The Settlements Myth

[DarrinS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/04/AR2009060403811.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns




President Obama repeatedly insists that American foreign policy be conducted with modesty and humility. Above all, there will be no more "dictating" to other countries. We should "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told al-Arabiya, America will henceforth "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating."

An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone -- Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: "a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions."

What's the issue? No "natural growth" means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them -- not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that. The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns -- even before negotiations.

To what end? Over the past decade, the U.S. government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements -- and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself.

That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why expel people from their homes and turn their towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians?

This idea is not only logical, not only accepted by both Democratic and Republican administrations for the past decade, but was agreed to in writing in the letters of understanding exchanged between Israel and the United States in 2004 -- and subsequently overwhelmingly endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress.

Yet the Obama State Department has repeatedly refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them. This from a president who piously insists that all parties to the conflict honor previous obligations. And who now expects Israel to accept new American assurances in return for concrete and irreversible Israeli concessions, when he himself has just cynically discarded past American assurances.

The entire "natural growth" issue is a concoction. Is the peace process moribund because a teacher in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is making an addition to her house to accommodate new grandchildren? It is perverse to make this the center point of the peace process at a time when Gaza is run by Hamas terrorists dedicated to permanent war with Israel and when Mahmoud Abbas, having turned down every one of Ehud Olmert's peace offers, brazenly declares that he is in a waiting mode -- waiting for Hamas to become moderate and for Israel to cave -- before he'll do anything to advance peace.

In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo yesterday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.

That's why Haj Amin al-Husseini chose war rather than a two-state solution in 1947. Why Yasser Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in 2000. And why Abbas rejected Olmert's even more generous December 2008 offer.

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements.

Blaming Israel and picking a fight over "natural growth" may curry favor with the Muslim "street." But it will only induce the Arab states to do like Abbas: sit and wait for America to deliver Israel on a platter. Which makes the Obama strategy not just dishonorable but self-defeating.

[Winehole23]

According to this poll (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40112820090605), a little more than half of Israelis agree with Obama.

[DarrinS]

According to this poll (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40112820090605), a little more than half of Israelis agree with Obama.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/june_2009/obama_index_june_5_2009/223956-1-eng-US/obama_index_june_5_2009.jpg

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


That didn't take long

[Winehole23]

^^^Non sequitur

Do you do anything besides ad hominem, strawman and dodging the question?

[DarrinS]

^^^Non sequitur

Do you do anything besides ad hominem, strawman and dodging the question?



From the poll you posted




The poll queried 501 respondents representing a cross-section of the Israeli population. It said 53 percent thought Obama's policies towards Israel were bad, while 26 percent said they were positive.

[Winehole23]

What specifically did they say about Obama's settlement demands?

I'm not surprised that you would read the link selectively, but it's moronic to think that everyone else will do the same, or take your word for it.

[clambake]

so we should be taking our orders from israel?

[jman3000]

strongly approve and strongly disagree are just the extremes of the sides. that's to be expected. what are the approve/disapprove numbers? I highly doubt that 30% said they weren't sure.

[Extra Stout]

Krauthammer is a liar.

I don't accept Jewish irredentist claims any more than I do Muslim irredentist claims. The two-state solution is a fiction. It won't work on the Israeli side any more than it would on the Palestinian side, because if Israel tries to pull its settlements out of the West Bank, the Muslim terrorists will simply be joined by Orthodox Jewish ones -- many of whom are in the IDF.

Krauthammer isn't stupid. This isn't about "natural growth" around the "1949 armistice line." He uses obscurantist language for a reason.

And Israel can stop listening to America's opinions about its policies as soon as it stops taking our aid.

I'm tired of neoconservative lies.

I'm sure some idiot will come in and call me an anti-Semite now.

[jman3000]

You don't enjoy the taste of matzah balls.

[Duff McCartney]

I'm sure some idiot will come in and call me an anti-Semite now.

That in a nutshell is the problem with any country/person criticising the Israeli policy of the settlements and uprooting Palestinians from their homes.

I think the Palestinian in the movie Munich said it best.."You feel guilty about the Holocaust and the Jews exploit that guilt."

I don't know if I would say exploit...that word is too much. But people always equate criticism of Israeli policy with being anti-Semitic.

[DarrinS]

Well, at least Obama has taken a hard line on something -- unfortunately, it's one of our allies.

[FaithInOne]

Obama has a very selective history habit.

Nothing new here. Same ol' politician.

[Crookshanks]

You gotta just love the Jews! I applaud them!!!!!!!
======================

A day after US President Barack Obama reiterated his call to stop settlement activity during a speech in Cairo, defiant settlers continued to erect illegal structures in the West Bank, building a new outpost on Friday morning between Migron and Kohav Ya'akov. Illegal according to who?


At the outpost, named Oz Yehonatan, the settlers built a wooden structure they mockingly called the "Obama Hut," saying it was a sign of appreciation for the US president for his actions that had led to a dramatic rise in the number of outposts.

Overnight Thursday, settlers and right-wing activists once again rebuilt the illegal Maoz Esther outpost that was dismantled on Wednesday by security forces.

Among the structures erected was a synagogue in which activists placed a Torah scroll dedicated in the name of Yohonadav Hirschfield, who was killed in last year's terror attack at Jerusalem's Mercaz Harav Yeshiva

[Extra Stout]

You gotta just love the Jews! I applaud them!!!!!!! Once they wipe out all the Palestinians, they can demolish the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the temple --- and then Jesus can come back! YAY!!!!!!!

[SnakeBoy]

They rebuilt the whole outpost plus a synagogue overnight? That's impressive. Jesus must be helping them out.

[Bender]

what does the Judean Peoples' Front think of all this? (or is it The Peoples' Front of Judea?)

http://latahblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/life-of-brian.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

You gotta just love the Jews! I applaud them!!!!!!!
======================

A day after US President Barack Obama reiterated his call to stop settlement activity during a speech in Cairo, defiant settlers continued to erect illegal structures in the West Bank, building a new outpost on Friday morning between Migron and Kohav Ya'akov. Illegal according to who?Illegal according to the government of Israel if the situation is anything like it is in this location:


The IDF has banned settlers from building on land adjacent to the Bet Aryeh settlement, east of Rosh Ha'ayin, saying proposed construction in the area would have threatened the future route of the West Bank security barrier.

