Israel, the U.S. and the West Bank Settlements

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8071491.stm

I applaud the stance taken by Obama's government. For too long, Israel has ignored the norms of the international community; however, this time, the U.S. is not willing to turn a blind eye.

The suffering experienced by the Jewish people throughout history, particularly during the last century, cannot be over emphasised. Nevertheless, Israel, backed by the U.S., has repeatedly employed the history of its people as an apology for actions that contravene a series of principles that are observed by most other countries. Any attempts to put pressure on Israel have been met with cries of anti-semitism or condoned on the basis of the need to maintain a friend, at any cost, in a war-torn area of the world that represents a security threat.

Following the recent series of atrocities committed by the Jewish State, shelling civilian areas and refusing to listen to the demands for cessation issued by various countries, Israel has found itself increasingly isolated on the international stage. Many have described these actions as the bloodiest election campaign in history.

Now, the U.S. administration finds itself accused of interfering in what many Israelis describe as internal affairs: a case of ?supply us with armament, but don?t even think about criticising any of our actions?.

If something is wrong, it is wrong and it is no less wrong because the country in question happens to be Israel: the Jewish settlements in the West Bank contravene international law.

Thankfully, not all Israelis support this flagrant disregard for the principles that underline the actions of the international community:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8071812.stm


 

cumhail

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
682
0
0
But it's just "natural growth," according to Netanyahu. And if Canada and Mexico "naturally grow" into the US, so be it...
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Jesus Red, you know how much work has been put in over the last couple weeks to make sure everyone is looking at NK and not this.
Keep your bbc news to yourself so we can enjoy our ignorance on this side of the pond ;)
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Clearly Israel had no motive to compromise in any way while the Bushies wrote them a blank check for 8 years.
By taking a more balanced approach the US will be supporting the moderate Palestinians, especially those who ready for an end to constant warfare.
I can't say it will really change anything. But at least there is now some reason for Israel to be thinking of making some kind of deal with the moderate Palestinians.
Even if it takes years and years, at least its a start.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
What the US politically states will be of no relevance - it will be the actions of Israel's opponents that will determie the result.

As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs, Israel will raise the finger.


Pulling articles from the BBC (which has always been pro-Arab) diminishes the value of you posts along with your rant in the middle.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What the US politically states will be of no relevance - it will the the actions of Israel's opponents that will determie the result.

As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs, Israel will raise the finger.


Pulling articles from the BBC (which has always been pro-Arab) diminishes the value of you posts along with your rant in the middle.

Riiight:roll:
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What the US politically states will be of no relevance - it will the the actions of Israel's opponents that will determie the result.

As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs, Israel will raise the finger.


Pulling articles from the BBC (which has always been pro-Arab) diminishes the value of you posts along with your rant in the middle.

You are consistently, I would argue blindly, pro-Israel, whereby, according to your arguments, your own "rants" are also devoid of any merit.

Thanks, but if I'm looking for objectivity, I think I prefer the BBC news to anything you might have to say.



 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What the US politically states will be of no relevance - it will the the actions of Israel's opponents that will determie the result.

As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs, Israel will raise the finger.


Pulling articles from the BBC (which has always been pro-Arab) diminishes the value of you posts along with your rant in the middle.

You are consistently, I would argue blindly, pro-Israel, whereby, according to your arguments, your own "rants" are also devoid of any merit.

Thanks, but if I'm looking for objectivity, I think I prefer the BBC news to anything you might have to say.


If his arguments are devoid of any merit why are you bothering to respond?!?!?!

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What the US politically states will be of no relevance - it will the the actions of Israel's opponents that will determine the result.

As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs, Israel will raise the finger.


Pulling articles from the BBC (which has always been pro-Arab) diminishes the value of you posts along with your rant in the middle.

You are consistently, I would argue blindly, pro-Israel, whereby, according to your arguments, your own "rants" are also devoid of any merit.

Thanks, but if I'm looking for objectivity, I think I prefer the BBC news to anything you might have to say.

Feel free to ignore me.

I stated the facts - it is others that can interpret them as they wish.

 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What the US politically states will be of no relevance - it will the the actions of Israel's opponents that will determie the result.

As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs, Israel will raise the finger.


