US renews 'halt settlements' plea

dlofnep

Looks like the EU has issued a statement also.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iYLs-4nfedjBTxFa4xn2PR4S84_Q

Overheal

jank wrote: »

I have to question any point you raised here to the relevance of this thread.

These chaps here who seem to think its ok for the US to bully other countries when its suits them, but would otherwise admonish the US when it didnt.

dlofnep wrote: »

I think hardened sanctions should be implemented to show Israel that the world means business. The time for bargaining with is over. Not one further step of leniency should be taken. I think the US is the position to demonstrate that they mean business, opposed to just throwing out a few cliché slaps on the wrist every now and again to keep the UN happy..

Enforce sanctions, how exactly? Military force? Spongebob Squarepants? This isnt Cuba, and a blockade won't work - before you say it.

Nodin wrote: »

Time to call the bluff allright.

dresden8 wrote: »

Why does the US have to "plea"?

They're the worlds only superpower, who bankroll Israel with money and weapons.

You'd imagine they'd be calling the shots.

Or is this just window dressing crap?

dlofnep wrote: »

Technically they don't, but there is a certain element of pressure within American politics to support Israel at all costs by Zionists.

.

Anyway some other posts seem unfortunately right - can't use the stick, have to use the carrot. Money and Weapons. bribes essentially. Either way, is our interference really helping?

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

Enforce sanctions, how exactly? Military force? Spongebob Squarepants? This isnt Cuba, and a blockade won't work - before you say it.

Halt financial support. The US donates 3 billion annually to Israel's defense fund and has offered to give it another $30 billion between 2008 and 2017. Threaten to cut the defense fund if they do not comply with international law. Threaten to cut trade agreements.

If the US threatened to pull $30 billion in military aid, Israel would get it's act together very lively. Not that that'd ever do that, because Israel control's American foreign policy. If they didn't, the US would have pulled aid out of there a LONG time ago.

Salvelinus

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Personally I would like to see the world stand up.

Ban all arm shipments to Israel, in fact ban anything they need to import, ban everything that they export. This needs to stop right now.

I hate to say it but if the other Arab countries had any balls they would join up and do the right thing destroy the Zionist state. I know it's to imagine but that's the only way things like this will stop.

Yeah sure because if Israel is gone Palestine will be a peaceful wonderland.

Nodin

At least he's honest......

Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai said Sunday that a planned freeze in West Bank settlement construction was only a "strategic delay," implying the move would not be a long-term Israeli policy.

"The postponement in construction is a strategic delay," said Yishai at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting. "We won't give up on building in Jerusalem and will still build hundreds of construction units. We are looking ahead, here."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1112679.html

jank

These chaps here who seem to think its ok for the US to bully other countries when its suits them, but would otherwise admonish the US when it didnt.

Well what do you think the US should do?

prinz

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

I hate to say it but if the other Arab countries had any balls they would join up and do the right thing destroy the Zionist state.

:pac: I'd quit while you're behind pal.

Joey the lips wrote: »

The most influential state in America is Florida!

ok.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Tried with when? Oh over 50 years ago wars are fought different now. They ran like ****s when they were getting hammered by Russian made anti tank missiles. They're getting bigger out of greed taking land..

No. Not over 50 years ago.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Something has to be done for these poor people and an all war might actually work but they don't have the guts.

Try looking at some history books. Israel is not the only country occupying the land formerly known as Palestine. What have the other "Arab" countries done for them? .

jank wrote: »

The land is one thing but what will Israel do with the people who currently live there? They are not going away and their population is by far growing faster than the Israelis..

Possibly integrate them into Israel. People tend to forget there is a sizeable minority of non-Jewish 'Arab' Israelis, with citizenship, equal rights etc. Reconcile that with your religious apatheid...

Further settlements are not a good idea. Of course it's interesting to note voices of dissent from within Israel are willfully ignored in favour of portraying the homogenous image of the evil zionists.

