Israel dragging USA down

[Caladan]

I appreciate your response but I don't think you actually answered my questions. Do you have a position (yes/no) on whether Israel should freeze settlements, and whether the US should have blocked UN recognition?

The questions are a bit unrealistic as I see it.
Yes I believe Israel should freeze some settlements. it depends in which areas and the type of settlement we are referring to.
for example there is a difference from construction around Jerusalem areas to mobilized settlements spots which are erected overnight beyond the official planning of the state. in this regard, there are different types of construction, and settlements planning. expansion has always been the reality. and there is a limit to how much I put weight to the PA protesting it when it comes to official construction in major areas which are directly linked to Jewish coherence in these vital regions. all parties and major players have showed serious consideration of land swaps, the Israelis and the Palestinians, the US, and the EU. in this regard, the position of Israel was always to keep important settlement blocs which are in close proximity to the Israeli side of the green line in an agreement which will include land swap.
there has to be a very good reason that will make me reconsider this position.
and back to the US veto vote. I believe that from my answer, the answer is an obvious yes. the US should have vetoed the Palestinian bid. and there was no surprise there by Barack Obama's administration.

 

[YmirGF]

and back to the US veto vote. I believe that from my answer, the answer is an obvious yes. the US should have vetoed the Palestinian bid. and there was no surprise there by Barack Obama's administration.

I was a bit concerned that he would capitulate, but it is nice to see him finally do something correct regarding foreign policy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks for your response Jay.

What do you think about Israel's ability to defend itself from attack, if Palestine becomes its own, separate state?

I think you should look at a map. Reference to Israel as a nuclear power is simply nonsense: nuclear arms do not guarantee defense, only retribution.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This is interesting

U.S. Sells Bunker Busters To Israel : NPR

 

[Shermana]

This is interesting

U.S. Sells Bunker Busters To Israel : NPR

Seems like Turkey is begging to get a first hand demonstration of how those work....

 

[YmirGF]

Seems like Turkey is begging to get a first hand demonstration of how those work....

One certainly gets the impression that our dear NATO ally, the Turks, are spoiling for a fight.

 

[Tellurian]

The questions are a bit unrealistic as I see it.
Yes I believe Israel should freeze some settlements. it depends in which areas and the type of settlement we are referring to.
for example there is a difference from construction around Jerusalem areas to mobilized settlements spots which are erected overnight beyond the official planning of the state. in this regard, there are different types of construction, and settlements planning. expansion has always been the reality. and there is a limit to how much I put weight to the PA protesting it when it comes to official construction in major areas which are directly linked to Jewish coherence in these vital regions. all parties and major players have showed serious consideration of land swaps, the Israelis and the Palestinians, the US, and the EU. in this regard, the position of Israel was always to keep important settlement blocs which are in close proximity to the Israeli side of the green line in an agreement which will include land swap.
there has to be a very good reason that will make me reconsider this position.
and back to the US veto vote. I believe that from my answer, the answer is an obvious yes. the US should have vetoed the Palestinian bid. and there was no surprise there by Barack Obama's administration.

Why do you support the existence of Israeli settlements that are clearly ILLEGAL?

From Israeli settlement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The International Court of Justice and the international community say these settlements are illegal,[3][4] and no government supports Israel's settlements.[5] Israel disputes the position of the international community.[6] The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[7] Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West bank in 2005.[8]

As of December 2010, 327,750 Israelis live in the 121 officially-recognised settlements in the West Bank, 192,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem and over 20,000 live in settlements in the Golan Heights [9][10] Settlements range in character from farming communities and frontier villages to urban suburbs and neighborhoods. The three largest settlements, Modi'in Illit, Maale Adumim and Betar Illit, have achieved city status, with over 30,000 residents each."

Have you ever stopped to think, "What was Israel's original purpose for constructing settlements in the Palestinian territories that were for JEWS ONLY?" If you look at the map where the ILLEGAL settlements are located it becomes obvious that they were designed to divide the territories under Israeli military occupation into smaller portions that could not be used to create a Palestinian state.

"The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel is in breach of international law by establishing settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Court maintains that Israel cannot rely on its right of self-defense or necessity to impose a regime that violates international law. The Court also ruled that Israel violates basic human rights by impeding liberty of movement and the inhabitants' right to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living.[52]

International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[53] major organs of the United Nations,[54] the European Union, and Canada,[55] regard the settlements as a violation of international law. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination wrote that "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law."[56] Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State reached the same conclusion.[49][57]

In 1967, Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stated in a legal opinion to the Prime Minister, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."[58] The legal opinion, forwarded to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, was not made public at the time, and the Labor cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements anyway; this action paved the way for future settlement growth. In 2007, Meron stated that "I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."[59]

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think you should look at a map. Reference to Israel as a nuclear power is simply nonsense: nuclear arms do not guarantee defense, only retribution.

(1) My post was about the map; (2) nothing guarantees defense, but nuclear retribution is perhaps the most terrifying defense.

 

[Shermana]

but nuclear retribution is perhaps the most terrifying defense.

Indeed, even if Israel goes down, those Subs will still work just fine.

 

[Caladan]

Why do you support the existence of Israeli settlements that are clearly ILLEGAL?

