Palestine Goes For The Full Monty

Niseg wrote:
Hypatian wrote:
Israel has approved the construction of 1,100 new settlement homes on disputed land in the West Bank, less than a week after promising to pursue peace with the Palestinians.

Stay classy, Israel.

Not that it's planning to give up any part of Jerusalem . While the Palestinians don't want to talk as I say everything is up for grabs. We got the land from Jordan. The government actually don't approve it directly. The Jerusalem planning and building committee has a free hand .

I just looked at the prices in that area you can get a 3 bedroom for 270k- 320k $ on the 3rd-4th floor without an elevator :lol:. The apartment that they are building is more in the 400k$+ range so that's project is worth at least 440 million dollar . The motives aren't only nationalist or grabbing land. There is a shortage in apartments in Israel and Jerusalem is considered "hot" area especially if you are very religious or a newcomer.

You guys may want to try to set it up so that private corporations or local committees need to seek national government approval before building on occupied land. The fact that some committee can say "well, this will cause a huge diplomatic incident, but it will also make us 440 million dollars, so lets go!" may be part of your problem right there.

As Yonder and Malor said (more or less), the fact that your government and society have neither the inclination nor the will to put a stop to this sort of thing is precisely the problem. Even if the government is negotiating in good faith, if it can't control the populace then what does that matter? (And, in fact, I do believe this argument has been used against the Palestinians by the Israelis as well.)

On the one side, you have a modern reasonably wealthy nation living under the rule of law, with the military capability to dominate its opposition, but lacking the will to reign in its citizens.

On the other, you have an unrecognized nation of people living in refugee conditions, whose elected leaderships' authority is rejected by those other nations involved in the "peace process", with scattered guerrilla forces that can send in suicide bombers and lob rockets over walls in the dead of night without even any real chance of hitting something important, and lacking the ability to force those guerrilla groups to stop.

One of these groups has the capability of making a difference, but chooses not to. The other can no longer see the point in trying when no amount of effort ever seems to be "good enough".

So. If I get this right, you are saying that the reason the USA should continue to provide unconditional support for Israel is because if we don't, Israel will behave more poorly and more contrary to our regional interests?

Screw that. It's time to pull the plug on that golum.

Paleocon wrote:

So. If I get this right, you are saying that the reason the USA should continue to provide unconditional support for Israel is because if we don't, Israel will behave more poorly and more contrary to our regional interests?

Screw that. It's time to pull the plug on that golum.

Another point along this line, that rational could be used to fund Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and even Al Qaeda.

Yonder wrote:

Another point along this line, that rational could be used to fund Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and even Al Qaeda.

And we have done so in the recent past.

Yonder wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

So. If I get this right, you are saying that the reason the USA should continue to provide unconditional support for Israel is because if we don't, Israel will behave more poorly and more contrary to our regional interests?

Screw that. It's time to pull the plug on that golum.

Another point along this line, that rational could be used to fund Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and even Al Qaeda.

"Hey, I wouldn't have slapped her if she'd had my dinner and a beer ready, that b*tch."

Oh, I wanted to go back this this, real quick:

When its not returned, the 'hey, lets build more settlements as a buffer zone' response comes into play sadly.

You do realize that this is completely unworkable, right? What are you shielding? People. What you shielding them with? More people. So what the hell do you shield THEM with? More settlements? And then you need more settlements to shield THOSE settlements?

Pretty quick, you're all out of Palestine.

Malor wrote:

Oh, I wanted to go back this this, real quick:

When its not returned, the 'hey, lets build more settlements as a buffer zone' response comes into play sadly.

You do realize that this is completely unworkable, right? What are you shielding? People. What you shielding them with? More people. So what the hell do you shield THEM with? More settlements? And then you need more settlements to shield THOSE settlements?

Pretty quick, you're all out of Palestine.

You might be on to the strategy right here.

Isn't one of the benefits of Palestine getting this status in the UN to allow Israel to be chastised for their treatment of Palestinians? I haven't been following the news on this very closely, but it is really sad that we (America) can claim to want a two-state solution, and then tell one of the participants that they are less of a state than the Vatican.

