Israeli cabinet approves first West Bank settlement in 20 years

[dexterm]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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).

>>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. 
..let's put it this way then, if you want to be pedantic. When the European colonizing Zionists arrived uninvited to establish their own Jewish State even though outnumbered 11:1 , Palestinians were able to live in 100% of Palestine, and now they can't, but Zionists do now live in 92% of historic Palestine.

And if the OP is a sign of the times, the greedy Zionists want all the land, but don't want all the people who have always been living there.

 

>>The fact stands that there is no such mechanism in place.
...of course there isn't..at the moment. There hasn't been a peace deal yet to have a referendum on!  It would be extremely foolsh and a waste of time for politicians to sign agreements without the transparent assent of the people whose lives are most affected.

[dexterm]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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:

 

 

>> Changes from one poll to another are usually effected by relevant recent events. 

...that's Morch gobbledegook for "the times are a changing" ..exactly as I said.

 

And the recent events are: as in the OP,  Israel continuing to expand its settlements flying in the face of the UN, EU, and even the Trump administration, legislation on the table to annex large settlement blocs, and legislation to retrospectively legalize land theft from private Palelstinian landowners, a pro settlement son-in-law sent to negotiate, and a rabid pro settlement ambassador who is 100% against a two state solution. How many recent events do you need to realize the writing is on the wall:  it's going to be a one state solution. So all I am saying is the Palestinians should make the best out of that reality.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>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. 
..let's put it this way then, if you want to be pedantic. When the European colonizing Zionists arrived uninvited to establish their own Jewish State even though outnumbered 11:1 , Palestinians were able to live in 100% of Palestine, and now they can't, but Zionists do now live in 92% of historic Palestine.

And if the OP is a sign of the times, the greedy Zionists want all the land, but don't want all the people who have always been living there.

 

>>The fact stands that there is no such mechanism in place.
...of course there isn't..at the moment. There hasn't been a peace deal yet to have a referendum on!  It would be extremely foolsh and a waste of time for politicians to sign agreements without the transparent assent of the people whose lives are most affected.

 

You can put it in whatever way you like. It would still not make your original comment correct or factual. Spins aside. Amazing you can't even own up when it comes to such little, obvious things. And insisting on facts is not "pedantry", just an understandable precaution when it comes to posts on these topics. For example, treating Israel's Arab citizens as "Palestinians" when it suits some figures, and then upholding the distinction on other occasions.

 

The OP is not about taking more Palestinian lands. The new (and yes, illegal) settlement will be located adjacent to an existing one. The lands of Amona (the illegal settlement dismantled) will be reclaimed by their Palestinian owners. As posted above, the cabinet decision also incorporated measures aimed at limiting further illegal settlement expansion. All in all, not quite the sign of the times you claimed.

 

I'll try to make things clearer for you. There is no referendum mechanism. The Palestinian schism does not promote the notion that such an mechanism will be created anytime soon, nor that it will operate as intended, or that the results will be respected by all parties. Further, it is not reasonable to engage in negotiations which are conditional on the creation and successful application of a non-existent political mechanism. As pointed out, and glossed over, referendums are not necessarily a great example of making informed critical decisions. More often, they presentation is over-simplified, and easily manipulated.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>> Changes from one poll to another are usually effected by relevant recent events. 

...that's Morch gobbledegook for "the times are a changing" ..exactly as I said.

 

And the recent events are: as in the OP,  Israel continuing to expand its settlements flying in the face of the UN, EU, and even the Trump administration, legislation on the table to annex large settlement blocs, and legislation to retrospectively legalize land theft from private Palelstinian landowners, a pro settlement son-in-law sent to negotiate, and a rabid pro settlement ambassador who is 100% against a two state solution. How many recent events do you need to realize the writing is on the wall:  it's going to be a one state solution. So all I am saying is the Palestinians should make the best out of that reality.

 

No, that's more like you're engaged in the usual dishonest twisting of words. And it is not "exactly as you said". Results are often effected by events taking place right before polls are conducted. Pretty much basic stuff there. The comment relates to temporary effects, rather than ongoing trends. The poll you quoted was conducted in December 2016. The OP relates to event which took place yesterday. Three month difference.