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Possibly integrate them into Israel. People tend to forget there is a sizeable minority of non-Jewish 'Arab' Israelis, with citizenship, equal rights etc. Reconcile that with your religious apatheid...

Why should they integrate them into Israel, when Israel illegally occupies the land? Does that mean, that every nation that flexes it's military strength to support a language grab can just integrate them into their country?

Absolute nonsense.

prinz wrote: »

Further settlements are not a good idea.

Oh really? But you just suggested integrating them into Israel. You surely can't have that much of an issue with it.

That facts remain - Israel illegally occupies land, and has forced the eviction of Palestinian people from their own land, has knocked down their houses and forced them to live under extreme conditions.

Jerusalem was designated as an international city by the UN, but Israel wants both west & east Jerusalem. They make no apologies about this either, and are quite clear in their intentions to defy international law.

You have to look at all this in the Palestinian eyes - A foreign government gives land to a foreign people at the expense of the native people, who have since then - been removed from their land and have had their plight totally ignored.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Why should they integrate them into Israel, when Israel illegally occupies the land? Does that mean, that every nation that flexes it's military strength to support a language grab can just integrate them into their country? Absolute nonsense.
Oh really? But you just suggested integrating them into Israel. You surely can't have that much of an issue with it.

Perhaps you should look at what I was responding to before you jump your hobby horse. I never 'suggested' Israel 'should'. Just laying out the facts as it does and has happened before, so how exactly is it nonsense?

Unless you're going to argue that there isn't a large Palestinian minority already within the borders of Israel...

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Possibly integrate them into Israel. .

All the major Israeli parties are against the idea.

prinz wrote: »

People tend to forget there is a sizeable minority of non-Jewish 'Arab' Israelis, with citizenship, equal rights etc..

...who suffer massive institutional discrimination.

prinz wrote: »

Reconcile that with your religious apatheid....

...the "apartheid" occurs in the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem.

uprising

The U.S. policy on Israel is all talk, nothing more, say a few kind word's in favour of the Palestinians, then give Israel the mean's to blow them to pieces.









Same sh1t, different colour.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

All the major Israeli parties are against the idea...

Depends on what the future holds tbh. If Israeli ownership of the West Bank etc is recognised then I think it would definitely be on the table.

Nodin wrote: »

...who suffer massive institutional discrimination..

Such as? In recent polls the majority of Arab Israelis chose to maintain the Jewish nature of Israel and would prefer to live in Israel than in any future Palestinian state...

Nodin wrote: »

...the "apartheid" occurs in the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem.

So you agree that Israel itself is not run on an apartheid basis re the Arab minority, currently about 20% of the population, but the "occupied territories" are?

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Depends on what the future holds tbh. If Israeli ownership of the West Bank etc is recognised then I think it would definitely be on the table.

How could it be on the table when no Israeli party with any hope of being in Government in a majority position backs it? It's a complete non-runner.

prinz wrote: »

Such as? In recent polls the majority of Arab Israelis chose to maintain the Jewish nature of Israel and would prefer to live in Israel than in any future Palestinian state... .

"polls"? The only poll that indicated such (to my knowledge at least) was one conducted by the Jerusalem Post, making it as reliable as a Fox News effort on the Obama administration. In the mean time we see Arab Israelis who want to integrate into a "mixed" society having the door slammed in their face. eg

"For Israel's Arab Citizens, Isolation and Exclusion"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902681.html?hpid=topnews

"IDF widows' organization blacklisted minority members "
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=843940

"U.S. Department of State Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 2005 - Israel and the Occupied Territories "
"The Government discriminates against non-Jewish citizens and residents, the vast majority of whom are Arab Muslims and Christians, in the areas of employment, education, and housing."
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=437c9cec32

I'd suggest the weight of evidence is quite sufficient to put the lie to whatever the Post might conclude. Were you to ask Arabs what they thought were they to be treated as equals, one might get such an answer, but as it stands it would counter sense.

