• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israeli government seen accepting new settlement freeze

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will probably win narrow approval from his coalition government for a U.S. proposal to extend a freeze on West Bank settlement building, Israeli political sources said Sunday.

The Palestinians halted peace talks after Israel's 10-month partial construction moratorium expired in September. The Obama administration has offered Israel diplomatic and defense perks to renew the freeze for 90 days, giving negotiations a chance.

Netanyahu, who visited the United States last week, convened his cabinet to outline the proposal, which he said was still being drafted with the Americans. Once ready, it would be put to a vote in Israel's 15-minister security cabinet, he said.
Source: Reuters

Though temporary it will at least provide an opportunity for talks to continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bub

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Source: Reuters

Though temporary it will at least provide an opportunity for talks to continue.
The problem is that it will, like the previous freeze, probably not concern the current constructions. Just before the first freeze, hundreds of permits have been given, so the freeze did not really affect the pace of the colonization in West Bank. I suspect it is the same now, during one or two months many permits have been granted, and now they'll just do as before.

However it's a good first step if it is approved.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,668
Reaction score
6,197
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm not so certain as to how far would Netanyahu be able to go in his attempts to get Abbas to talk about peace before his right-wing coalition arches an eyebrow.
Nevertheless as long as we get more jets it's a good deal, those three months worth the price of the 20 jets.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,668
Reaction score
6,197
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The problem is that it will, like the previous freeze, probably not concern the current constructions. Just before the first freeze, hundreds of permits have been given, so the freeze did not really affect the pace of the colonization in West Bank.
That plainly has nothing to do with reality, unless you can point me to an objective source that covers that up, as I've only heard so far on people who got their house project in West Bank settlements frozen and have had to live in a temporary place for 10 months waiting for the freeze to end.

It's also bad for the Palestinian workers who make the majority of the people who work on those building projects, and now will have to do with less-paying jobs for 3 more months.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not so certain as to how far would Netanyahu be able to go in his attempts to get Abbas to talk about peace before his right-wing coalition arches an eyebrow.
Nevertheless as long as we get more jets it's a good deal, those three months worth the price of the 20 jets.
So now we need to pay Israel if we want international law to be applied?
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,668
Reaction score
6,197
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
So now we need to pay Israel if we want international law to be applied?
First of all you're not an American, secondly it works as a deal, Israel gives up on something Israel gains something back, and nothing is better for Israel than to strengthen its army considering the external threats it constantly faces.
I realize some in the world have got used to Israel making unconditional compromises. This attitude that believes Israel should compromise on everything and get nothing in return is the saddening result of decades of demonization and propaganda campaigns doing their work.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
That plainly has nothing to do with reality, unless you can point me to an objective source that covers that up, as I've only heard so far on people who got their house project in West Bank settlements frozen and have had to live in a temporary place for 10 months waiting for the freeze to end.
November 2009, bibi allows 900 new houses to be built, in december he says there's a "freeze" but that the houses already under construction can proceed.

However you seem to be right about the new freeze:

would include all building begun since September 26 when the previous 10-month moratorium expired, a source close to the negotiations said.
Settlement construction exploding on West Bank | The Salt Lake Tribune
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
First of all you're not an American, secondly it works as a deal, Israel gives up on something Israel gains something back, and nothing is better for Israel than to strengthen its army considering the external threats it constantly faces.
I realize some in the world have got used to Israel making unconditional compromises. This attitude that believes Israel should compromise on everything and get nothing in return is the saddening result of decades of demonization and propaganda campaigns doing their work.
Respecting international law is not a compromise or an "unilateral concession"
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,668
Reaction score
6,197
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Respecting international law is not a compromise or an "unilateral concession"
Depends on the perspective. In the environment of negotiations between two parties it most certainly is.
Point is those issues will be settled through negotiations and negotiations alone.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Freezing settlement construction does not prejudice the outcome of negotiations on any subject.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Depends on the perspective. In the environment of negotiations between two parties it most certainly is.
Point is those issues will be settled through negotiations and negotiations alone.
So it's OK to violate international law as long as you're negociating? That may explain why there have been "negociations" about the colonies during the past 3 or 4 decades.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,483
Reaction score
3,294
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
So it's OK to violate international law as long as you're negociating? That may explain why there have been "negociations" about the colonies during the past 3 or 4 decades.
Bwfore 1967 the West Bank belonged to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. Why not have Israel negotiate with the countries that controlled this land?
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Don't worry, the Palestinians will stall for 70 days and then sit down to talk only to threat of walking out of negotiations if the freeze will not continue.
The Palestinians have no interest in negotiations, their only interest is do de-legitimize Israel.