Atras wrote:

Isn't one of the benefits of Palestine getting this status in the UN to allow Israel to be chastised for their treatment of Palestinians? I haven't been following the news on this very closely, but it is really sad that we (America) can claim to want a two-state solution, and then tell one of the participants that they are less of a state than the Vatican.

Even if the Palestinians got the status upgrade, what is the UN going to do to Israel? The UN has made a point of going after Israel repeatedly before, but the UN has no teeth. There is no force to back anything up, no sanctions that it can realistically levy. Any real action has to come from the security counsel, and I don't see the US throwing Israel to the wolves any time soon regardless of what Palestine gets from this push.

Just another Tannhauser'd! comment, nothing to see.

Don't go overboard it's a fact that without negotiation things will just "go downhill". Israel sees Jerusalem as it's capital and it will build there none stop even during a freeze or whatever. The Palestinians preconditions just show they don't want to negotiate . If you know the history of negotiation they always say no in the end even on Camp David 2000.

And if you want to talk about funding...... We don't need you money. According to The Black Guardia /Yaron Zelicha ( a book that details his reforms in the treasury department) we don't even need the your loan guarantees anymore. I know exactly who needs your money - the Palestinians .Today it was published that congress is cutting almost 200 million of the funding that go to the Palestinians . And the article said That congress isn't likely to stop at that.

It's a good time to call your congressman though I doubt it would help. Even Israel is against cutting fund to the Palestinians because we'll take most of the heat when they go crazy or Hamas would take over the "West Bank" ( a matter of time). We are ready to run to the bomb shelters and most of the casualties would be people who don't understand they should.

How did this thread not get re-upped? I mean, most of the world told the U.S. and Israel, RE: Palestine, to go screw.

...the coalition against the vote was thin. Apart from Israel and the US, those voting against were Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Panama.

Which led, somewhat unsurprisingly, to this.

Yes, this is a conflict I genuinely see ending before the heat death of the universe.

I (and apparently most of the planet) am more than a bit confused as to why the US and Israel consider the Palestinians going to the UN for recognition a hostile act.

Paleocon wrote:

I (and apparently most of the planet) am more than a bit confused as to why the US and Israel consider the Palestinians going to the UN for recognition a hostile act.

Here is the impression I get from the media up here in Canada (who also voted against it.)

The feeling is that by Palestine going this step, they are trying to sidestep the "negotiation"* process by using the UN and have the UN unilaterally impose upon Israel a final position.

*I hesitate to call what the Palestinians and Israelis do as actual negotiations. Right now, they are negotiating on how they will negotiate.

Paleocon wrote:

I (and apparently most of the planet) am more than a bit confused as to why the US and Israel consider the Palestinians going to the UN for recognition a hostile act.

A post on Reddit raised a few issues.

1) A state needs territory. This doesn't resolve territoriality issues. At all.
2) This basically shreds Oslo. If Fatah is going to try to get concessions without negotiation, then there's really no point in Israel going to the negotiation table.
3) This leaves the refugee situation entirely unresolved.
4) This leaves the final status of settlements completely unresolved.
5) The PA is not the elected government of the Palestinian people; Hamas is technically the elected government, and governs a big chunk of the people Fatah is claiming to represent.

What we keep hearing is that the going to the UN breaks Oslo or other agreement. Israel is now "retaliating" with one sided move of it's own. Israel Approved a 3000 of homes built in some area called E1 . Other than that the Palestinian taxes are withheld and will be used to pay up their debt to Israeli companies like the electric company.

As far as I heard they don't have a state yet because they don't have defined borders. They can claim the 67 lines but efectively Israel got those pieces of land from Egypt and Jordan. A recent comity have decided that the settlements aren't Illegal . While that was going on Naftali Bennet (US born Israeli - I didn't know ) suggested area C would be annexed along with 25000 Palestinians which will get Israeli citizenship . After that he started working on turning his idea into reality by being elected as the head of "The Jewish home " party political party which is generally religious Zionist right wing but it changed to include a few secular people. The Jewish Home has about 3 seats in parliament (120 seats total) but most poles talk about 8-10 seats.