 

You're either desperate to deflect another obvious flop, or truly not very informed with regard to polls.

 

Having some experience with your faulty crystal ball predictions, I wouldn't place any bets on this one as well. The Palestinians do not seem very enthusiastic to follow your sage advice, nor are in a hurry to relinquish their hopes of self-determination. If you truly stand behind your last sentence, you'd spend more time referring to the Palestinian side, and less denigrating anything to do with Israel.

[dexterm]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You can put it in whatever way you like. It would still not make your original comment correct or factual. Spins aside. Amazing you can't even own up when it comes to such little, obvious things. And insisting on facts is not "pedantry", just an understandable precaution when it comes to posts on these topics. For example, treating Israel's Arab citizens as "Palestinians" when it suits some figures, and then upholding the distinction on other occasions.

 

The OP is not about taking more Palestinian lands. The new (and yes, illegal) settlement will be located adjacent to an existing one. The lands of Amona (the illegal settlement dismantled) will be reclaimed by their Palestinian owners. As posted above, the cabinet decision also incorporated measures aimed at limiting further illegal settlement expansion. All in all, not quite the sign of the times you claimed.

 

I'll try to make things clearer for you. There is no referendum mechanism. The Palestinian schism does not promote the notion that such an mechanism will be created anytime soon, nor that it will operate as intended, or that the results will be respected by all parties. Further, it is not reasonable to engage in negotiations which are conditional on the creation and successful application of a non-existent political mechanism. As pointed out, and glossed over, referendums are not necessarily a great example of making informed critical decisions. More often, they presentation is over-simplified, and easily manipulated.

You often accuse me of being unrealistic. 
If you think for one minute that a permanent peace to a conflict lasting 100 years can be ended with the stroke of politicians' pens without prior transparent consultation as to the wishes of the people whose lives their decison affects, you must be in cloud cuckoo obfuscation land.

 

You seem to have a problem for every solution.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

You often accuse me of being unrealistic. 
If you think for one minute that a permanent peace to a conflict lasting 100 years can be ended with the stroke of politicians' pens without prior transparent consultation as to the wishes of the people whose lives their decison affects, you must be in cloud cuckoo obfuscation land.

 

You seem to have a problem for every solution.

 

Unrealistic how? Are most peace agreements are the product of referendums? The usual mode in which people are consulted is via elections (in countries where this applies). Ignoring that referendums carry their own faults - and are not necessarily the best tool for making informed decisions, is simply ridiculous considering the examples given.

 

Stating that the Palestinians do not have this option at hand, and that their application of democratic norm is questionable is very realistic. Ignoring it isn't. It is acceptable that any agreement reached by the sides will be put to some sort of confirmation vote by their respective populations. The issue highlighted was that the Palestinian are lacking in this department.

 

What does bringing up a non-existent referendum got to do with "solution"?

[dexterm]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, that's more like you're engaged in the usual dishonest twisting of words. And it is not "exactly as you said". Results are often effected by events taking place right before polls are conducted. Pretty much basic stuff there. The comment relates to temporary effects, rather than ongoing trends. The poll you quoted was conducted in December 2016. The OP relates to event which took place yesterday. Three month difference.

 

You're either desperate to deflect another obvious flop, or truly not very informed with regard to polls.

 

Having some experience with your faulty crystal ball predictions, I wouldn't place any bets on this one as well. The Palestinians do not seem very enthusiastic to follow your sage advice, nor are in a hurry to relinquish their hopes of self-determination. If you truly stand behind your last sentence, you'd spend more time referring to the Palestinian side, and less denigrating anything to do with Israel.

Well, time will tell.

 

The circumstances favoring a two state solution which you outlined on this forum 3 years ago, and with which I agreed, have altered dramatically.

 

In the light of the OP and the huge increase in settlers and settlement construction , I don't think Israel has any intention ever of land swaps for the 67 Green line or a compromise over Jerusalem.

 

If you want to still believe in that possibility, up2u.

Personally I think it is just a continuation of the Zionist stonewalling ruse, to give semi respectability to Israel pretending to negotiate a two state solution, while establishing more facts on the ground that make that an obvious impossibility.