I think the freeze is a right move for Bibi's goverment, if the Palestinians will finally sit and talk than we finally get the negotiations on the right track, if they stall as I believe they will, their true face will come out. Problem is no one in the world will care...
 

Degreez

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Bwfore 1967 the West Bank belonged to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. Why not have Israel negotiate with the countries that controlled this land?
The West Bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza was occupied by Egypt. Jordan annexed the West Bank, was only recognized by one country.

And then you are forgetting about 20-30 years of agreements with the Palestinians which Israel has violated (Oslo Accords).
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
When will they stop stealing palestinian land so the TSA can stop touching my balls?
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,483
Reaction score
531
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Reality time.

the F-35 deal was already done. F-35 deals with Canada, Australia, the U.K., Israel, Saudi Arabia, on and on were made a long time ago.

The current deal is simply a face saving one. Netanyahu needs something to bring back to his coalition so they can save face when allowing another freeze. His right wingers can't look soft to their constituents thus this charade that they are only extending the freeze so they can get F 35's. They were already getting them. Its just a face saving exercise.

Its part of the ridiculous gamesmanship that must go on so BOTH Netanyahu and Abbas can make concessions without looking like they are.

Both are stuck having to look tough and not conciliatory and so the US fabricates these plays of pretense to assist both leaders continue to look tough.

Do your homework. Israel already has a deal in place where in return for testing the F-35's and perfecting their on-board computers and certain technology that can only be done after the craft is flown and tested-Israel gets some of these jets.

Israel's military alliance features it being a technology fail safe tester for these aircraft so in turn they can then be sold to other nations.

When F-35 are sold the shell is the same, but the on-board computer technology Israel will then add to them will be different then what might be given to Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Australia or Canada.

Its far more complicated then appeasing Netanyahu with F-35's.


It is about assuring both Netanyahu and Abbas look like superior macho alpha male monkeys to their respective baboon packs.

Its nothing but primates chattering and showing each other their fangs as they prance about testing each other over a territorial dispute. The only thing missing is Netanyahu and Abbas pissing on their respective table legs at any peace talk discussions.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
My quick thoughts:

1) Although Israel would gain something in exchange for its concession, its gain is provided by the U.S. not the Palestinians. Reciprocity should be given by the Palestinians, not the U.S.

2) Unless the Palestinians understand that each party will need to give something in exchange for something, in other words, they understand that they are not an entitled party that is freed from making any concessions, the Palestinian negotiating position will remain rigid.

3) The latest deal may provide some short-term time for negotiations, but it is not assured that the Palestinians or Arab League will accept it. I suspect that the Palestinian push for unilateral recognition arises from a strategic choice to de-emphasize the negotiating process. If so, the Palestinians will look for arguments/excuses why the latest deal is insufficient, rather than seizing the opportunity to immediately pursue negotiations. In the meantime, just as had been the case with the previous temporary freeze, time will be wasted. Even if they resume talks--perhaps hoping to retain U.S. assistance/support--the Palestinians could again walk away in 90 days.