In this current election The "peace process" is generally taking a back seat. None want to look like he's pushing for any talks with Palestinians. Labor party head , Shelly Yeh'imovich is kind of getting in trouble for trying to get "the left" out of the Labor party because it alienates Likud voters she is trying to attract (they talked on the radio about 10 seats) .

I personally don't think the settlements are an obstacle for peace they are actually a stimulant for peace. The Palestinians should get to the negotiation table faster because their piece of the cake is shrinking. I also heard there is huge amount of corruption in the PA and they are going to have financial trouble soon. Maybe the Arab spring didn't start in Tunisia but in Gaza when the Hamas overthrew the corrupt PA government and replaced it with an Islamic fundamentalist government. I wonder what would happen to the Palestinians when the Hamas take over the West bank .

A recent comity have decided that the settlements aren't Illegal .

Gee, Israel says the Israeli settlements are legal. I'm shocked.

The popularity of this vote once again reminds me of how much political capital and reputation we expend for the benefit of Israel. And it, once again, begs the question what we get out of it.

Let Israel have their country. Let them commit whatever acts they want to against their indigenous people.

I just see absolutely zero benefit to America in being tied to this.

Paleocon wrote:

I just see absolutely zero benefit to America in being tied to this.

IMAGE(http://www.nndb.com/people/658/000026580/king-fahd.jpg)
YA RLY!

And I hope the US washes its hands of all this nonsense before we end up having to eat the political backlash for it.

Malor wrote:
A recent comity have decided that the settlements aren't Illegal .

Gee, Israel says the Israeli settlements are legal. I'm shocked.

I've never seen proof it's illegal. It's just a disputed territory. It doesn't really matter because we may soon see the annexation of territory C which includes settlements. Legal or not the world may not like it but they won't do anything about it(check Golan heights). The Palestinians already refused all deals that were offered to them which include most of the West Bank ( I posted the maps in the past). With one sided moves both sides will get one sided results.

A quick Google search of "Jewish population in west bank" (in Hebrew) yields a 327,712 people . I hope the Palestinians will get back to the negotiation table before reality catches up with them.

Paleocon wrote:

The popularity of this vote once again reminds me of how much political capital and reputation we expend for the benefit of Israel. And it, once again, begs the question what we get out of it.

Let Israel have their country. Let them commit whatever acts they want to against their indigenous people.

I just see absolutely zero benefit to America in being tied to this.

America's interests in Israel are not related to the conflict or lack of the conflict. Israel is a big problem to the USA because of it's weapons industry. The US is also heavily invested in Israeli businesses. The US can abandon us at any time they want but then we'll just start selling advanced technology to its adversaries. Both the USA and Israel benefit from their alliance but it's still not always that good. You should also not take the UN too seriously - nobody does.The only part of the UN that can do anything is the UN security council. All the people do in the UN is waste tax payers money but it's a useful place to negotiate cease fire agreements . People joke that you can pass a resolution in the UN that claims that the world is flat.

Niseg wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The popularity of this vote once again reminds me of how much political capital and reputation we expend for the benefit of Israel. And it, once again, begs the question what we get out of it.

Let Israel have their country. Let them commit whatever acts they want to against their indigenous people.

I just see absolutely zero benefit to America in being tied to this.

America's interests in Israel are not related to the conflict or lack of the conflict. Israel is a big problem to the USA because of it's weapons industry. The US is also heavily invested in Israeli businesses. The US can abandon us at any time they want but then we'll just start selling advanced technology to its adversaries. Both the USA and Israel benefit from their alliance but it's still not always that good. You should also not take the UN too seriously - nobody does.The only part of the UN that can do anything is the UN security council. All the people do in the UN is waste tax payers money but it's a useful place to negotiate cease fire agreements . People joke that you can pass a resolution in the UN that claims that the world is flat.

