Obama Admin Ends Efforts to Stop israel's Expanding Settlements

[kallipolis]

If memory serves me right, the party with the largest number of seats in the knesset is Kadima, which is a moderate party and not a member of the governing coalition. I believe they have one or two more seats than Netanyahu's party. Thus, I suspect a small shift in votes might result in a change of government.

The bigger the threat from Iran viz a viz the development of Iran's nuclear weapons industry, the more support for the Israeli hawks.

External threats determine the colour of Israeli governments, and the margin for that government's flexibility, when negotiating with their hostile neighbours.

Recent Israeli perceptions of growing threats from Iran does suggest that Israel will maintain an extra hard line, even in the face of the US government's hope that the settlement's expansion policy will be frozen pending further negotiations.

In power Kadima could also be very hawkish in its negotiating position.

The very recent damage to Iran's nuclear weapons industry computer systems by Israeli hackers, does suggest that Iran's ability to develop, and launch nuclear weapons against Israel has been further delayed.

This bodes well for a more flexible response from Israel's current inflexible position on the settlements' continued expansion.

Time will tell. But with a weak United States administration I doubt whether the Israeli hawks will be persuaded by Ms Clinton. The current United States administration will not wish to jeopardize its support among American Jews.

Thus the United States government threat of cutting funding to Israel as a means of persuading Israel to temporise on its settlements programme would appear rather hollow.

 

[bankside]

I think that the United States, or Canada for that matter, could make an impression on the Israeli political game by matching the settlers' budgets with funds for large Israeli Arab families who want to build homes in Israel.

 

[Kulindahr]

We should also cut any aid to Israel by an amount equal to the total expenditures the State of Israel makes to sustain the West Bank settlements.

I was thinking the same thing.

But it raises a question that has a serious bearing on the issue: are Palestinians selling the land that's being used for these settlements, and if so, are they doing it willingly, and if so, are they getting a generous price?

If the answers are "yes" down the line, then it's hard to argue against building the settlements. OTOH, the Israelis moving there should be aware they may not be appreciated, and put through training for living in harmony -- and be aware that there may yet be a settlement handing that land over to someone else.

In Israel's case, the United States government as well as anyone well knowledgeable about Middle East politics knows full well the effect that Israel has in blunting the negative political and military or otherwise influence of Iran in the Middle East. Not to mention it is the only free democracy within 1000 miles.

That being said, there are plenty of people in Israel clamoring for the Israeli government to cut aid to the Palestinian people. It comes as no surprise the message a lot of Israelis are getting from the Palestinians is "we'll bomb you but don't cut off our free food and electricity."

The Israelis use the former as a potent bargaining chip.

The second makes it possible for them to do so: it announces that the situation is a matter of civilization vs. barbarism.

It's too late for a sovereign Palestinian state.

Depend how you do it. If Jordan hadn't screwed up the process back when, it would be easier.

I think that the United States, or Canada for that matter, could make an impression on the Israeli political game by matching the settlers' budgets with funds for large Israeli Arab families who want to build homes in Israel.

That's creative!

From one perspective, the region is ripe for trying the concept of non-geographical states. From looking at the behavior of Hamas and their ilk... not.

 

[EastMed]

Creeping annexation means that there can't be a viable Palestinian state.
The two state solution is a non-issue.

 

[bankside]

Creeping annexation means that there can't be a viable Palestinian state.
The two state solution is a non-issue.

Not so. It may be that the Right of Return is not realistic for the original Palestinian refugees and their families, but I'm sure the Israeli colonialists have the Right of Return to Israel. I'd even say the Inevitable, Internationally-Enforceable Duty to Return.

 

[EastMed]

Israel has forcibly removed settlers before.

True. But the push towards a Greater Israel continues.
The Palestinians are finished.

 

[Lostlover]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...eze-but-israel-heading-for-greater-isolation/

Obama called Israel's bluff with the $3B package. Good read here.

 

[opinterph]

If Indians were to camp on the National Mall, how legitimate would it sound for us to say "this is our land you can't do that here."

Something similar happened in California.

http://siouxme.com/lodge/alcatraz_np.html​

 

[nafhoosier]

True. But the push towards a Greater Israel continues.
The Palestinians are finished.

Yeah, okay.

What are you talking about?

Next you're probably going to start spouting the typical pro-Hamas BS.

"But we're blowing up Israeli civilians to protect are land!" What a joke.

 

[Serenx55]

Israeli obsession again eh? Personally I've disdained much of Israel's movements, but then I remember I disdain the Arabs more. I mean what can I say? Should I condemn the Israeli actions? Sure they aren't doing politically pleasant things. However I don't see any other middle eastern nations doing the same.
Oh well until Jerusalem is turned into a holy parking lot the conflict will continue.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh well until Jerusalem is turned into a holy parking lot the conflict will continue.

I'd like to see Jerusalem made capital city for both people/nations, with a civil administration beholden to neither, functioning practically as its own state -- in strict neutrality.