In a statement released on Thursday night, the army said: "On May 27, OC Central Command [Maj.-Gen. Gadi Shamni] signed an order forbidding construction... to prevent the building of structures that would have interfered in the construction of the security fence."

"The IDF stresses that building on state lands allocated for the security fence is illegal," the statement continued.

Bet Aryeh had been notified of the decree, the army added. The secular settlement could not be reached for comment.

It has some 3,600 residents and is located 3.8 km. from the pre-1967 Green Line, within the boundaries of the security barrier.

This is the second time this week that news has been released regarding a ban on new construction projects in the settlements. On Wednesday it was reported that the Defense Ministry had put a stop to an infrastructure project in Shilo.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244035003079&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Oh, and you forgot this little chestnut from your article:
One of the activists said of Obama, "He's an Arab Muslim and a gentile, he is fighting against the Jewish people and has declared that he will continue to do so. We already stated our intention to continue to build, no matter who is fighting us - Egypt, Germany or the US."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244035005732&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Why do we "got to love" ignorance and belligerence and defiance of their own laws?

[Supergirl]

Well, we have a long history of being involved in Israel's politics. And, it should be pointed out, we haven't really done much good. Clinton did as well as anyone has, and got close to forging real peace, but then Nov 4, 1995 happened.

I think we should stop telling Israel what to do, too, because at this point the Israeli and the Palestinian leadership need to start figuring out whether they want peace, and whether they are capable of reining in the elements amongst their people who are determined to prevent peace. We can't make peace for them.

[xeromass]

Illegal according to who?As ChumpDumper said, Israeli law.

In most countries you are not allowed to build

a)on land you do not own
b)without building permits

[Nbadan]

The American Neo-cons and Netanyahu's Likud party are inseparable, plus there are even other groups more right-wing/militant than the Likud that support even more Israeli expansion into occupied territories....throw in AIPAC's influence on politicians from both parties and a Israeli spy scandal that reached into the upper-echelon decision-making in the Bush years.....I would say Israel has also had a long history of 'being involved in' American politics......and I support Israel's right to protect its borders...

[Nbadan]

Krauthammer is a liar.

I'm tired of neoconservative lies.


Why does Krauthammer even still have a job? What happened to credibility anyway?

[Extra Stout]

I support Israel's right to protect its borders...

I agree... I support Israel's right to defend its territory as defined by international agreement and to protect its people from enemies who want to eradicate it.

I do not support the presumption of some Israelis to purge all the Palestinians because of what they read in the Torah, just as I don't support the presumption of Palestinians to destroy Israel because the land has to be Dar al-Islam.

[Nbadan]

I don't know if I would say exploit...that word is too much. But people always equate criticism of Israeli policy with being anti-Semitic.

At some point the people have to be accountable too...I mean, a lot of people in other countries could separate Bush policy from 'the American people' during his first term, especially about Iraq, and well, almost all other foreign policy...I mean, he wasn't even really elected, right? ....but then they re-elected that idiot and got 4 more years...the people have to be accountable too...

[LnGrrrR]

krauthammer is a liar.

I don't accept jewish irredentist claims any more than i do muslim irredentist claims. The two-state solution is a fiction. It won't work on the israeli side any more than it would on the palestinian side, because if israel tries to pull its settlements out of the west bank, the muslim terrorists will simply be joined by orthodox jewish ones -- many of whom are in the idf.

Krauthammer isn't stupid. This isn't about "natural growth" around the "1949 armistice line." he uses obscurantist language for a reason.

and israel can stop listening to america's opinions about its policies as soon as it stops taking our aid.

i'm tired of neoconservative lies.

I'm sure some idiot will come in and call me an anti-semite now.

+10,000

[johnsmith]

At some point the people have to be accountable too...I mean, a lot of people in other countries could separate Bush policy from 'the American people' during his first term, especially about Iraq, and well, almost all other foreign policy...I mean, he wasn't even really elected, right? ....but then they re-elected that idiot and got 4 more years...the people have to be accountable too...

Ah, so it's Bush's fault for the rift between Israel and Palestine.
I see.

[ChumpDumper]

Ah, so it's Bush's fault for the rift between Israel and Palestine.
I see.Do you feel the rush of air over your head when you read these posts?

[johnsmith]

Do you feel the rush of air over your head when you read these posts?

So you think his post was relevant then? You need to get off the internet every once in a while.

[ChumpDumper]

So you think his post was relevant then? You need to get off the internet every once in a while.Inasmuch as it was about accountability, sure. As far as I saw, Bush didn't try to do shit about the Israel/Palestine question until the very end of his administration, which didn't work for the previous couple of presidents either. That's all I could really say about Bush directly regarding this subject.

[johnsmith]

I don't know if I would say exploit...that word is too much. But people always equate criticism of Israeli policy with being anti-Semitic.


At some point the people have to be accountable too...I mean, a lot of people in other countries could separate Bush policy from 'the American people' during his first term, especially about Iraq, and well, almost all other foreign policy...I mean, he wasn't even really elected, right? ....but then they re-elected that idiot and got 4 more years...the people have to be accountable too...


Inasmuch as it was about accountability, sure.

W.h.a.t. t.h.e. f.u.c.k does the accountablity of the American people for 4 additional years of Bush have to do with Duff explaining that being critical of Israeli policy is not equal to being anti-Semitic?

[johnsmith]

Inasmuch as it was about accountability, sure. As far as I saw, Bush didn't try to do shit about the Israel/Palestine question until the very end of his administration, which didn't work for the previous couple of presidents either. That's all I could really say about Bush directly regarding this subject.

First of all, if you are going to go back and edit shit after the fact, it makes it tough to argue. I wonder how often you do that?

Second, WTF does that have to do with Duff's quote?

[ChumpDumper]

I edit a lot when I think I need to clarify my position. I tend to do it quickly.

I believe Duff and dan are talking about the accountability of the people of Israel themselves and by logical extension Israel as a nation. Has there ever been a stick used in US policy towards Israel, or just billions and billions of carrots?