For the same reason the Palestinian future state, if becoming a reality will recognize them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(1) My post was about the map; (2) nothing guarantees defense, but nuclear retribution is perhaps the most terrifying defense.

It is zero defense against those willing to die for a cause.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It is zero defense against those willing to die for a cause.

But everything is zero defense against those willing to die for a cause; to the extent this is true of a nuclear arsenal, it is even more true of conventional forces occupying the West Bank. At issue is whether Jordan, which has been deterred from a (futile, suicidal) invasion of nuclear-armed Israel for decades (even refusing to participate in the 1973 war) will be significantly less deterred than it is now if Palestine becomes a state and much of Israel's conventional forces are withdrawn, perhaps with a de-militarized West Bank or an Israeli or international force on the Jordanian border (I would like to hear other possibilities too).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But everything is zero defense against those willing to die for a cause; to the extent this is true of a nuclear arsenal, it is even more true of conventional forces occupying the West Bank. At issue is whether Jordan, which has been deterred from a (futile, suicidal) invasion of nuclear-armed Israel for decades (even refusing to participate in the 1973 war) will be significantly less deterred than it is now if Palestine becomes a state and much of Israel's conventional forces are withdrawn, perhaps with a de-militarized West Bank or an Israeli or international force on the Jordanian border (I would like to hear other possibilities too).

That is certainly one issue. But you fail to acknowledge a second, namely, would Israel be significantly endangered by a Hamas led and Hezbollah supported Palestine occupying the 1967 borders. Your willingness to discount or dismiss that concern is troubling.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Many here do seem to have issues with the Israeli state being a distinctly Jewish State - as it should be.

This is true.

 

[Tellurian]

For the same reason the Palestinian future state, if becoming a reality will recognize them.

Why would a Palestinian future state accept the illegal settlements? Would it be because of all the property and sales taxes the Palestinians could collect from them? Would the settlements be good locations for new mosques? Would the settlements be good places for Palestinians to move to since the Israelis destroyed so many Palestinian homes?

 

[Alceste]

Why would a Palestinian future state accept the illegal settlements? Would it be because of all the property and sales taxes the Palestinians could collect from them? Would the settlements be good locations for new mosques? Would the settlements be good places for Palestinians to move to since the Israelis destroyed so many Palestinian homes?

They would accept them because accepting them would be a condition of a negotiated settlement. Israel holds all the cards and refuses to give the illegal settlements up.

If you're starving to death and the guy who controls all the food offers you a sandwich, you're not going to complain about a little bit of mold.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That is certainly one issue. But you fail to acknowledge a second, namely, would Israel be significantly endangered by a Hamas led and Hezbollah supported Palestine occupying the 1967 borders. Your willingness to discount or dismiss that concern is troubling.

I'm not dismissing those concerns at all, you only just now raised them. I am trying to ask you an honest question but you seem to be stuck in "attack mode". You raised legitimate concerns so my question is, what do you think are equitable / viable solutions to have a Palestinian state and provide measures for Israeli security?

E.g. could Israel control the West Bank borders as a way to prevent rockets from coming in? Or could there be a joint force? Or could there be some kind of treaty that keeps the West Bank de-militarized, with international observers to verify, and the a threat of Israeli invasion / airstrikes to enforce the terms? Would the Palestinians reject such accommodations? Would Israel be willing to trust the Palestinians if they accepted such measures?

I'm not arguing, I'm just asking. I don't know the answers.

 

[Caladan]

Why would a Palestinian future state accept the illegal settlements?

Have you even read my post? or are you simply throwing the word 'illegal settlements' occasionally into your posts?
there are Israelis towns and cities which have started as settlements decades ago, and no one expects them to become part of the Palestinian state. not the Palestinians, Israelis, or other major powers who are part of the negotiations. some of these areas are located on the outskirts of the green line.
an agreements over a Palestinian state in the future, will most likely include land swaps. meaning that areas with substantial Israeli population and which are connected to the rest of Israel by geographical factors and urban factors, will remain in the territory of the Israeli state, while Israel transfers to the Palestinians other lands which were not meant to be part of a future Palestinian state.

 

[sadiq]

They would accept them because accepting them
If you're starving to death and the guy who controls all the food offers you a sandwich, you're not going to complain about a little bit of mold.

Essentially that's what they fail to grasp, Although that's a bad metaphor.

 

[Tellurian]

Have you even read my post? or are you simply throwing the word 'illegal settlements' occasionally into your posts?
there are Israelis towns and cities which have started as settlements decades ago, and no one expects them to become part of the Palestinian state. not the Palestinians, Israelis, or other major powers who are part of the negotiations. some of these areas are located on the outskirts of the green line.
an agreements over a Palestinian state in the future, will most likely include land swaps. meaning that areas with substantial Israeli population and which are connected to the rest of Israel by geographical factors and urban factors, will remain in the territory of the Israeli state, while Israel transfers to the Palestinians other lands which were not meant to be part of a future Palestinian state.

Are you referring to the Geneva Initiatives?

Geneva Initiative - Yes to an agreement - Summary

Geneva Initiative - Yes to an agreement - A Regional Peace Plan: The Geneva Initiative Annexes

Geneva Initiative - Yes to an agreement - Geneva Initiative: Israel-Palestine Permanent Borders