 

[Serenx55]

I'd like to see Jerusalem made capital city for both people/nations, with a civil administration beholden to neither, functioning practically as its own state -- in strict neutrality.

I think that'll work as much as Mecca allowing a non-muslim to enter.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think that'll work as much as Mecca allowing a non-muslim to enter.

The difference is that no one else wants Mecca. The people of three major faiths all want Jerusalem... and they all claim to be religions of peace. I think someone ought to call their bluff, and seriously propose this. I'd even recommend that the local Christian Patriarch, the highest-ranking local Muslim cleric, and the highest ranking Jewish rabbi in the place, form the city's permanent council -- make them work together.

And we have to get over the statist fixation someday -- what better place to start?

 

[bankside]

Except all of Israel, including the West Bank and excluding Gaza, is the ancient Jewish homeland, a historical fact confirmed by archaeology and extensive written records from the period. I don't suppose you would be prepared to leave your home and go back to wherever your ancestors came from if a Native American asked for it...

See my point?

If Indians were to camp on the National Mall, how legitimate would it sound for us to say "this is our land you can't do that here."

I don't see your point.

 

[Serenx55]

This has been my position for years.

I don't think either side will agree to that. The Koran requires that muslims control certain cities such as Jerusalem. The unfortunate reality is that if there was any hope of this happening it would have been under Arafats party which was much more prone towards secularism versus Hamas which is religious.

 

[Serenx55]

The difference is that no one else wants Mecca. The people of three major faiths all want Jerusalem... and they all claim to be religions of peace. I think someone ought to call their bluff, and seriously propose this. I'd even recommend that the local Christian Patriarch, the highest-ranking local Muslim cleric, and the highest ranking Jewish rabbi in the place, form the city's permanent council -- make them work together.

And we have to get over the statist fixation someday -- what better place to start?

In an ideal world that would work. However I can think of so many things that could go wrong including something along the lines of what happened in Jordan when the Palestinians tried to over throw the king who took them in and offered them an opportunity.

 

[bankside]

Then it's obvious you believe in Right of Conquest or that if you squat on an exiled people's land long enough it's yours forever no ifs ands or buts and the previous people have no rights to it whatsoever.

That's a very good argument for claiming that Native Americans have no rights because Europeans have controlled their territory for just long enough that those claims are no longer legitimate.

No; I literally didn't follow your line of reasoning - not sure yet whether i agree with it or not.

Is there a right of original occupation? Is France justified in expelling Romanies because the French got there first?

Meh. Conquest vs. "seniority rights." Meh.

 

[Serenx55]

Palestinian Nationalism was non-existent to weak in 1947 so much so that Jordan easily swooped in and conquered the West Bank as soon as the British left. Palestinian Arabs didn't even put up a fight against the occupiers (Jordan and Egypt). If borders reverted back to what they were in 1967, Palestinian lands there would be Jordanian not an independent state. What so many people don't get is that lands on which Palestinians live before 1967 borders were still occupied by a foreign nation and not in any way considered sovereign territory of a Palestinian nation, a notion which didn't even exist. But a lot has changed especially through the 70s with the rise of the PLO. The movement towards a Palestinian state is now unstoppable. The Palestinians are where they are and nothing is going to change that. Israel wants to preserve its Jewish character. So really its a win win to have a two-state solution.

Primarily because Palestinians are nomads. The Ottoman Empire didn't care about them and following that the British didn't care about them and they continued to have fun with their sand and goats. They didn't need or want a nation.

 

[bankside]

Let's break it down real simply for you.

If I force you off your property with a weapon, how long do I have to wait until it's legitimately mine according to you?

A year? Two years? 100 years? 1000? Do your descendants get to claim it? Do mine?

I dunno. Certainly not distant descendants. I have no claim against France because the Huguenots were badly treated. Archæological and historical evidence also places my ancestors in England. May I sue the descendants of vikings for pillaging? If it turns out I'm a descendent of rape, must I pay myself damages out of the inheritance I now intend to collect? And of course being a mutt (I'm not "pur laine" at all, as a certain generation of Québecois nationalist would have said) there's my connection to Israel. Or rather the diaspora that predated Israel.

To a certain extent, one has to go case by case. Without worrying about who got where first, that Israel exists strikes me as totally appropriate: there are very-long-estblished Jewish communities in the area. They've been brought together under political autonomy in a region where the previous régimes offered highly variable and occasionally capricious guarantees of rights and protections - for which autonomy seems the perfect and proper solution.

But that has, in my judgement, very little to do with who found what shard under what rock from thousands of years ago. And it offers scant cover for twisting a state established to enshrine the freedoms of some people, into a tool for depriving the rights of others.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think either side will agree to that. The Koran requires that muslims control certain cities such as Jerusalem. The unfortunate reality is that if there was any hope of this happening it would have been under Arafats party which was much more prone towards secularism versus Hamas which is religious.

IIRC, Jerusalem isn't even mentioned in the Q'uran, so there can't be any such requirement.

Not that such a lack would mean anything to the fanatics.