[johnsmith]

I edit a lot when I think I need to clarify my position. I tend to do it quickly.

I believe Duff and dan are talking about the accountability of the people of Israel themselves and by logical extension Israel as a nation. Has there ever been a stick used in US policy towards Israel, or just billions and billions of carrots?

Nope, Duff was talking about how if one criticizes Israel, he is often accused of anti-semitism. Look at what he's quoting.

Dan took it upon himself to try and somehow get Bush's name in the thread.

Not that I really care, just think it's lame.

[clambake]

they use expansion.....as a tool....to piss off the palastinians....so they'll be attacked....and will claim the right to retaliate.....by 10 fold.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, Duff was talking about how if one criticizes Israel, he is often accused of anti-semitism. Look at what he's quoting.Right, Duff is criticizing Israel, and dan says the people of Israel should be held accountable at some point.


Dan took it upon himself to try and somehow get Bush's name in the thread.And you took it upon yourself to misinterpret his analogy.


Not that I really care, just think it's lame.Please. Pretty much everyone here goes out of his/her way to get in a jab at someone they don't like.

[johnsmith]

Right, Duff is criticizing Israel, and dan says the people of Israel should be held accountable at some point.

So the people of Israel should be accountable for others generalizing people that criticize Israeli policy as anti-semitic? Look at it again, Duff was ONLY saying that if he criticizes Israeli policy he shouldn't be viewed as anti-semitic.


And you took it upon yourself to misinterpret his analogy.

What analogy and by whom?


Please. Pretty much everyone here goes out of his/her way to get in a jab at someone they don't like.

Please. You spend too much time here and can no longer seperate your virtual world from your real world (which as it seems is one in the same for you).

[David Bowie]

they use expansion.....as a tool....to piss off the palastinians....so they'll be attacked....and will claim the right to retaliate.....by 10 fold.


Then why do you ignore the fact that Arab militants hide in hospitals, schools and other places where civilians are during war time and then bitch at Israel when a civilian gets killed?

[ChumpDumper]

So the people of Israel should be accountable for others generalizing people that criticize Israeli policy as anti-semitic? Look at it again, Duff was ONLY saying that if he criticizes Israeli policy he shouldn't be viewed as anti-semitic.Right. Dan expanded on that point introducing the idea of accountability of a people.


What analogy and by whom?Dan's analogy by Dan.


Please. You spend too much time here and can no longer seperate your virtual world from your real world (which as it seems is one in the same for you).Please. You are far too concerned about me. Of course it's not real concern, just a convenient fallback when your argument falls apart.

But, by all means, let's make this about me.

[Nbadan]

What analogy and by whom?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/images/2008/01/11/dingleberry.jpg

[johnsmith]

You're wrong, and you're misinterpreting the subjects.

Have a good weekend.

[johnsmith]

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/images/2008/01/11/dingleberry.jpg

That's about right then since he said it was your analogy.

Nevermind Chump, you were right.

[ChumpDumper]

Have a good weekend.You have a good one too.

[Nbadan]

In Israel, JS would be Lukid......have a good day Sir!

[Blake]

You have a good one too.

although I really don't think you like or dislike johnsmith, there's no need for this type of jab.

[Nbadan]

although I really don't think you like or dislike johnsmith, there's no need for this type of jab.

Wow...

[ChumpDumper]

I totally hate that bastard with every fiber of my being, but that's no reason for him to have a bad weekend.

[Nbadan]

JS isn't so bad....you just have to understand his humor...

[Blake]

Wow...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/AlexClarke/Starfighter/sarcasm_detector.jpg

turn it to "on"

[clambake]

Then why do you ignore the fact that Arab militants hide in hospitals, schools and other places where civilians are during war time
when did i ignore this?

and then bitch at Israel when a civilian gets killed?
you must be thinking of someone else.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone have the text and/or video for President Obama's words regarding this? I found the Cairo speech:

Transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/)

NaxZPiiKyMw

Speeches:

SPEECHES AND REMARKS (http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/Remarks/)

[Winehole23]

From the poll you posted:



The poll queried 501 respondents representing a cross-section of the Israeli population. It said 53 percent thought Obama's policies towards Israel were bad, while 26 percent said they were positive.This actually reinforces my point.

The polled are inclined to dislike Obama's policies by a two to one margin. Yet the very same group comes out 56%-40% in favor of Obama's demand to halt the growth of the settlements.

When it comes to Israel (and Palestine), there's a much freer discussion inside Israel than there is here.

[DarrinS]

Israeli settlement expansion is HUGE. If we don't keep them in their place, they're going to take over the world.

http://www.iris.org.il/images/arabwld3.gif

http://www.iris.org.il/images/new_jersey.gif

http://www.iris.org.il/images/lakemich.gif

http://www.iris.org.il/images/usa.gif

http://www.iris.org.il/images/india.gif

http://www.iris.org.il/images/vancouv.gif

[ChumpDumper]

Trying to downplay ethnic cleansing with arguments of scale.

Cute.

Tell me DarrinS, since you have done such an exhaustive study on the scope of the issue, how much lebensraum do you think Israel is due?

[MannyIsGod]

Thats one hell of an irrelevant post.

[ChumpDumper]

Thats one hell of an irrelevant post.What else would you expect?

[Winehole23]

How inane. What does Israel's size have to do with any of this?

[Winehole23]

Joe Klein's riposte (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/05/the-settlements/) to Krauthammer.


[Krauthammer] does not deal with the legality of these towns--he can't, of course, because they are illegal under the fourth Geneva Convention, which provides rules for occupying powers. He does not deal with the illegality, and inhumanity, of building roads for the exclusive use of settlers, roads which simply take Palestinian property, separating Palestinian farmers from their fields in some cases. He does not deal with the most basic question--the not-so-subtle effort by the settler movement and its far-right sponsors to create a Palestinian swiss cheese, rather than a governable state, on the West Bank, by riddling the area with Jewish settlements. He does not deal, although it is implicit in his xenophobic argument and in the rantings of the extremists over at the Commentary blog, with the reality that this Israeli behavior is anachronistic, a vestige of the post-1967 dream of a Greater Israel. He does not deal with the fact that the last two Likud/Kadima Prime Ministers, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, came to the realization that demographic reality requires a viable Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza.