The Bedouin of course, are treated even more poorly than their co-religonists.

prinz wrote: »

So you agree that Israel itself is not run on an apartheid basis re the Arab minority, currently about 20% of the population, but the "occupied territories" are?

Its run on a de facto racist/sectarian basis, but it could not be called "Apartheid". The OT however, has segregation, a two tier "justice" system and different standards applied to two communities as a matter of course and policy. Thus the label must be applied there.

jank

prinz wrote: »

Possibly integrate them into Israel.

LOL, You have to remember that Israel is a Jewish state and is defined as such, they are NOT going to integrate 3 million odd angry Muslims into their state any time soon making Jews a minority. As much chance of that happening as Jews leaving Israel.

So the question remains, what are Israel going to do here?

prinz wrote: »

People tend to forget there is a sizeable minority of non-Jewish 'Arab' Israelis, with citizenship, equal rights etc. Reconcile that with your religious apatheid...

Wasn't there a bill proposed a while back stating that only people who express loyalty to Israel i.e. jews could become citizens of Israel. It was defeated but just shows you the sentiment many hold of Arab-Israelis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7870743.stm


As for equal rights. Well they have as much equal rights as blacks had in the south 30 years ago. Rights in theory but in practice leaves alot to be desired.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8164755.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8073752.stm

So yea religious or whatever apartheid.

prinz wrote: »

Further settlements are not a good idea. Of course it's interesting to note voices of dissent from within Israel are willfully ignored in favour of portraying the homogenous image of the evil zionists.

Well Israel has a well oiled PR machine that always gets it point across. True that moderate voices always gets drowned out by the extremes but Israeli actions speak volumes for what they do. One must think that they have a domestic mandate to continue these settlements otherwise they would not get voted in time and again. Make you wonder what the hell is Israel turning into.

Neo-South Africa?? Hard to argue against it.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

"polls"? The only poll that indicated such (to my knowledge at least) was one conducted by the Jerusalem Post, making it as reliable as a Fox News effort on the Obama administration. In the mean time we see Arab Israelis who want to integrate into a "mixed" society having the door slammed in their face.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/995466.html

Harvard Uni?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853564.html

http://www.danielpipes.org/5314/palestinians-who-prefer-israel

A few days later, the results of a survey conducted by Kul Al-Arab indicated a completely different view among the city's residents. In the survey conducted among 1,000 residents [of Um Al-Fahm], both male and female, from all of the town's clans and large families as well as all segments of the local political spectrum, 83 percent of respondents opposed the idea of transferring their city to Palestinian jurisdiction, while 11 percent supported the proposal and 6 percent did not express their position.
Of those opposed to the idea, 54 percent explained that they were against becoming part of a Palestinian state because they wanted to continue living under a democratic regime and enjoying a good standard of living, which includes National Insurance allowances and pensions. Of these opponents, 18 percent stated that they were satisfied with their present situation, that they were born in Israel and that they were not interested in moving to any other state. Another 14 percent of this same group went so far as to say that they were not prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of the creation of a Palestinian state and to be its "sacrificial offering of atonement." Another 11 percent cited no reason for their opposition to the annexation of their city by the Palestinian state.

from Likud Party website.

Nodin wrote: »

I'd suggest the weight of evidence is quite sufficient to put the lie to whatever the Post might conclude. Were you to ask Arabs what they thought were they to be treated as equals, one might get such an answer, but as it stands it would counter sense.The Bedouin of course, are treated even more poorly than their co-religonists..

And yet the Bedouin are more likely to vote for mainstream Israeli parties and to volunteer for IDF service..

Nodin wrote: »

Its run on a de facto racist/sectarian basis.

Which would explain the Arab-Israeli politcal parties, members of the Knesset, Supreme Court Justices, soccer players for the Israeli national team etc..

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/995466.html

Harvard Uni?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853564.html

http://www.danielpipes.org/5314/palestinians-who-prefer-israel

..

