Obama calls for the reduction of Israeli West Bank settlements (1 Viewer)

[DavidBenGurion]

I agree with Sprangler on the issue of Hamas (or whatever this forum chooses to call them). Don't be so quick to jump to idea that diplomacy is no way to achieve a viable peace solution in Palestine/Israel. And don't be so ready to admonish any chance of Palestine building a stronger, more industrial state in need of outside assistance for such a progression.

We're not saying that diplomacy is not a viable solution at all. It is and has been in the past...with the exception of when Israel is involved. If the US, or another power, made Israel an equal player rather than one that is above all rules, then diplomacy would work and it would work wonders. Israel though exists in its own terms and until it makes concessions then diplomacy will be as useful as an itchy scrotum.

The Palestinians require East Jerusalem as their capital if a two-state solution was to go ahead and the Israelis do not want to dissect their capital into the East and West, even though demographically speaking it already is very much divided, so they will not go ahead with the peace deal.

That the two sides want the same thing ought to be irrelevant in a peace deal (brokered by a larger power). East Jerusalem is rightfully the property of the Palestinians. Eat it and accept it.

 

[JonathanM]

Does it matter what the people of Israel want? does it? Of course it doesn't. Israel is a ogliarchy state are run by Zionist and idealistic Jews who have their agendas based in the Torah. They are desperately seeking the return of their messiah and that is what is fueling their actions. Read through the biographies of the Israeli leaders of the past and present. They want to expand their borders and that is why they are welcoming home Jews from all over the world who would otherwise have to beg and plead to be accepted as Jews.

The land grabbing and diluting of the Palestinian population with Jewish settlements is a clear proof of their wish for domination and not peace.

Savak, I haven't the faintest clue where you have received this information, but it is completely flawed, down to the 'return of the messiah.' The Jewish Messiah hasn't come yet... so how can it 'return'?

The biographies of past Israeli leaders? True, many of them would have been expansionist, like Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, but there were many others who sought peace much more actively and went in the other direction, like Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Peres.

Israel has a rapidly growing population of over 7 million, living in a land mass that is so small it can fit into Tasmania three times, it's claims for wanting to expand into areas like the West Bank because of natural growth, whilst not justifying their actions (I think it is the opposite, they are essentially 'invading' what will have to become a Palestinian state, and I completely disagree with this) are not empty claims. Israel is accepting more Jews true, from places like France where there is anti-Semitism reminiscent of the Nazi era (fire bombings of Synagogues, beatings of Jews, boycotts of Jewish shops not connected with Israel in any way etc.) Yet another reason why there needs to be a Jewish State, where Jews can live safely without fear of the purge of anti-Semitism.

lol forgiving and forgetting. yeah mate, what are you smoking.

Bored of Studies - Legalize It

Come to my place! Lets you see the whole situation much clearer

 

[Jessica14]

We're not saying that diplomacy is not a viable solution at all. It is and has been in the past...with the exception of when Israel is involved. If the US, or another power, made Israel an equal player rather than one that is above all rules, then diplomacy would work and it would work wonders. Israel though exists in its own terms and until it makes concessions then diplomacy will be as useful as an itchy scrotum.

Israel will have little choice but to accept a diplomatic pathway. I know that we have not seen enough of Obama's new administration to draw these conclusions and I may seem naive for even suggesting it, but there is an indication of a strong change in US foreign policy. This change will not separate the ties that bind the US and the State of Israel, but it will produce transformations that will, I hope, bring about a stronger push for Israel to enter negotiations with realistic outcomes. I don't agree that Israel has never been involved in such negotiations. The signing of the Oslo Accords by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, overseen by Bill Clinton, was a significant step in the right direction and it cost Rabin his life.

That the two sides want the same thing ought to be irrelevant in a peace deal (brokered by a larger power). East Jerusalem is rightfully the property of the Palestinians. Eat it and accept it.

I agree that there will be no other viable choice but for East Jerusalem to become the capital of Palestine. I am waiting for the Israeli leaders to see and accept that too. Remember, I am neither pro-Israeli nor anti-Israeli.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

The biographies of past Israeli leaders? True, many of them would have been expansionist, like Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, but there were many others who sought peace much more actively and went in the other direction, like Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Peres.

All irrelevant except for the current drongo leading the pack.

Israel has a rapidly growing population of over 7 million, living in a land mass that is so small it can fit into Tasmania three times, it's claims for wanting to expand into areas like the West Bank because of natural growth, whilst not justifying their actions (I think it is the opposite, they are essentially 'invading' what will have to become a Palestinian state, and I completely disagree with this) are not empty claims. Israel is accepting more Jews true, from places like France where there is anti-Semitism reminiscent of the Nazi era (fire bombings of Synagogues, beatings of Jews, boycotts of Jewish shops not connected with Israel in any way etc.) Yet another reason why there needs to be a Jewish State, where Jews can live safely without fear of the purge of anti-Semitism.

So what is it then? You haven't committed effectively to a side. Do you support their invasion of Palestine or do you absolutely condemn it? You can't have it both ways.