 

Netanyahu clearly outlined a one state plan to Trump. Otherwise, Trump wouldn't have blurted that out at their press conference. He's not capable of thinking that up himself.

Edited March 31, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

Well, time will tell.

 

The circumstances favoring a two state solution which you outlined on this forum 3 years ago, and with which I agreed, have altered dramatically.

 

In the light of the OP and the huge increase in settlers and settlement construction , I don't think Israel has any intention ever of land swaps for the 67 Green line or a compromise over Jerusalem.

 

If you want to still believe in that possibility, up2u. Personally I think it is just a continuation of the Zionist direct negotiations stonewalling ruse, to give semi respectability to Israel pretending tto negotiate a two state solution, while establishing more facts on the ground  that make that an obvious impossibility.

 

Netanyahu clearly outlined a one state plan to Trump. Otherwise, Trump wouldn't have blurted that out at their press conference. He's not capable of thinking that up himself.

 

Time will tell. Wait for Trump....why bother with these phrases? Your posts remain constant regardless. As for drama....there's that on each and every one of them posts.

 

Referring to my view as made three years ago, and implying they are outdated is dishonest. Similar positions were always aired, and

no, despite the dramatic claims, things haven't altered dramatically. Not really. The increase in illegal settler numbers is relevant only with regard to places which will need to be evacuated. The vast majority of these issues could be tackled in the same way it was addressed on previous negotiations - territorial exchanges and adjustments. Not saying it's an easy undertaking, but not impossible.

 

What you think about Israel is always clouded by your hatred. This precludes much in terms of objective considerations. Repeating such phrases as "times are changing" seems to skip the possibility of changes with regard to Israeli positions (or only consider a negative change). Since you seem to treat any negotiations as an Israeli ruse, disregarding the Palestinians less than constructive role in such negotiations, it seems pointless to discuss the possibility in any reasonable manner.

 

Netanyahu did not, in fact, "clearly outlined a one state plan to Trump". You're making it up.

[Morch]

Further analysis:

 

Analysis The Most Hawkish Cabinet in Israel's History Curbs Settlement Construction - but the Settlers Keep Mum

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780713
 

[weejun]

18 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.

If so, they are doing a pretty shitty job at it. The first new settlement in 20 years, and Jewish settlements still make up less than 2% of the West Bank according to Palestinian sources?

 

Those terrible Jews must be incredibly patient. At this pace, they'll take over the West Bank completely around the year 5000 or so. Pretty darm long term indeed!

Edited March 31, 2017 by weejun

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, weejun said:

If so, they are doing a pretty shitty job at it. The first new settlement in 20 years, and Jewish settlements still make up less than 2% of the West Bank according to Palestinian sources?

 

Those terrible Jews must be incredibly patient. At this pace, they'll take over the West Bank completely around the year 5000 or so. Pretty darm long term indeed!

Your 2% disingenuously refers purely to settler buildings. What you fail to also mention is settler industrial and agricultural zones, and most important of all the local authority jurisdiction of these settlements which account for 42% of the West Bank, where Palestinians are forbidden to build

 

What the 2 percent figure omits.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20160804-how-much-palestinian-land-do-israeli-settlements-really-eat-up/

 

For more honest figures of settlers takeover see

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IsraeliSettlementGrowthLineGraph.png

 

 

Edited March 31, 2017 by dexterm

[weejun]

5 hours ago, dexterm said:

Your 2% disingenuously refers purely to settler buildings. What you fail to also mention is settler industrial and agricultural zones, and most important of all the local authority jurisdiction of these settlements which account for 42% of the West Bank, where Palestinians are forbidden to build

None of this is really relevant. If the goal was to take over the West Bank, the actual settlements would be spreading wildly. They are not.

 

That Palestinians are forbidden to build in places is a result of their war against Israel/Jews. Had they not been at war, Israel would not have been forced to take security precautions.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, weejun said:

None of this is really relevant. If the goal was to take over the West Bank, the actual settlements would be spreading wildly. They are not.

 

That Palestinians are forbidden to build in places is a result of their war against Israel/Jews. Had they not been at war, Israel would not have been forced to take security precautions.