[DarrinS]

Trying to downplay ethnic cleansing with arguments of scale.

Cute.

Tell me DarrinS, since you have done such an exhaustive study on the scope of the issue, how much lebensraum do you think Israel is due?



Ethnic cleansing? Man, you've been listening to waaayyy too many Obama speeches lately.




Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and antisemitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.

Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive.




Moral equivalence is one of a handful of mental disorders exhibited by modern liberals.

[ChumpDumper]

Ethnic cleansing? Man, you've been listening to waaayyy too many Obama speeches lately.

Moral equivalence is one of a handful of mental disorders exhibited by modern liberals.So what do you call it, DarrinS?

Enough buzzwords and and half-baked bullshit. Tell us all exactly what your position is on the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

[Winehole23]

Moral equivalence is one of a handful of mental disorders exhibited by modern liberals.*OTOH* sets off contrast, not comparison. Your allegation that Obama posited some kind of moral equivalence is bogus and cliched.

FWIW, the true moral equivalence here is Apartheid, not the Holocaust.

[MannyIsGod]

*OTOH* sets off contrast, not comparison. Your allegation that Obama posited some kind of moral equivalence is bogus and cliched.

FWIW, the true moral equivalence here is Apartheid, not the Holocaust.

Yeah but how big is Israel compared to South Africa?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Krauthammer is a liar.

I don't accept Jewish irredentist claims any more than I do Muslim irredentist claims. The two-state solution is a fiction. It won't work on the Israeli side any more than it would on the Palestinian side, because if Israel tries to pull its settlements out of the West Bank, the Muslim terrorists will simply be joined by Orthodox Jewish ones -- many of whom are in the IDF.

Krauthammer isn't stupid. This isn't about "natural growth" around the "1949 armistice line." He uses obscurantist language for a reason.

And Israel can stop listening to America's opinions about its policies as soon as it stops taking our aid.

I'm tired of neoconservative lies.

I'm sure some idiot will come in and call me an anti-Semite now.

ehhh, actually, half props
one half because for once your post isn't blatantly-above-the-rim-wesley-snipes-style pro-jew
and minus the other half because it is not really that polarized (lol)
But I agree nonetheless.

The settlements have been in the top 3 priorities for addressing a possible peace settlement, since before I can find. I only started caring about this shit a couple years ago though.

What I find puzzling is why they seem to find the 'settlements' such a necessity. If they are really packed like sardines in their area, like some say, why doesn't the government sponsor immigration to another country? I refuse to believe the Israeli government has neither the money nor the political clout to settle citizens in another Mediterranean country. Yes, the distance would be farther, but the long term social and interactive benefits would be beneficialfor the nation of Israel. Instead of considering the West Bank a god-given right to them, why doesn't Israel focus on being as economically and socially bound to their sea shore neighbors as possible? There is actually a movement from more than one country to bring the countries of the Mediterranean closer together.

So, again, why are the talking heads from Israel so pro-settlement? What we are seeing there, is much like what we are seeing here...we are supposed to be seeing some huge change in Israel with "bibi" getting elected, but really, I see more of the same shit. Why are the Israeli's so pro-settlement?
I run it around in a few times and I can't help but come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than a bargaining chip. IIRC, the only settlements that should really matter to Israel are those around the Golan Heights, because of water resource issues. We could actually see something resembling progress if Diplobamacy can properly take advantage of this. If only we can walk that fine line, seeming to empower bibi to his lame ass hard-line constituents, while actually providing the palestinians with something resembling autonomy life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (wow how neocon of me)


PS I'm actually kinda bummed that Batmanuel has not presented his take on some of the more non-polarizing events going on lately that pertain to one Democratic Jesus he campaigned for . . .

[johnsmith]

I totally hate that bastard with every fiber of my being, but that's no reason for him to have a bad weekend.

:lol


And with that, Chump moves into a solid tie with Clambake as my favorite posters in the political forum.

[Supergirl]

Neither the Holocaust nor Apartheid is an appropriate comparison to what is going on in the Middle East. STFU with that stuff. It's offensive.

[MannyIsGod]

Neither the Holocaust nor Apartheid is an appropriate comparison to what is going on in the Middle East. STFU with that stuff. It's offensive.

Wat. How is that offensive?

[Winehole23]

Neither the Holocaust nor Apartheid is an appropriate comparison to what is going on in the Middle East. STFU with that stuff. It's offensive.So noted. There was no intention to offend, but merely a historical comparison. Second class citizens are separated into discontinuous Bantustans inside their *homeland*. The Apartheid parallel is obvious to me. The racial angle is muddied by the fact that very many Israelis are racially identical to the Arabs they seek to displace.

We're still talking about the settlements, right SG?

Apartheid is by no means a universal metaphor or descriptor for the settlements issue, but it seems to me at least facially germane.

[Winehole23]

The nub of Krauthammer's article is that Israel is entitled to nibble at the edges, and that any criticism is harmful to Israel and the special relationship.

Who is the hammer this time, and who is the nail? Time will tell.

[DarrinS]

All of the Islamic states surrounding Israel haven't done jack diddly squat for the Palestinians. I wonder why?

Let's say all "illegal" settlement activity ended and a Palestinian state was created. Do you really think this would end all the suicide bombings, etc. against Israelis? If you do believe that, you're living in your own little naive world.


EDIT> Heck, it you believe that, you probably also believe that Iran has "legitimate" uses for nuclear energy.

[Winehole23]

All of the Islamic states surrounding Israel haven't done jack diddly squat for the Palestinians. I wonder why? Oh, really? Have you asked Jordan about this recently?


Let's say all "illegal" settlement activity ended and a Palestinian state was created. Do you really think this would end all the suicide bombings, etc. against Israelis? If you do believe that, you're living in your own little naive world.Your strawman is on time, D.:toast



EDIT> Heck, it you believe that, you probably also believe that Iran has "legitimate" uses for nuclear energy.Iran seems to have some have trouble refining energy for their own market. Well known, long time.

Plus the demographics are telling. You seem to hold legitimacy untenable before any examination of the case, but in Iran it is a commonplace of national development: they really do need the energy, and as an NPT signatory they have certain lawful privileges, among them the civil application of nuclear fuel cycle.