 

[MaNiElla]

k, jessica

 

[DavidBenGurion]

Israel will have little choice but to accept a diplomatic pathway. I know that we have not seen enough of Obama's new administration to draw these conclusions and I may seem naive for even suggesting it, but there is an indication of a strong change in US foreign policy. This change will not separate the ties that bind the US and the State of Israel, but it will produce transformations that will, I hope, bring about a stronger push for Israel to enter negotiations with realistic outcomes. I don't agree that Israel has never been involved in such negotiations. The signing of the Oslo Accords by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, overseen by Bill Clinton, was a significant step in the right direction and it cost Rabin his life.

And what exactly did it bring?
What concessions did Israel actually make?

So far as I can recall, Israel has made small concessions in the past (under Sharon recently, for one) but in the following years it goes ahead and undoes everything it conceded by taking it back, and then some.

As far as Obama goes: He can say what he wants. Fact is that Netanyahu is in charge backed up by the hard right of that other lunatic (I forget his name). They won't ever lose US backing unless the US can find some other kind of ally in the region with the strength and anglo-saxon-ness of Israel. This is not going to happen. Israel has nothing to lose on the US front as it holds all the power. Netanyahu got elected because he was a hardliner. While he and Israel may make concessions to save face then real tally of what it does will be strongly in Israels favour, and it will never make a net loss.

 

[SAVAK]

Israel will have little choice but to accept a diplomatic pathway. I know that we have not seen enough of Obama's new administration to draw these conclusions and I may seem naive for even suggesting it, but there is an indication of a strong change in US foreign policy. This change will not separate the ties that bind the US and the State of Israel, but it will produce transformations that will, I hope, bring about a stronger push for Israel to enter negotiations with realistic outcomes. I don't agree that Israel has never been involved in such negotiations. The signing of the Oslo Accords by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, overseen by Bill Clinton, was a significant step in the right direction and it cost Rabin his life.

whatever. keep telling yourself this.

 

[Jessica14]

And what exactly did it bring?
What concessions did Israel actually make?

So far as I can recall, Israel has made small concessions in the past (under Sharon recently, for one) but in the following years it goes ahead and undoes everything it conceded by taking it back, and then some.

As far as Obama goes: He can say what he wants. Fact is that Netanyahu is in charge backed up by the hard right of that other lunatic (I forget his name). They won't ever lose US backing unless the US can find some other kind of ally in the region with the strength and anglo-saxon-ness of Israel. This is not going to happen. Israel has nothing to lose on the US front as it holds all the power. Netanyahu got elected because he was a hardliner. While he and Israel may make concessions to save face then real tally of what it does will be strongly in Israels favour, and it will never make a net loss.

Obviously I can only hypothesise here, but I still think that Obama will do more to factor a peace deal into the equation when he deals with Israel simply because it appears that he is trying to reforge some good relations with the Arab world, and I say that it only appears that way, after everything that occurred under the Bush administration. I agree that it will be hard to budge Netanyahu from his right-wing stance, but I'm not going to make too much of a comment about what will happen in the future-- I'm just going to wait and see.

As for the other part of your post, the Palestinian Authority was created under Rabin's government as well as the signing of the Oslo Accords and that peace treaty with Jordan. He gave some control back to the Palestinians. Now I know you're going to write that it wasn't enough, but this is a slow process and small successes like that are important. I also believe that he was responsible for the removal of some settlements in the West Bank, but I'm still trying to find a source for that. It was mentioned briefly in a documentary I saw. But important nonetheless. Baby steps.

 

[Jessica14]

whatever. keep telling yourself this.

Okay.... I will. I believe that something will change in the future. After all, things can't stay the way they are now forever. Not even for a few more decades. Something's got to change in the Middle East.

 

[SAVAK]

Okay.... I will. I believe that something will change in the future. After all, things can't stay the way they are now forever. Not even for a few more decades. Something's got to change in the Middle East.

I tell you one thing, whatever change that occurs in the middle east WILL NOT occur due to the 'humbleness' of the United States and Israel. If you actually think this you're a fucking retard.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

As for the other part of your post, the Palestinian Authority was created under Rabin's government as well as the signing of the Oslo Accords and that peace treaty with Jordan. He gave some control back to the Palestinians. Now I know you're going to write that it wasn't enough, but this is a slow process and small successes like that are important. I also believe that he was responsible for the removal of some settlements in the West Bank, but I'm still trying to find a source for that. It was mentioned briefly in a documentary I saw. But important nonetheless. Baby steps.

Your thought process here is one sided. Yes, Israel makes baby steps towards the Palestinians however at the same time it makes massive strides in the reverse direction.

Cases in point:
Sharon gives up some illegal Israeli settlements
But builds a massive wall and thrusts Israel further into the West Bank in other places

Another:
Olmert says he'll work with the Palestinians
But then wages a war on them

Don't be so daft as to suggest that Israel is making a net positive movement towards peace. Don't even dare.

 

[Jessica14]

I tell you one thing, whatever change that occurs in the middle east WILL NOT occur due to the 'humbleness' of the United States and Israel. If you actually think this you're a fucking retard.

