You are clutching at pedantic straws. Even Hamas agree on a referendum. 

 

"Hamas will also say that it backs any peace agreement that can be reached between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, if it can be approved in a popular referendum."

http://jfjfp.com/?p=91283

 

To quote you again "... 8% of what used to be 100% their Palestine..". There was never "their Palestine", no matter how you try to spin it. And again, there wasn't much of distinct Palestinian identity until recent times. That you try to imply otherwise won't change that as well. There is no need to make up things in order to support Palestinian self-determination.

 

The fact stands that there is no such mechanism in place. The fact stands that the Fatah and the Hamas cannot even come to an agreement on carrying out elections. And the fact is that referendums are not necessarily the best tool to make informed decisions (Thailand and the UK come to mind as recent examples).

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>That you think Palestinian interests (never mind those of Israelis) are best served by becoming citizens of Israel is not what they are about.
...you have just contradicted yourself in the same post. As you quote...
"Support for the idea [of a one state solution]  is highest among Israeli Arabs (standing at 52%)."

 

I spoke too soon. Exactly as I said ..the times are a changing.. my previous poll was for June 2016. This is December 2016.
 
"According to the survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University, the survey, continued throughout December 2016 among a relatively large sample of 1,270 Palestinians and 1,207 Israelis, a two-state solution remains the preference of some 55 percent of Israelis and 44% of Palestinians."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/most-israelis-plurality-of-palestinians-still-favor-two-states-poll/

 

How have I "contradicted myself"? The poll clearly differentiates between Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. Support among Palestinians was quoted as 34%.

 

Exactly as you say? Hardly. Changes from one poll to another are usually effected by relevant recent events. In order to support a claim of sustained change, you'll need to demonstrate a clear trend, rather than build theories on relatively minor fluctuations.

 

From the same article:

 

Quote

Even with the decline in the second half of 2016, the option remains by far the front runner among both groups. Respondents were also offered the options of a one-state conclusion to the conflict, and a confederacy of some sort between an Israeli polity and a Palestinian one. Both of these alternatives put together won just 28% of Israelis and one-third of Palestinians. Only Israel’s Arab citizens gave majority support to an alternative outcome to the two-state solution.