[Winehole23]

It is surely a point of guile peremptorily to declare something very plain and commonplace as being beyond all hope of salvation by reason.

Like Iran's demographic time bomb, and the related, foreseeable extra demand for energy and development.

[Marcus Bryant]

The American state kisses Israel's ass because American politicians receive a large amount of support from those who want the US to kiss Israel's ass. American state support of Israel has done nothing except serve to further inflame those who currently want to 'kill us because we're free.' Lest we forget the Dobson/Hagee crowd who wants Israel to exist so that in the end, a bunch of Jews can die and go south.

[Marcus Bryant]

Let's say all "illegal" settlement activity ended and a Palestinian state was created. Do you really think this would end all the suicide bombings, etc. against Israelis?


Further, who cares? Why is this a matter of the federal government's concern?

[Winehole23]

Further, who cares? Why is this a matter of the federal government's concern?Like Obama, DarrinS takes it for granted that it necessarily involves us.

Any gainsayers are filthy and unpatriotic freaks.

[DarrinS]

Like Obama, DarrinS takes it for granted that it necessarily involves us.

Any gainsayers are filthy and unpatriotic freaks.



I agree with Obama that Islamists teach their children to become suicide bombers because of colonialism.

[PixelPusher]

As long as we're posting maps comparing Israel to New Jersey and Vancouver Island, I thought I'd post a map of Israel I found pretty illuminating:


http://arabist.net/archives/2009/04/24/the-palestinian-archipelago/

An amazing map of Palestine, if you replace all of the areas controlled by Israel (roads, settlements, etc.) by water. The best illustration of the unworkable Bantustan model imposed by Israel I’ve seen.

From Strange Maps (http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/270-palestines-island-paradise-now-with-a-word-from-its-creator/).

http://arabist.net/wp-content/2009/04/palestina.jpg

[DarrinS]

You know, if it were the Israelis that were hijacking planes, killing Olympic athletes, training their kids to become human WMD's, giving their kids textbooks that said it was their duty to eradicate Palestinians, I'd probably be on the other side of this issue.

[Winehole23]

I agree with Obama that Islamists teach their children to become suicide bombers because of colonialism.There might be other reasons, and many others besides just terrorists learn it too.

E. g., Pashtun culture obliges revenge for the fallen. Colonialism isn't even past yet, and the US isn't peripheral to the 20th and 21st century versions. Just saying.

[Winehole23]

You know, if it were the Israelis that were hijacking planes, killing Olympic athletes, training their kids to become human WMD's, giving their kids textbooks that said it was their duty to eradicate Palestinians, I'd probably be on the other side of this issue.The blood feud is a bitch for sure. I'd rather we not take sides in it, given my druthers, but diplomacy would have it otherwise. C'est la guerre. It ought to be a routine, LE matter. Time was US wasn't obliged to effect the course of other countries' internal affairs, but now Obama is acting all tough about the territories. What business is that of his?

[MannyIsGod]

You know, if it were the Israelis that were hijacking planes, killing Olympic athletes, training their kids to become human WMD's, giving their kids textbooks that said it was their duty to eradicate Palestinians, I'd probably be on the other side of this issue.

If you had a brain capable of thinking on a non superficial level you'd probably be on a different side of the issue. If you ever had to talk to the innocents who are caught up in this mess and had their land robbed out from underneath them you might side differently on this issue.

But you're not capable of thought in that manner, so why even bother contemplating the possibility?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

You know, if it were the Israelis that were hijacking planes, killing Olympic athletes, training their kids to become human WMD's, giving their kids textbooks that said it was their duty to eradicate Palestinians, I'd probably be on the other side of this issue.

Israel is the only country we have ever allowed to attack and sink a US ship without any repercussions whatsoever. Our men died by their hands. But don't forget, they were victims of the holocaust, so it's okay that they did that!

They attacked us, purposefully, killed our men to send a message, and it worked. We did nothing.
So suck on that you fucking neocon.

[Duff McCartney]

If you knew anything about the right-wing Irgun, then you know they did use violence. And lots of the ultra right wing Jews still profess violence against Arabs. In fact go to PBS and look up Israel's Next War on their documentaries and you'll see.

Hell look up Rabbi Meir Kahane. That's nothing if not terrorism right there.

[DarrinS]

If you had a brain capable of thinking on a non superficial level you'd probably be on a different side of the issue. If you ever had to talk to the innocents who are caught up in this mess and had their land robbed out from underneath them you might side differently on this issue.

But you're not capable of thought in that manner, so why even bother contemplating the possibility?



At least WH and MB are somewhat thoughtful. You're just a fucking moron.


Just thought I'd return the favor.

[DarrinS]

Israel is the only country we have ever allowed to attack and sink a US ship without any repercussions whatsoever. Our men died by their hands. But don't forget, they were victims of the holocaust, so it's okay that they did that!

They attacked us, purposefully, killed our men to send a message, and it worked. We did nothing.
So suck on that you fucking neocon.



Are you referring to the USS Liberty?

[DarrinS]

The blood feud is a bitch for sure. I'd rather we not take sides in it, given my druthers, but diplomacy would have it otherwise. C'est la guerre. It ought to be a routine, LE matter. Time was US wasn't obliged to effect the course of other countries' internal affairs, but now Obama is acting all tough about the territories. What business is that of his?



Some see Israel as an aggressive, militant, marauding people. I happen to see them as a very paranoid and defensive people -- and for good reason, given history.


You know why 911 didn't happen in Israel? They've had significant security at their airports for years. We are a more open and trusting society, or at least, we were.


Let's say we didn't spend all these billions on wars in the ME and instead spent the money building a Palestinian state. Do you think this would've solved the issue? It kinda reminds me of the guy with the "Will work for food" sign. I actually offered one of these guys some work once. Once.

[Backdoorman]

This conflict did not begin in 1967 or even in 1948 , anyone who thinks the settlements are the "main obstacle to peace in the Middle East" is fucking deluded.

[Duff McCartney]

Let's say we didn't spend all these billions on wars in the ME and instead spent the money building a Palestinian state. Do you think this would've solved the issue? It kinda reminds me of the guy with the "Will work for food" sign. I actually offered one of these guys some work once. Once.