 

The Palestinian are not at war with Israel. At least not when it comes to the PA, which is the (nominally) major player in the West Bank. The illegal settlements have nothing to do with security precautions. If anything, it would have been easier to militarily control the area without their presence.

[dexterm]

15 hours ago, Morch said:

Further analysis:

 

Analysis The Most Hawkish Cabinet in Israel's History Curbs Settlement Construction - but the Settlers Keep Mum

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780713
 

No wonder the settlers keep mum. They must be delighted with this cunning arrangement. They think they have hoodwinked Trump and the world.

 

"While Israel’s new settlement construction guidelines were presented as evidence of restraint and a “goodwill gesture” to the administration of US President Donald Trump – who has asked Israel to slow construction – the details seem to indicate the opposite.

Under the arrangements outlined on Thursday night by the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel plans to build within the boundaries of existing settlements adjacent to them, and when that is “not possible”, close to those blocs."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/30/israel-approves-west-bank-settlements-trump-administration

This is how the con of exponential growth works, a bit like water lilies in a pond.

 

"First, the policy allows to build everywhere – inside, adjacent to or outside of the settlement.

Second, previous experience has taught us that a policy of “building within” a settlement is in practice a way to dismiss international criticism while at the same time expand settlements, as explained below.

And third, one of the most important effects of the expansion of settlements has to do with the number of settlers that Israel will need to evict in an agreement based on the two state solution formula. For this matter, it doesn’t matter how much land settlements take but how many people live in them."

http://peacenow.org.il/en/new-declared-settlement-policy-not-restraint

 

...well worth reading...gives a very clear explanation of what Netanyahu is up to.

 

An illustration of how settlements expand...

 

Draw an outline of your spread out fingers = the settlement's actual buildings
Draw a line connecting your your fingers and thumbs = well, settlers may say, that's really part of the buildings area
Draw a circle that well clears your hand print = the settlement's perimeter fence.
Draw an even bigger concentric circle outside the last one = the settlements municipal area, earmarked for further building later.

 

... and repeat.

 

Of course the more settlers colonizing the West Bank, the more difficult it will be to create a viable two state solution.

No problem. With Trump cheering them on, the right wing will continue to dig Zionism's grave in an inevitable binational state solution.
 

Edited April 1, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, dexterm said:

No wonder the settlers keep mum. They must be delighted with this cunning arrangement. They think they have hoodwinked Trump and the world.

 

"While Israel’s new settlement construction guidelines were presented as evidence of restraint and a “goodwill gesture” to the administration of US President Donald Trump – who has asked Israel to slow construction – the details seem to indicate the opposite.

Under the arrangements outlined on Thursday night by the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel plans to build within the boundaries of existing settlements adjacent to them, and when that is “not possible”, close to those blocs."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/30/israel-approves-west-bank-settlements-trump-administration

This is how the con of exponential growth works, a bit like water lilies in a pond.

 

"First, the policy allows to build everywhere – inside, adjacent to or outside of the settlement.

Second, previous experience has taught us that a policy of “building within” a settlement is in practice a way to dismiss international criticism while at the same time expand settlements, as explained below.

And third, one of the most important effects of the expansion of settlements has to do with the number of settlers that Israel will need to evict in an agreement based on the two state solution formula. For this matter, it doesn’t matter how much land settlements take but how many people live in them."

http://peacenow.org.il/en/new-declared-settlement-policy-not-restraint

 

...well worth reading...gives a very clear explanation of what Netanyahu is up to.

 

Of course the more settlers colonizing the West Bank, the more difficult it will be to create a viable two state solution.

No problem. With Trump cheering them on, the right wing will continue to dig Zionism's grave in an inevitable binational state solution.
 

 

No wonder you ignore the article linked, as it provides a more balanced perspective on Netanyahu's moves, political considerations and settler reactions.

 

As posted today in another context - there is a difference between carrying out vehement online crusades and getting things done. The latter might involve unsavory compromises and imperfect results.

 

No one, apart perhaps from Guardianistas and processional activists, expected Netanyahu and the current Israeli government to apply a full blown settlement construction halt.