....none of which counters the facts of discrimination on the ground.

prinz wrote: »

And yet the Bedouin are more likely to vote for mainstream Israeli parties and to volunteer for IDF service....

And in the Second World War, Afro-Americans joined the American Army, despite segregation and racism.

Does this read like equal treatment to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Bedouin

prinz wrote: »

Which would explain the Arab-Israeli politcal parties, members of the Knesset, Supreme Court Justices, soccer players for the Israeli national team etc..

...and again, the facts on the ground show quite a less rosy picture. Or am I, the UN, the US state department and everyone else making it up?

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Depends on what the future holds tbh. If Israeli ownership of the West Bank etc is recognised then I think it would definitely be on the table.

Why would it be recognised? Are you for the recognition of illegal occupation?

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

Why would it be recognised? Are you for the recognition of illegal occupation?

I'd support the establishment of an independent entity, with international support to get it established and stabilised, free from external influence, pressure, and control, that repudiates terrorism. Until that happens then I support the Israelis staying where they are in occupying the West Bank.

As a matter of interest do you regard the Jordanian annexation of the East Bank to be an illegal occupation? Why was it ok to recognise that?

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

I'd support the establishment of an independent entity, with international support to get it established and stabilised, free from external influence, pressure, and control, that repudiates terrorism. Until that happens then I support the Israelis staying where they are in occupying the West Bank.

I'm sorry, but since when did "repudiating terrorism" become part of the requirement for a state? Certainly it would have blocked the foundation of both our own and the Israeli state. And regardless of Palestinian statehood, or the lack of it, or Palestinian actions, Israel has no right to colonise the area with civillians.

Secondly, Abbas has held in check the various armed PLO/Fatah factions and clamped down on Hamas for the last few years. His "reward" is continued expansion by Israel. Clearly its not the Palestinian side that need reigning in.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sorry, but since when did "repudiating terrorism" become part of the requirement for a state? Certainly it would have blocked the foundation of both our own and the Israeli state. And regardless of Palestinian statehood, or the lack of it, or Palestinian actions, Israel has no right to colonise the area with civillians.

So you think it would be perfectly acceptable to continue the suicide attacks, mortar attacks, kidnappings etc even with the establishment of a Palestinian state? I don't support further settlements.

Nodin wrote: »

Secondly, Abbas has held in check the various armed PLO/Fatah factions and clamped down on Hamas for the last few years. His "reward" is continued expansion by Israel. Clearly its not the Palestinian side that need reigning in.

Clearly they both have issues to "reign in".

The Saint

prinz wrote: »

I'd support the establishment of an independent entity, with international support to get it established and stabilised, free from external influence, pressure, and control, that repudiates terrorism. Until that happens then I support the Israelis staying where they are in occupying the West Bank.

As a matter of interest do you regard the Jordanian annexation of the East Bank to be an illegal occupation? Why was it ok to recognise that?

Um, the East Bank is Jordan. It can' be occupied by a country if it is the country. I'd assume you're talking about the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank by Jordan after the 1948 war. I would not support the annexation of any territory that was not supported by the indigenous population living within it. However, the nature of the occupation of the West Bank by Israel and Jordan were very different.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

So you think it would be perfectly acceptable to continue the suicide attacks, mortar attacks, kidnappings etc even with the establishment of a Palestinian state? ".

I don't see how you got to that from what I typed.

Seeing as there currently are no organised attacks emanating from the West Bank , "terrorism" can no longer be an (invalid) excuse.

prinz

The Saint wrote: »

Um, the East Bank is Jordan. It can' be occupied by a country if it is the country. I'd assume you're talking about the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank by Jordan after the 1948 war. I would not support the annexation of any territory that was not supported by the indigenous population living within it. However, the nature of the occupation of the West Bank by Israel and Jordan were very different.