I'm not one to call someone names...but you're an idiot if you think that if we gave even 1/4 of the aid we give to Israel to the Palestinians it wouldn't be a much easier issue to solve.

The West Bank and more importantly Gaza suffer from lack of infrastructure, money, food shortages, and fuel shortages due to Israels complete control of what goes in and out of those places. If they had money to feed their people and provide services, their wouldn't be nearly as many terrorists.

Terrorism only exists when people have no alternative to their grievances. It's an act of desperation and sadly the reality is many Palestinians are desperate because Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza have made them that way.

[boutons_deux]

the settlements have totally destroyed any chance of Palestine being a viable state. A map of Gaza looks like a jigsaw puzzle missing half the pieces (the missing pieces being Israeli settlements).

[Backdoorman]

the settlements have totally destroyed any chance of Palestine being a viable state. A map of Gaza looks like a jigsaw puzzle missing half the pieces (the missing pieces being Israeli settlements).
Israel abandoned the settlements in Gaza in august 2005..

[Winehole23]

Some see Israel as an aggressive, militant, marauding people. I happen to see them as a very paranoid and defensive people -- and for good reason, given history.I am familiar with your naive and somewhat simplistic moral gloss, DarrinS. It shows in your posts.



You know why 911 didn't happen in Israel? They've had significant security at their airports for years. We are a more open and trusting society, or at least, we were.I miss it. I'd take it back in a heartbeat.




Let's say we didn't spend all these billions on wars in the ME and instead spent the money building a Palestinian state. Do you think this would've solved the issue?No, I don't.

Isn't it bad enough already that we insisted Palestinians be allowed to vote for whomever they please?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Are you referring to the USS Liberty?

No the other ship that Israel sank for bull shit reasons.

[Marcus Bryant]

Israel is the only country we have ever allowed to attack and sink a US ship without any repercussions whatsoever.

Well, the US response to the attack on the Pueblo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_(AGER-2)) was a bit nonexistent, but that doesn't invalidate your main assertion.

[DarrinS]

Terrorism only exists when people have no alternative to their grievances. It's an act of desperation and sadly the reality is many Palestinians are desperate because Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza have made them that way.


Complete and utter bullshit.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, my view is as follows. Once the war the Palestinians have started against Israel stops, Israel can leave Palestine. Israel has the right to control Palestine as they please. It is effectively a war, and this is Israels strategy, to control areas and reduce arms movements, as at the phase Israel ids the victor. I will not ask that Israel remove themselves from the occupied areas until Israel is safe from attack.

[sook]

Neither the Holocaust nor Apartheid is an appropriate comparison to what is going on in the Middle East. STFU with that stuff. It's offensive.

What's offensive is the fact that it is being used as a justification for Israel transcending the fine line between right and wrong.



One can go on for hours and hours debating on who the land belongs to....

but arguing over the fact that Israel's expansion isn't wrong just augments the infected wart of ignorance found in this forum.

[sook]

Well, my view is as follows. Once the war the Palestinians have started against Israel stops, Israel can leave Palestine. Israel has the right to control Palestine as they please. It is effectively a war, and this is Israels strategy, to control areas and reduce arms movements, as at the phase Israel ids the victor. I will not ask that Israel remove themselves from the occupied areas until Israel is safe from attack.

Do you honestly believe everyone perceives it this way? Are you really that stupid? Claiming that the Palestinians alone started the conflict is the ignorance i was talking about. I'm not going to take a side but have you ever thought that the creating of Israel itself initiated the conflict?

If you come take my house and I end up retaliating...who really started it? I'll let you ponder upon this difficult question.

[sook]

Some see Israel as an aggressive, militant, marauding people. I happen to see them as a very paranoid and defensive people -- and for good reason, given history.


You know why 911 didn't happen in Israel? They've had significant security at their airports for years. We are a more open and trusting society, or at least, we were.


Let's say we didn't spend all these billions on wars in the ME and instead spent the money building a Palestinian state. Do you think this would've solved the issue? It kinda reminds me of the guy with the "Will work for food" sign. I actually offered one of these guys some work once. Once.

You're a fucking moron. It happened to us because of them.

The sheep on this forum will open their mouth to every ounce of Jizz they see on t.v.

Is independent thinking sinful now or something?

[Winehole23]

Yuck.

[Winehole23]

Well, my view is as follows. Once the war the Palestinians have started against Israel stops, Israel can leave Palestine. Palestinians may see it the other way around. Both of them are right, and both of them are wrong.


Israel has the right to control Palestine as they please. Thank you, Proconsul Cobra. This is a minority view I think, but it has its adherents.


It is effectively a war, and this is Israels strategy, to control areas and reduce arms movements, as at the phase Israel ids the victor. I will not ask that Israel remove themselves from the occupied areas until Israel is safe from attack.The militarization of policy in the PA has unforseeable consequences. *Safety from attack* does not necessarily follow from harsh security measures.

[spurster]

As long as we're posting maps comparing Israel to New Jersey and Vancouver Island, I thought I'd post a map of Israel I found pretty illuminating:

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/270-palestines-island-paradise-now-with-a-word-from-its-creator/

I think it's worth a repost.

[LnGrrrR]

EDIT> Heck, it you believe that, you probably also believe that Iran has "legitimate" uses for nuclear energy.

I fail to see why America is the arbiter of which country is 'responsible' enough to have nukes and which aren't.

In a political way, that is, not a realpolitik one.

[Extra Stout]

What I find puzzling is why they seem to find the 'settlements' such a necessity. If they are really packed like sardines in their area, like some say, why doesn't the government sponsor immigration to another country?

...

So, again, why are the talking heads from Israel so pro-settlement?
It's religious irredentism. Those settlers aren't moving into Palestinian territory because Israel is just too crowded. They're moving in because they believe they have a mandate from God to take over the land and drive out the "Canaanites." Not a few settlers are Hasidim who moved straight to the West Bank from New York.

The Israeli government tried out the idea of dismantling settlements when they withdrew from Gaza. They literally had to force the settlers out at gunpoint and physically subdue them. It was a political catastrophe -- and Gaza has always been Philistine/Palestinian territory dating from antiquity. If Israel ever tried to pull settlers out of the West Bank, they would have a civil war on their hands.