 

The last sentence in the quoted Peace Now bit is incorrect as well. The location of settlement expansions and their territorial spread is more of a hindrance than the population figures. Considering most peace agreement formulations include land swaps, population in settlements likely to end up as part of Israel is not much of an issue. On the other hand, increasing the territorial spread of illegal settlements tends to create more problems .

 

Trump is far from cheering anyone on. His administration already opined that further settlement expansion is a problem.

[dexterm]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No wonder you ignore the article linked, as it provides a more balanced perspective on Netanyahu's moves, political considerations and settler reactions.

 

As posted today in another context - there is a difference between carrying out vehement online crusades and getting things done. The latter might involve unsavory compromises and imperfect results.

 

No one, apart perhaps from Guardianistas and processional activists, expected Netanyahu and the current Israeli government to apply a full blown settlement construction halt.

 

The last sentence in the quoted Peace Now bit is incorrect as well. The location of settlement expansions and their territorial spread is more of a hindrance than the population figures. Considering most peace agreement formulations include land swaps, population in settlements likely to end up as part of Israel is not much of an issue. On the other hand, increasing the territorial spread of illegal settlements tends to create more problems .

 

Trump is far from cheering anyone on. His administration already opined that further settlement expansion is a problem.

>>Trump is far from cheering anyone on. His administration already opined that further settlement expansion is a problem.

 

Would that be Trump's  hold off "a little bit" (OP) or his infamous doublespeak "While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace , the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal," the White House said in a statement."
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.769418

 

I noted the White House expressed concerns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-israeli-talks-conclude-with-no-agreement-on-settlements/2017/03/23/0596b7f5-0b71-42b9-ac8a-f74a1bd2c2a5_story.html?utm_term=.18b7c3adfbe3

 

If I were a settler I would be really worried if it were a deep concern. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

>>Trump is far from cheering anyone on. His administration already opined that further settlement expansion is a problem.

 

Would that be Trump's  hold off "a little bit" (OP) or his infamous doublespeak "While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace , the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal," the White House said in a statement."
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.769418

 

I noted the White House expressed concerns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-israeli-talks-conclude-with-no-agreement-on-settlements/2017/03/23/0596b7f5-0b71-42b9-ac8a-f74a1bd2c2a5_story.html?utm_term=.18b7c3adfbe3

 

If I were a settler I would be really worried if it were a deep concern. 

 

Your original post claimed that Trump was cheering them on. Even the above does not amount to it. If Trump was indeed "cheering them on" - there the partial limitations on settlement construction wouldn't be announced to begin with, and the US embassy would have moved by now.

 

Some posters can't differentiate between their imagination and facts, some can't even own up to nonsense they posted but a couple of posts up the topic.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Trump just keeps cheering them on and on, ain't he? 

 

 After Trump Request, Netanyahu Formulating Goodwill Gestures Toward Palestinians

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780952

 

After new restrictions, settlers lower hopes for Trump era

http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-new-building-restrictions-settlers-lower-expectations-for-trump-era/

 

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Trump just keeps cheering them on and on, ain't he? 

 

 After Trump Request, Netanyahu Formulating Goodwill Gestures Toward Palestinians

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780952

 

After new restrictions, settlers lower hopes for Trump era

http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-new-building-restrictions-settlers-lower-expectations-for-trump-era/

 

Pure window dressing. 

 

As I outlined above how the con works, and your link confirms this. All depends what you mean by previously developed areas..and some..a lot of fine print there..
"The policy Netanyahu laid out was that settlement construction would be limited to previously developed areas of the West Bank. But where security or topography prevented this, new homes would be built as close as possible to the developed areas."

..Israel frequently uses security as a pretext for land theft.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-new-building-restrictions-settlers-lower-expectations-for-trump-era/

 

The Yesha Council certainly don't seem too upset..
 
“The Yesha Council welcomes the cabinet decision to support new building projects across Judea and Samaria, in addition to the establishment of a new town for the former residents of Amona,” he said.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-new-building-restrictions-settlers-lower-expectations-for-trump-era/

 

Quite frankly, it's of no real concern. If Trump really has got the ultimate deal planned which is acceptable to the Palestinians ..wonderful. 