So, let me get this straight. The sole reason why we should legitimately continue this unproductive and costly relationship is that Israel will anally rape us if we discontinue it?

That is the absolute best reason to tell them to go fornicate with themselves that I have ever heard.

I hail from the southern hemisphere and have little invested in the present dispute.

But my thoughts on this matter are as follows:

1) The license to produce F16s and all sorts of wonderful weaponry (I think Desert Eagles and M16s) is licensed by the US to Israel.

2) Israel was (at least as far as my ignorant self understands) a country which was made by drawing post-WWII lines on a map. Much the same way the African continent was?

3) You support the guy who buys/builds your guns and acts as the buffer against the hordes that don't.

Based on the above, it seems inevitable that the US will exercise its veto power in the UN Security Council for its ally.

I don't know how genuine the so-called democratic movement in Palestine really is, but my thinking is that, if the people want it, who are we to deny them such status? That a country founded on (and established through fighting) democracy could vote to deny others the same freedom is too rich for me (although politically and strategically I could understand why it must be done).

Paleocon wrote:

So, let me get this straight. The sole reason why we should legitimately continue this unproductive and costly relationship is that Israel will anally rape us if we discontinue it?

This has been the Israeli play for a while. Remember the "hey US, you have to help us pressure Iran or we will 'preemptively' nuke an Iranian city."?

Bfgp wrote:

But my thoughts on this matter are as follows:
1) The license to produce F16s and all sorts of wonderful weaponry (I think Desert Eagles and M16s) is licensed by the US to Israel.

2) Israel was (at least as far as my ignorant self understands) a country which was made by drawing post-WWII lines on a map. Much the same way the African continent was?

3) You support the guy who buys/builds your guns and acts as the buffer against the hordes that don't.

1,3. Israel first used British weapons that were available locally by the British mandate and then got shipments of WWII German weapons from our friends in Czechoslovakia (Stalin was on our side at the time ) ,Israel also developed the Uzi based on a Czech design but also got a bunch of FN-FALs (Belgian weapon ) and our air force used French planes during 1967. Later the french backstabed us so we switch to domestic plane/weapons and the US also dumped a bunch of M16s on us after Vietnam. The US helped Israel a lot during 1973 (Nikel Grass) mainly because we made them believe we are installing A-Bombs on Jericho missiles. At the same time Egypt was supplied with Soviet weaponry. The major concern that a detonation of a nuclear weapon can spark a nuclear war between the US and USSR (this could be a conspiracy theory.

Other than that Israel have cooperated a lot with the USA and it provided the CIA with some inteligence on what's going on in the soviet union and technical information about the Mig-21 (got an Iraqi to defect with it and and transferred it). Later Israel also got a Mig-23 from a Syrian defector . Other than that there was a Secret Speech in USSR that Israel managed to get its hands on.

Other than that Israel cooperate in many fields with the USA especially weapon systems. The USA also has a say which limit the sale of Israeli technologies to certain countries (like India and China).

about #2 - Israel was founded after the British mandate left and in war of independence 1948 it defined it's initial borders . In 1967 Jerusalem was united and the west bank was captured along with the entire Sinai Peninsula too . I think the Golan heights was captured in 1973 mainly to act as a bargaining chip but it also prevented the Syrians from shooting artillery at Israeli civilians in the area. Gaza is basically an Egyptian territory and the west bank is a Jordanian territory.

Bfgp wrote:

Based on the above, it seems inevitable that the US will exercise its veto power in the UN Security Council for its ally.

I don't know how genuine the so-called democratic movement in Palestine really is, but my thinking is that, if the people want it, who are we to deny them such status? That a country founded on (and established through fighting) democracy could vote to deny others the same freedom is too rich for me (although politically and strategically I could understand why it must be done).

As a long term ally the US saved us from a lot of problems. The US generally try to prevent things going crazy. The security council is also where Russia and China protect their pawns namely Syria and Iran by threatening to use or using their veto power . The security council is the playground of the superpowers.The general assembly doesn't have any real power.