Pulling articles from the BBC (which has always been pro-Arab) diminishes the value of you posts along with your rant in the middle.

You are consistently, I would argue blindly, pro-Israel, whereby, according to your arguments, your own "rants" are also devoid of any merit.

Thanks, but if I'm looking for objectivity, I think I prefer the BBC news to anything you might have to say.


If his arguments are devoid of any merit why are you bothering to respond?!?!?!
Because then the terrorists win.

 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What the US politically states will be of no relevance - it will the the actions of Israel's opponents that will determine the result.

As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs, Israel will raise the finger.


Pulling articles from the BBC (which has always been pro-Arab) diminishes the value of you posts along with your rant in the middle.

You are consistently, I would argue blindly, pro-Israel, whereby, according to your arguments, your own "rants" are also devoid of any merit.

Thanks, but if I'm looking for objectivity, I think I prefer the BBC news to anything you might have to say.

Feel free to ignore me.

I stated the facts - it is others that can interpret them as they wish.

I am not about to ignore you.

What you refer to as "facts" are the product of your biased view of reality. I will admit, you have a lot of gall. The BBC is one of the most respected media companies in the world. Who are you, other than an insignificant individual, soured by bigotry, who, time and again, takes Israel's side in each and every debate?

On the one side we have the UN, the US and practically the entire international community, whilst on the other, we have you and various right-wing politicians in Israel who are willing to ignore international law.

Good luck convincing everybody of the veracity of your "facts".

 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Irish
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8071491.stm

I applaud the stance taken by Obama's government. For too long, Israel has ignored the norms of the international community; however, this time, the U.S. is not willing to turn a blind eye.

The suffering experienced by the Jewish people throughout history, particularly during the last century, cannot be over emphasised. Nevertheless, Israel, backed by the U.S., has repeatedly employed the history of its people as an apology for actions that contravene a series of principles that are observed by most other countries. Any attempts to put pressure on Israel have been met with cries of anti-semitism or condoned on the basis of the need to maintain a friend, at any cost, in a war-torn area of the world that represents a security threat.

Following the recent series of atrocities committed by the Jewish State, shelling civilian areas and refusing to listen to the demands for cessation issued by various countries, Israel has found itself increasingly isolated on the international stage. Many have described these actions as the bloodiest election campaign in history.

Now, the U.S. administration finds itself accused of interfering in what many Israelis describe as internal affairs: a case of ?supply us with armament, but don?t even think about criticising any of our actions?.

If something is wrong, it is wrong and it is no less wrong because the country in question happens to be Israel: the Jewish settlements in the West Bank contravene international law.

Thankfully, not all Israelis support this flagrant disregard for the principles that underline the actions of the international community:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8071812.stm

Good post. I find many of Israel's actions reprehensible, but that shouldn't be conflated with the will of all jewish people, nor even the will of all Israelis. The fact is, its foreign policy has been gripped by right-wing fearmongers for a while who are perfectly fine with the status quo in the region.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: Mani
I find many of Israel's actions reprehensible, but that shouldn't be conflated with the will of all jewish people, nor even the will of all Israelis. The fact is, its foreign policy has been gripped by right-wing fearmongers for a while who are perfectly fine with the status quo in the region.

:thumbsup:
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
With Netanyahu at the helm, I can envision an expansion of settlements until the possibility of a Palestine state is all but impossible. It seems to me that for Arabs, agreeing with Israel's right to exist is the watershed issue, the great divide, the ultimate question.

Since a Palestinian state is all but off the table of state policy on the Isreali side...

My ultimate question: Has Israel ever formally stated exactly how much land in the Middle East it would be satisfied with, or in other words, the precise limits of its territorial aspirations? Have they ever formally said "This much, no more, no less?"

I can see where Arabs can be angered when a country whose armed forces are among the top 5 in the world, heavily financed by the world's only superpower, refuses to say how much land it considers that God gave the Jewish people. Even if that fear is in practice unjustified because modern Jewish culture is fundamentally humane and democratic, this fear could be used to mobilize the masses in the Arab world.

Millions in the ME want to wipe Israel off the map for the "crime" of not being Muslim. Joshua and the Hebrews slew every man, woman, child and beast in Jehrico for the "crime" of being on land the Hebrews wanted and went on to brag about it in the Old Testament.