 

If this is just more of the same same (past 24 years) smoke and mirrors pretend negotiations while Israel creates more facts on the ground, that's OK too..the Zionists are just digging themselves a deeper hole, hopefully one from which they will be unable to extract themselves without dismantling the hateful Zionist ideology.

Edited April 3, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

@dexterm

 

That's all very nice, but it still doesn't support your nonsense claim about Trump cheering Israel's right wing, or taking his cues from Netanyahu. The restrictions placed, and the upcoming steps discussed seem to indicate otherwise.

 

And yes, you can cherry-pick from the links provided, but that still wouldn't change that said restrictions will include no creation of new illegal settlements (apart from the one replacing Amona), no unauthorized settlement efforts will be allowed, and warnings of attempted monkey business incorporated. And then there are those building approval committees - which will be called once every three months, slowing things significantly.

 

In case you've missed it, the whole point with them illegal settlers' reaction is that they are at a disarray. Trump's election did not translate into what they hoped for, and going against the most right wing Israeli government ever is meh. If this was attempted by a centrist/left wing government, they would be rioting by now.

 

Here are them two link again:

 

After new restrictions, settlers lower hopes for Trump era

http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-new-building-restrictions-settlers-lower-expectations-for-trump-era/

 

After Trump Request, Netanyahu Formulating Goodwill Gestures Toward Palestinians

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780952

 

And saying "it's of no real concern" is just a Trump-like cop out. You made an over-reaching statement based on nothing, and you can't bring yourself to own up. That's all it is.

[dexterm]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

@dexterm

 

That's all very nice, but it still doesn't support your nonsense claim about Trump cheering Israel's right wing, or taking his cues from Netanyahu. The restrictions placed, and the upcoming steps discussed seem to indicate otherwise.

 

And yes, you can cherry-pick from the links provided, but that still wouldn't change that said restrictions will include no creation of new illegal settlements (apart from the one replacing Amona), no unauthorized settlement efforts will be allowed, and warnings of attempted monkey business incorporated. And then there are those building approval committees - which will be called once every three months, slowing things significantly.

 

In case you've missed it, the whole point with them illegal settlers' reaction is that they are at a disarray. Trump's election did not translate into what they hoped for, and going against the most right wing Israeli government ever is meh. If this was attempted by a centrist/left wing government, they would be rioting by now.

 

Here are them two link again:

 

After new restrictions, settlers lower hopes for Trump era

http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-new-building-restrictions-settlers-lower-expectations-for-trump-era/

 

After Trump Request, Netanyahu Formulating Goodwill Gestures Toward Palestinians

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780952

 

And saying "it's of no real concern" is just a Trump-like cop out. You made an over-reaching statement based on nothing, and you can't bring yourself to own up. That's all it is.

You don't seem to get it. I don't really give a hoot about Trump or the rabid thug Zionist settlers.

 

Whether Trump is cheering them on or pretending not to, by adopting the wise balanced statesman persona, I don't care..it's win win ultimately for the Palestinians. You seem to be obsessed with scoring high school debating society points of order over minor metaphors. Be my guest. I am looking at the bigger picture.

 

If Trump can deliver a peace agreement acceptable to the Palestinians, I will be very pleasantly surprised.

 

If it's all a blustering charade with a few unacceptable crumbs on offer leading ultimately to further Jewish only colony expansion, then that's going to be an uncomfortable few more years of de facto or de jure (if they annex the West Bank) apartheid , but finally the world will see more crystal clearly what a monstrous racist ideology Zionism is.

Edited April 3, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

I do get it. You'll post any nonsense whatsoever, and reject any objective criticism based on some lame pretense that you do not really care or that it doesn't really matter.

 

Trump is not cheering the Israeli right wing, and there is nothing to support he his stance is pretense. You don't care. You make things up. Then post some more nonsense to cover it up.

 

One of your standing faux complaints is that I reject most of your so-called "solutions". Well, from the above, seems like the one engaging in auto-rejection is yourself. The steps announced by the Israeli government may not be as extensive as they should be, and their motivation is almost certainly nothing to do with goodwill. That said, something imperfect (but workable) is better than nothing at all.