As I said above the UN is a good place to get a cease fire in. Because Israel have been under attack for as long as it existed the UN is a useful tool even though it's considered hostile.

Yonder wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

So, let me get this straight. The sole reason why we should legitimately continue this unproductive and costly relationship is that Israel will anally rape us if we discontinue it?

This has been the Israeli play for a while. Remember the "hey US, you have to help us pressure Iran or we will 'preemptively' nuke an Iranian city."?

This basically sums up the US - Israel relationship. Israel is the dorky kid in a bad neighborhood that gets It's parents (the USA) in trouble. I actually saw a funny video (propaganda warning ) about it.

The USA can just let us be and we can attack Iran (thought I don't think we can do much damage with conventional weapons) and light the Middle East on fire.

Israel went into numerous wars with its neighbors usually due to some kind of provocation. In most of the wars the oils kept (except for 1973) flowing so I'm not sure why everyone is so worried. Israel haven't done almost any serious war crimes in its war and it has a working judicial system which prosecute war crimes when they are discovered.

The USA knows better than to let Israel solve the world's problems. It also try hard to stop hostilities going out of hand. I'm not sure what Hillary Clinton said to Netanyahu but he'll pay for it in the elections next month. I think he lost about 12%of his voters(about 4% overall) in the polls and most of them went right. The cease fire agreement Bibi got is preposterous because it softens the border defense which can cost lives. We'll have to wait and see how long it would take for the terrorist to kill more Israeli citizens . A terrorist who infiltrated the border almost did a remake of the Fogel family murder last week .

Niseg wrote:

America's interests in Israel are not related to the conflict or lack of the conflict. Israel is a big problem to the USA because of it's weapons industry. The US is also heavily invested in Israeli businesses. The US can abandon us at any time they want but then we'll just start selling advanced technology to its adversaries.

There is a rather significant population of Jews in the US who have ties to and support Israel. But more importantly, this group has significant lobbying power on the US government. This is a point worth considering I believe.

maverickz wrote:
Niseg wrote:

America's interests in Israel are not related to the conflict or lack of the conflict. Israel is a big problem to the USA because of it's weapons industry. The US is also heavily invested in Israeli businesses. The US can abandon us at any time they want but then we'll just start selling advanced technology to its adversaries.

There is a rather significant population of Jews in the US who have ties to and support Israel. But more importantly, this group has significant lobbying power on the US government. This is a point worth considering I believe.

I think the bigger part of this is that the lunatic apocalyptic Christian vote loves the idea of fulfilling biblical prophesy so that Jeebus can come back and smite the Libruls, Sodomites, and folks who believe in climate change.

But Jews don't believe in Jesus?

Paleocon wrote:
maverickz wrote:
Niseg wrote:

America's interests in Israel are not related to the conflict or lack of the conflict. Israel is a big problem to the USA because of it's weapons industry. The US is also heavily invested in Israeli businesses. The US can abandon us at any time they want but then we'll just start selling advanced technology to its adversaries.

There is a rather significant population of Jews in the US who have ties to and support Israel. But more importantly, this group has significant lobbying power on the US government. This is a point worth considering I believe.

I think the bigger part of this is that the lunatic apocalyptic Christian vote loves the idea of fulfilling biblical prophesy so that Jeebus can come back and smite the Libruls, Sodomites, and folks who believe in climate change.

I actually think that that's a rather small group of people who genuinely believe any of that. There is an argument to be made about whether politicians who profit from the lobby are manipulating the thinking of their constituency, or if it's the constituency actually enforcing this. I tend to believe the former. But I think the US support for Israel has little to do with any apocalyptic thinking and more to do with politicals and, as was stated above, economics.

LeapingGnome wrote:

But Jews don't believe in Jesus?

I believe what Paleocon is referring to is the biblical idea that the coming of Jesus and the Rapture is accompanied by the destruction of Israel. I'm not a biblical scholar so the details are murky to me.