4) There is no assurance that a future U.S. Administration would respect the commitment to oppose Palestinian unilateralism in the UN. Hence, the Palestinians could yet calculate that the U.S. position is temporary. If so, that would significantly alter their desire to pursue the unilateral path, though the move could be delayed. Furthermore, it is not implausible that the Palestinians could resort to the highly partial General Assembly in a bid to undermine the U.S. position via "international opinion" that would run counter to that position. Only if the Palestinians believe that the U.S. position is enduring and it would make it impossible for the Palestinians to gain international recognition of a unilaterally-declared state would they place their largest emphasis on a negotiated outcome.

5) IMO, the U.S. Congress would do well to pass sense of the House/sense of the Senate resolutions indicating that both bodies would seriously consider reducing U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority were the Palestinians to abandon talks after 90 days has passed.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
neither does continuing with it....
I would add that a permanent freeze might actually undermine prospects for a negotiated outcome. If the Palestinians realized that there were no opportunity costs associated with intransigence e.g., no existing settlements would reach critical population/infrastructure mass that would lead to a risk (not certainty) of their being retained by Israel, they can hold out looking for additional Israeli concessions. If, on the other hand, the Palestinians concluded that there was a risk (not certainty) that delay would lead to less generous settlement parameters than would otherwise be available, then they would have an incentive to negotiate and reach agreement before such a prospect would be realized.

At present, Israel remains likely to retain 3 to perhaps 5 major settlement blocs. Moreover, construction is within the boundaries of existing settlements, not beyond them. Agreement on borders would determine which settlements would be removed and it would lead to an end to construction in land that would be given to the Palestinians. If, in fact, the Palestinians understand that they are confronted with opportunity costs associated with delay/intransigence, then they could seek to negotiate an agreement on boundaries. Such an agreement would be mutually beneficial. Israel would gain certainty and construction would only occur in areas that Israel would retain. The Palestinians would gain land on which no further settlement construction would occur and from which settlements would be removed.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
My quick thoughts:

1) Although Israel would gain something in exchange for its concession, its gain is provided by the U.S. not the Palestinians. Reciprocity should be given by the Palestinians, not the U.S.
Respecting international law is not a "concession".

Council reaffirmed that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible and deplored the failure of Israel to comply with the General Assembly resolutions
United Nations Security Council Resolution 252 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United Nations Security Council Resolution 267, adopted unanimously on July 3, 1969, after reaffirming resolution 252, calls on Israel to rescind measures of annexation of East Jerusalem.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 267 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Council confirmed that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section are totally invalid and cannot change that status.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 298 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"
United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After noting a report by the Security Council Commission established in Resolution 446 (1979), the Council accepted and commended its work while criticising Israel for not cooperating with it. It expressed concern at Israeli settlement policy in the Arab territories and recalled resolutions 237 (1967), 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 271 (1969) and 298 (1971). It further aclled upon the State and people of Israel to dismantle such settlements.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 465 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US President Barack Obama makes his famous Cairo speech in which he says "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements"
August

* US President Barack Obama demands a complete freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated "The world has condemned Israel's expansion plans in East Jerusalem. Let us be clear: all settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory, and this must stop."
Israeli settlement timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Israeli should be happy that the Palestinians seem to accept that the border won't be the legal, 1967 one, and that some of the biggest colonies in Palestine will remain under Israeli control. That is a concession.
 
Last edited:

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Israeli should be happy that the Palestinians seem to accept that the border won't be the legal, 1967 one, and that some of the biggest colonies in Palestine will remain under Israeli control. That is a concession.
Sorry, who made the 67 border the legal one? I must have missed that.

In any event, can you also follow up on which of your cites to Security Council resolutions cited binding resolutions as opposed to non-binding ones?

Cause the security council can pass both.

Thanks
 

Gray_Fox_86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
282
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Great. How was this freeze accomplished or how long will it last? Oh lets see it was accomplished with the US government paying 20 F-35 fighters in three months and as long as Palestine AND ISRAEL work towards peace. So this won't last for too long.
 
Top Bottom