Of course it won't. It takes more than two countries to bring about any kind of change, positive or negative. I don't understand why you're so eager to accept a stagnate world. Things don't stay the same for very long, which I think is the philosohical edge to every single one of these threads. Wondering what will come next.....

Peace as I would like to see it or a country's complete annihilation as you would like to see it?

I'm not naive, maybe a little idealistic and please don't twist my words to make it sound like I'm putting all my faith in the US. The change in US foreign policy, which has already been put into motion, is just one factor in a swirl of vastly different influences that can alter the main facets, ideals and representations of a region.

 

[Jessica14]

Your thought process here is one sided. Yes, Israel makes baby steps towards the Palestinians however at the same time it makes massive strides in the reverse direction.

Cases in point:
Sharon gives up some illegal Israeli settlements
But builds a massive wall and thrusts Israel further into the West Bank in other places

Another:
Olmert says he'll work with the Palestinians
But then wages a war on them

Don't be so daft as to suggest that Israel is making a net positive movement towards peace. Don't even dare.

Point taken. And I wasn't trying to suggest that these small steps outweighed everything else-- everything that it seems we already know and speak about often. I'm bringing in a different side to your argument. I agree that the were significant negative connotations attached to the recent conflict and even conflicts from a few years ago. At the same time, you know I won't just place the blame for the backwardness of the movement towards peace at that time on the Israelis. I don't think that mortar fire sweetens a peace deal...

I'm not gonna guess if this position will change and Israel will take more positive steps towards achieving peace, as I hope that Hamas will too, but if any of the parties involved are serious about the two-state solution, such steps will have to be taken, even if action is slow.

 

[JonathanM]

Israel will have little choice but to accept a diplomatic pathway. I know that we have not seen enough of Obama's new administration to draw these conclusions and I may seem naive for even suggesting it, but there is an indication of a strong change in US foreign policy. This change will not separate the ties that bind the US and the State of Israel, but it will produce transformations that will, I hope, bring about a stronger push for Israel to enter negotiations with realistic outcomes. I don't agree that Israel has never been involved in such negotiations. The signing of the Oslo Accords by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, overseen by Bill Clinton, was a significant step in the right direction and it cost Rabin his life.

I don't think we are going to see any real progression towards peace during Benjamin Netanyahu's term in office. From an Israeli point of view he is the right person for the job, an Israel that wants to survive, (completely forgetting whether it deserves to exist or not for the moment) would need a war leader right now, not a peace leader. Obama has described there being a nuclear arms race in the M.E, and he's right. I can only see the situation in the Middle East going downwards from here with the tensions amongst Israel, Iran, Syria and Gaza heading towards a blowing point. The recent defeat of Hezbollah in the Lebanon elections will only serve to delay what I see, very sadly, as an inevitable conflict.

Israel has a record for voting in more peaceful leaders eventually, and there is a relatively strong Labor party in Israel that will be able to seriously contest the next election, till then our only hope is that no one does anything too stupid.

 

[tempco]

YouTube - Israeli settlement 'shooter' released - 12 Jun 09

Settlers gone wild. I guess there is logic behind the madness of having more extremist Jews in settlements because they're more likely to believe God is commanding them to 'take back' all of Israel.

I don't think we are going to see any real progression towards peace during Benjamin Netanyahu's term in office. From an Israeli point of view he is the right person for the job, an Israel that wants to survive, (completely forgetting whether it deserves to exist or not for the moment) would need a war leader right now, not a peace leader. Obama has described there being a nuclear arms race in the M.E, and he's right. I can only see the situation in the Middle East going downwards from here with the tensions amongst Israel, Iran, Syria and Gaza heading towards a blowing point. The recent defeat of Hezbollah in the Lebanon elections will only serve to delay what I see, very sadly, as an inevitable conflict.

I think a lot of progress has been made in terms of worldwide perception of Israel, but not 'real' on-the-ground progress. The differences in the Obama and Bush stance on Israel, and the election of a war leader has really highlighte Israel's disregard for anything apart from its own interests.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

YouTube - Israeli settlement 'shooter' released - 12 Jun 09

Shit that's rotten.

 

[Jessica14]

I agree. The Israeli justice system should've made the idiot (or goddamn obstinate settler) a scapegoat in the name of peace, not the hero who shot a man armed with a rock.

 

[JonathanM]

I agree. The Israeli justice system should've made the idiot (or goddamn obstinate settler) a scapegoat in the name of peace, not the hero who shot a man armed with a rock.

The whole point of the video was that there wasn't fair justice. Making a scape goat of the settler completely devoid the point of a fair legal system.

If that's true that's pretty fucked up. Is there any other reputable news source that carried this story other than Aljazeera?

 

[Sprangler]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7770384.stm

I saw the story about the settlers getting evicted from that house that sparked the shooting some time ago on SBS news. It showed the Israeli police forcefully evicting them out of the house and like the first few seconds of that video, but didn't mention the shooting at all. Al-Jazeera English seems to be pretty reliable, I read it along with BBC.

 

[JaredR]

Stupid settlers are responsible for 1948 and 67! Damned people.