Did anyone ask the Palestinian people living in the east bank area if they wanted Jordanian rule? I think you'll find the first ruler of the kingdom was assassinated by a Palestinian. Indeed Black September 1970 is a time when open fighting broke out between Jordan and palestinian groups such as ther PLO etc and expelled them (including Arafat) from Jordanian territory in 1971. As lately as July 2009 Jordan has revoked the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians leaving them effectively stateless.

Following the Six-Day War, the PLO established a de facto state-within-a-sate inside Jordan. Armed, uniformed Palestinians set up checkpoints, collected taxes, and refused to travel with Jordanian license plates on their cars. In the country's southern zone, bordering Israel, they demanded and seized autonomous control, rejecting the King's authority.
In the 1971 revolt known as Black September, the PLO declared parts of Jordan as "liberated Palestine" and attempted to assassinate and overthrow King Hussein. He put down the revolt, killing an estimated 10,000 Palestinians over the course of about 10 days, and expelled the PLO from his country.

China Confidential April 2009

Shouldn't Jordan be open to returning these lands to the Palestinians? The border was drawn up to the river because it made a nice and simple natural frontier. The people who self identify as Palestinian live and have lived on both sides of the river Jordan.


http://books.google.ie/books?id=C_pAFwXXSZgC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=ethnic+palestinians+in+jordan&source=bl&ots=P3jnCnoDoi&sig=tMtGoRqTm0HKl2JhrWHLMLOgf58&hl=en&ei=hAqlSpOlLNbOjAfhztm7Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=ethnic%20palestinians%20in%20jordan&f=false

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Did anyone (............)

The figure of 10,000 dead is incorrect. 1,000 to 2,000 is more appropriate.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

The figure of 10,000 dead is incorrect. 1,000 to 2,000 is more appropriate.

Indeed. I wonder if Israel had inflicted the deaths would you be as quick to correct with the more appropriate figure.

The Saint

prinz wrote: »

Did anyone ask the Palestinian people living in the east bank area if they wanted Jordanian rule? I think you'll find the first ruler of the kingdom was assassinated by a Palestinian. Indeed Black September 1970 is a time when open fighting broke out between Jordan and palestinian groups such as ther PLO etc and expelled them (including Arafat) from Jordanian territory in 1971. As lately as July 2009 Jordan has revoked the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians leaving them effectively stateless.

The Palestinians have never made a demand for any Jordanian territory in peace talks. The Palestinians also have no basis under international law for any Jordanian territory. Also, this is pretty irrelevant to the subject of settlements.

prinz wrote: »

Shouldn't Jordan be open to returning these lands to the Palestinians? The border was drawn up to the river because it made a nice and simple natural frontier. The people who self identify as Palestinian live and have lived on both sides of the river Jordan.


http://books.google.ie/books?id=C_pAFwXXSZgC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=ethnic+palestinians+in+jordan&source=bl&ots=P3jnCnoDoi&sig=tMtGoRqTm0HKl2JhrWHLMLOgf58&hl=en&ei=hAqlSpOlLNbOjAfhztm7Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=ethnic%20palestinians%20in%20jordan&f=false

Once again, I have not heard of any calls for any of these lands to be given to the Palestinians. There is no basis in international law for such demands if they do indeed exist. However, all of this is off topic.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Indeed. I wonder if Israel had inflicted the deaths would you be as quick to correct with the more appropriate figure.

Indeed I would..................though not as quick as you'd be to attempt to drag the focus from the continued expansion of settlements onto some Arab state or other....

Nodin

The Saint wrote: »

The Palestinians have never made a demand for any Jordanian territory in peace talks. The Palestinians also have no basis under international law for any Jordanian territory.

The Jordanians have, however, ceded all their claims and interests in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

prinz

The Saint wrote: »

There is no basis in international law for such demands if they do indeed exist. However, all of this is off topic.

There is no basis for autonomy? Self determination? Equal rights?

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed I would..................though not as quick as you'd be to attempt to drag the focus from the continued expansion of settlements onto some Arab state or other....

I already said I don't agree with settlements.