[dexterm]

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

I do get it. You'll post any nonsense whatsoever, and reject any objective criticism based on some lame pretense that you do not really care or that it doesn't really matter.

 

Trump is not cheering the Israeli right wing, and there is nothing to support he his stance is pretense. You don't care. You make things up. Then post some more nonsense to cover it up.

 

One of your standing faux complaints is that I reject most of your so-called "solutions". Well, from the above, seems like the one engaging in auto-rejection is yourself. The steps announced by the Israeli government may not be as extensive as they should be, and their motivation is almost certainly nothing to do with goodwill. That said, something imperfect (but workable) is better than nothing at all.

It's all the typical Israeli charade.

It's all a con. If Israel wanted genuine negotiations in good faith, they would freeze settlement building of any kind ...period.

 

As I pointed out above, the rabid settlers welcome the new rules which seem to address Trump's weasel words "hold off a little bit" on settlement construction.

 

“The Yesha Council welcomes the cabinet decision to support new building projects across Judea and Samaria, in addition to the establishment of a new town for the former residents of Amona,” he said.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-new-building-restrictions-settlers-lower-expectations-for-trump-era/

 

 I wonder why they welcome them.... because the rules mean effectively business as usual and are endlessly flexible of course.

 

Whereas Netanyahu paints his new colony expansion rules as conciliatory to the White House
 
Netanyahu Announces Policy of Restrained Settlement Construction in 'Show of Good Will' to Trump

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780641

 

I've worked out the ambiguity/contradiction; you obviously still haven't. Up2u.

 

Looks like the fanatical right wing are confused too...don't see things quite as objectively as you do.

 

'Naftali Bennett (Bayit Yehudi) slammed the government’s new settlement guidelines, saying they represent a historic and strategic “missed opportunity,” just hours after he said the arrangement seemed “completely okay in theory.”'

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Benjamin-Netanyahu/Netanyahu-missed-historic-opportunity-on-settlements-485931

 

I will await the proof of the pudding for final judgment, when the details of a Trump peace deal are on the table. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

The only con here is the pretense that you are engaging in "discussion" , while actually denouncing and rejecting anything to do with Israel, on whatever irrational grounds.

 

Nobody claimed that the Israeli government wanted to negotiate. That's you playing with bogus arguments. It isn't even required that it would be genuine about it. From available reports, it is quite clear that things are being coerced, directly or indirectly, by the US administration. Obviously, not good enough for purists.

 

The all or nothing approach is childish. That is, if one sees it as genuine, which I do not. Insisting on absolute measures, is a sure way to derail things from the start. Most reasonable people understand that both sides operate under domestic political constraints, which limit their actions. Even if he was so inclined, Netanyahu is not in a political position allowing him much more leeway. As far as advancing the current efforts, political stability on both sides is key. Not much to gain by cornering Netanyahu, or lead to political upheavals with unforeseen consequences. Similarly and notably, Abbas is not required to stop Hamas activities in the Gaza Strip, or is expected to fully control any instance of violence in the West Bank. Things need to start somewhere, and this may be a hesitant first step. There's no requirement for leaps of faith or even lesser dramatics.

 

As said earlier, you may cherry pick lines from links provided to your little heart's content. The full text of the links provided does not support your spin. The context in which settlers comments were made was reviewed both in the links provided and in my posts. They too, just like Netanyahu, are playing a political game with uncertain rules. That you insist otherwise does not indicate much of an understanding on the dynamics between the illegal Israeli settlers and their government.

 

The new restrictions are anything but "business as usual". No approvals for new settlements, the dismantling of unauthorized settlements, future construction limited to existing settlements, no annexation moves, and most effectively, changing approval committees schedule. The latter seems insignificant and technical, but is actually very effective. 

 

And that's without getting into them "goodwill" (yeah, their not genuine and no, it doesn't matter) moves to do with Palestinian building permits, lifting certain economic constraints and be others.

 

Make up your mind. Either you're waiting for Trump's policy to be made clear, or you already know what it is. Can't have it both ways. Of this we can all be sure, there will be no magic solution presented by Trump.