Would it be in the interest of Israel to say: "This much, no more, no less. We will exist or die. We will never try for more. Leave us alone with this much and we can be friends. But we will fight you to the death if you try to take this much away from us." I think not.

They agreed to the original partition terms from the UN, if memory serves. That would have partitioned the Trans-Jordan region into an Israeli and Palestinian state (along with Jordan of course). Unfortunately the Palestinian's and the other neighboring states rejected that partition and chose instead to decide things through force of arms. It didn't work out so well for them, however. Israel actually agreed to the original partition plan., which, de facto, acknowledged Palestine's right to exist. Right?

So, yes, Israel has formally stated exactly what it's original borders would be, unfortunately as there was no initial agreement on this, the conflict was decided militarily (which, it turns out, Israel won, thus expanding their original borders quite a bit). I don't believe that Israel has formally re-designated what their borders would be after that.

So, How would you determine how much land Israel could annex? 5% 10%? 50%? 99%? Who gets to decide. Any number would be disputed and without a negotiated settlement in any case we'd end up back at square one. There must be some common vision somewhere about what Israel considers Israel. I just wonder: If you are an Arab next door to one of the world's most powerful military machines, and the state that controls that machine refuses to say how much it will utltimately be satisfied with in terms of territory, would that be constructive or conducive to peace?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
If nothing else, I think its long past time to tie our aid to Israel with the lack of expansion of Israeli settlements. We may not be able to tell Israel not to build, but we can sure cut off any aid cold.

In the early 1990's there may have been enough disputed land left to form a viable Palestinian State, I doubt there is enough left now.

Sadly, I still think its going to take binding third party arbitration to solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

I can see where Arabs can be angered when a country whose armed forces are among the top 5 in the world

What?

heavily financed by the world's only superpower

Who's that?


Millions in the ME want to wipe Israel off the map for the "crime" of not being Muslim.

More linkage needed

We'll just start with those questions
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What the US politically states will be of no relevance - it will the the actions of Israel's opponents that will determie the result.

As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs, Israel will raise the finger.


Pulling articles from the BBC (which has always been pro-Arab) diminishes the value of you posts along with your rant in the middle.

You are consistently, I would argue blindly, pro-Israel, whereby, according to your arguments, your own "rants" are also devoid of any merit.

Thanks, but if I'm looking for objectivity, I think I prefer the BBC news to anything you might have to say.

If you are looking to BBC news for objective reporting concerning Israel, then perhaps you are part of the problem.

There is NO objective reporting by the BBC when it concerns Israel!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What the US politically states will be of no relevance - it will the the actions of Israel's opponents that will determie the result.

As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs, Israel will raise the finger.


Pulling articles from the BBC (which has always been pro-Arab) diminishes the value of you posts along with your rant in the middle.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Jedi-


I knew you were going to run into trouble with your blind support of Israel and your support of Obama

edit- some weird time warpage there
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Red Irish
the U.S. no longer blindly condones Israel's actions

Oh? I bet we send them another $3 billion in aid this year. And next year, and the year after that. It's not like we can't afford it though.

Originally posted by: techs
Clearly Israel had no motive to compromise in any way while the Bushies wrote them a blank check for 8 years.

LOL, like they didn't get a check while Clinton was in office? Or now that Obama is in office?

Change techs believes in. :p
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What the US politically states will be of no relevance - it will the the actions of Israel's opponents that will determie the result.

As long as the world continues to pamper the Arabs, Israel will raise the finger.


Pulling articles from the BBC (which has always been pro-Arab) diminishes the value of you posts along with your rant in the middle.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

If Common Courtesy and you have objection with the source, just google the story: it has been reported in numerous online journalistic publications, I'm sure you will find an interpretation to suit your tastes. The focus of the thread wasn't intended to be the validity of the BBC as a source of news, but then again, I wasn't expecting anyone to attack this source.

I tell you what, why don't you simply provide a link to Netanyahu's election program? Presumably those are the only "facts" that either of you are willing to accept.

 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Red Irish
the U.S. no longer blindly condones Israel's actions

Oh? I bet we send them another $3 billion in aid this year. And next year, and the year after that. It's not like we can't afford it though.

It's a start.