Let's face it, in retrospect, creating Israel was just a case of Westerners feeling guilty about the Holocaust and deciding to appropriate land that wasn't theirs to the Jewish people. Since in 2009 the notion that America and major European powers get to make all major decisions about the world is only starting to be questioned, clearly in 1948 the major powers hardly batted an eyelash at deciding the fate of tracts of Middle Eastern land. The problem now is that after 6 million Jews have moved to Israel, it would be another injustice simply to say, "Oops, never mind, that was a mistake, you're on your own," because the West is responsible for their being there. The attitude therefore has become, "Well, if they're there already, don't try to move them."

So the Jewish extremists once thought they could co-opt that stance from the West such that if they built a bunch of settlements in the West Bank before a peace agreement was reached, their allies would say, "Well, if they're there already, don't try to move them." Since the peace agreement has fallen apart, now they just don't care. They can move to the settlements, their government doesn't have the political will to stop them, and it is impossible to move them out without destroying the country in the process.

The biggest difference between the Jewish extremists and the Muslim extremists is that when the Jewish extremists get the IDF to demolish Palestinian houses with bulldozers and force the residents into the camps, that isn't considered terrorism.

As for Charles Krauthammer, there are two possibilites:
1) He knows this undercurrent makes Israel look very, very bad, and aims to obscure it with a series of red herrings.
2) He is one of the Jewish extremists.

P.S. Not a few of the pro-Israeli group among evangelical American Christians are fanatics who think that once Israel takes over all the land and kills off/drives out all the Arabs, they can rebuild the Jewish temple and set in motion a bunch of events culminating in the second coming of Jesus. Yeah, sure, as many of 20% of the Palestinians who have been driven out since 1948 are themselves Christians, but of course the brown ones don't really matter, and besides, they're probably Catholic or Orthodox or one of those other works-based heretical cults. (Right, Crookshanks?)

[Winehole23]

I fail to see why America is the arbiter of which country is 'responsible' enough to have nukes and which aren't.

In a political way, that is, not a realpolitik one.I had a discussion with Darrin about this the other day. Oddly, he was too bogged down with the jargon of rights to een get to realpolitik. Does Iran have the *right* to nuclear power? Don't we have the *right* to stop them? Stuff like that.

Behind every complaint, liberal humanizers perceive a nascent *right* as the solution.

[jman3000]

Very nice.

[Extra Stout]

This conflict did not begin in 1967 or even in 1948 , anyone who thinks the settlements are the "main obstacle to peace in the Middle East" is fucking deluded.

The conflict started in the late 19th century when significant groups of European Jews decided to move back to their ancestral homeland to get away from European oppression, and the Arabs suspected that their ultimate intent was not to submit to Ottoman rule.

I used to subscribe to the "this battle has been going on for thousands of years" canard. Unfortunately for the propagandists, then I read a whole bunch of history on the region. While certainly there have been a bunch of wars in the Levant, the Jewish-Muslim conflict is a modern phenomenon.

[Extra Stout]

Let's say all "illegal" settlement activity ended and a Palestinian state was created. Do you really think this would end all the suicide bombings, etc. against Israelis? If you do believe that, you're living in your own little naive world.
One of two things is happening here:

1) You are arguing against a strawman, namely one claiming that Palestinians would stop fighting Israel if it withdrew from the settlements.

2) You think that as long as there are Muslim extremists fighting Israel, it is somehow justified in confiscating Arabs' homes and land to build settlements.

I think we all understand (well, except Duff) that groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, and to a certain extent Fatah, view the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East as an unacceptable affront to Islam, that the land is irreversibly Dar al-Islam, that the only legitimate government in that land is an Islamic one under which Jews are dhimmis, and that it is their sworn duty before Allah to wage jihad until "salaam" is achieved.

I do believe that if Israel did not have its illegal settlements that sympathy for the jihadist view in the Arab world would be much lower. I do believe that without the settlement issue Israel would have the moral high ground. I also believe that the Israeli government would get rid of the settlements tomorrow if it were politically possible.

I also believe that if Arabs kill settlers as opposed to Israelis in Israel proper, they are killing enemy combatants rather than innocent civilians. There are no innocent settlers.

[DarrinS]

I do believe that if Israel did not have its illegal settlements that sympathy for the jihadist view in the Arab world would be much lower. I do believe that without the settlement issue Israel would have the moral high ground. I also believe that the Israeli government would get rid of the settlements tomorrow if it were politically possible.




Sure worked out great when they abandoned settlements in 2005.

[ChumpDumper]

If they abandoned the settlements, why are they still in the settlements?

[Winehole23]

Sure worked out great when they abandoned settlements in 2005.Sententious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sententious), yet trite. A very typical DarrinS post.


1 a: given to or abounding in aphoristic expression b: given to or abounding in excessive moralizing

2: terse, aphoristic, or moralistic in expression : pithy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pithy), epigrammatic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epigrammatic) — sen·ten·tious·ly adverb

[DarrinS]

If they abandoned the settlements, why are they still in the settlements?

You notice that I didn't use the word "all".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

[DarrinS]

Is the state of Texas an illegal settlement?

[Winehole23]

I thought Gaza was clear contextually. Darrin specified 2005.

[RickPerry]

Is the state of Texas an illegal settlement?

Texas will be sovereign State before I'm done.

[Winehole23]

Is the state of Texas an illegal settlement?Depends on who you ask. Mexicans and Texans don't see eye to eye on it for sure.

[ChumpDumper]

Initially, whitey moved into Texas under the terms of a contract with Mexico -- so no, they were not illegal.

[ChumpDumper]

You notice that I didn't use the word "all".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlementThere are still settlements, no?

As long as there are Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, that argument doesn't work. That's like asking why there was still French resistance when Germany only occupied part of France.

[LnGrrrR]

There are still settlements, no?

As long as there are Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, that argument doesn't work. That's like asking why there was still French resistance when Germany only occupied part of France.

:lol

Nice one.

[Winehole23]

Initially, whitey moved into Texas under the terms of a contract with Mexico -- so no, they were not illegal.The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo receives inequal esteem between the two peoples. People still talk of the Nueces River as being the correct northern border of Mexico....

[ChumpDumper]

Were communications any better back then, we would have just annexed all of Mexico after the war -- so I see it as a compromise.

[Supergirl]

Here's the problem with trying to oversimplify the Israeli-Palestinian problem: There is no easy definition of "Settlement" or agreement about what the borders of Israel should be.

Israel was founded in 1948 when Britain et al decided the Jews deserved a homeland in reparation for the Holocaust. Zionism existed prior to 1948, Jews lived in what was then known as Palestine before 1948. Some parts of the modern state known as Israel have had Jews living there for 3,000 years. However, Israel had to fight for their right to exist way back in 1948.

Originally the borders of Israel included none of the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, or the Golan Heights, and Jerusalem was a divided city. However, in 1967 and 1973, a coalition of Arab countries hostile to Israel's existence (Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon) declared war on Israel. Israel defeated them, which in and of itself is pretty astounding. However, people who have been to Egypt, for example, may know that the common belief there is that the Yom Kippur war (1973) never ended. In 1967, Israel took control of the West Bank (Judea/Samaria), Gaza, the Golan Heights, Sinai, and Jerusalem.

Since then, they gave the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace. They gave Gaza in exchange for peace, though this hasn't panned out so well.

Jerusalem is the holiest city in the world to Jews. Giving it up would be cruel, IMO. Giving up the Golan Heights is problematic because that is where most of the water in Israel comes from. However, I think giving up at least parts of or all of the West Bank will be necessary to obtain any sort of peace.

But let's be clear - these are steps most other countries have not had to take in the past. The rules of war are changing, I suppose, but Israel is operating under the rules of war for millenium - when you win a battle, you gain control of the land. The very countries that refused to allow Palestinian Arabs to live in their countries (Jordan, Syria, Iran) are now siding with them in demanding Israel give up land won in wars they started in the first place.

I think it is worth it to Israel to give up the land, and it is cruel and unfair for the Palestinians who have been basically kicked out of multiple nations to continue to not have a country of their own, but it is by no means a black and white issue, nor are there any clear "good guys" and "bad guys". Israel has behaved badly, so has the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. But both have had leaders who have genuinely tried at times to find a middle ground.

[Marcus Bryant]

How about we let the Israelis figure it out on their own?

[Winehole23]

The very countries that refused to allow Palestinian Arabs to live in their countries (Jordan, Syria, Iran) are now siding with them in demanding Israel give up land won in wars they started in the first place.I wonder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees), Supergirl. Are you sure? Iran is a safe bet, but Jordan and Syria are not so clear cut IMO.




The number of descendents of Palestinian refugees by country as of 2005 were as follows:


Jordan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan) 1,827,877 refugees
Gaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza) 986,034 refugees
West Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank) 699,817 refugees
Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria) 432,048 refugees
Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon) 404,170 refugees
Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) 240,000 refugees
Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) 70,245 refugees[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees#cite_note-a-0)

Note: The UNHCR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNHCR) does NOT consider refugee status hereditary. Refugees are required to be granted asylum where they arrive, and their descendents given citizenship.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees#cite_note-31)
Land unlawfully taken should be restored, period. Otherwise, peace is a fig leaf for the cumulative force of ejection. No?

[Supergirl]

Land unlawfully taken should be restored, period. Otherwise, peace is a fig leaf for the cumulative force of ejection. No?

Well, I would tend to agree with you, but this is not how the world has worked. Look at America - we took Texas by force, Hawaii by force. Should we give those states back to their previous owners?

Britain, Rome, France, Germany, Spain...all these countries have long histories of taking over countries by force and then remaining in charge, either explicitly or behind the scenes. One could make the argument that all of world history is a series of colonialist takeovers.

Why, then, is Israel considered so outrageous for doing what everyone else does throughout history?

On the one hand, like I said, I agree that colonialism is morally and ethically wrong. One the other hand, Israel being held to a standard different from most of the rest of the world looks...a little suspect.

[Winehole23]

Why, then, is Israel considered so outrageous for doing what everyone else does throughout history? Because it hasn't *gotten away with it* yet. The passage of time makes historical crimes respectable, but it is much harder to conceal atrocities now. Israel is still young, and the whole world watches.


On the one hand, like I said, I agree that colonialism is morally and ethically wrong. One the other hand, Israel being held to a standard different from most of the rest of the world looks...a little suspect.Well, they're kinda kin to The Boss, right? Certainly that doesn't give them a license to do worse than *most of the rest of the world*, does it?

[Winehole23]

..

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Nice, Extra Stout :tu

I guess my American upbringing can't help but influence my angle of perspective on the jewish extremists. But it makes sense. Extremists on the Israeli side are seemingly non existent in western media, even in print.

[Marcus Bryant]

Nice, Extra Stout :tu

I guess my American upbringing can't help but influence my angle of perspective on the jewish extremists. But it makes sense. Extremists on the Israeli side are seemingly non existent in western media, even in print.

But if you question why that is so, then you are an extremist.

[sook]

But if you question why that is so, then you are an extremist.

or antisemitic

[MannyIsGod]

or antisemitic

Bingo

[mookie2001]

but the israelis have their own mma technique

[Nbadan]

I told you that Netanyahu was the jewish equivalent of Dick Cheney...


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that U.S. President Barack Obama wants a confrontation with Israel, based on Obama's speech in Cairo last week, Netanyahu's confidants say.

In Netanyahu's opinion, the Americans believe an open controversy with Israel would serve the Obama administration's main objective of improving U.S. relations with the Arab world, the aides say.

...

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who visited Washington last week, says the Obama administration has no personal problem with Netanyahu and that the Americans do not not seek to undermine the Israeli coalition and topple the government.

Barak says Obama's positions are guided by strategic considerations - he has undertaken to withdraw from Iraq and is striving to end the war in Afghanistan and needs the moderate Arab states' support. This, rather than "political persecution," is behind the administration's attitude toward Israel, he says.

Link (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091428.html)

[Extra Stout]

On the one hand, like I said, I agree that colonialism is morally and ethically wrong. One the other hand, Israel being held to a standard different from most of the rest of the world looks...a little suspect.
Anti-Semites!