US Takes Tougher Tone on Israeli Settlements in New Report [W: 21]

[justabubba]

The whole "ongoing land theft" thing is a lie.
Israel almost didn't take any additional land after the oslo accords. the housing you refer too are all built inside the borders of existing settlements.

Of course there are the illegal outposts but as the name suggest they are also illegal according to Israeli law

[emphasis added by bubba]
akin to being 'almost' pregnant

 

[ido_]

[emphasis added by bubba]
akin to being 'almost' pregnant

There was one settlement which was founded after the oslo accords, one.
How many suicide bombers blew up in Israel since then ?

 

[justabubba]

There was one settlement which was founded after the oslo accords, one.
How many suicide bombers blew up in Israel since then ?

better question
how many israelis have died of insurgent violence subsequent to oslo
versus
how many Palestinians have died due to the conflict

let's do examine proportionality, ido

 

[Masterhawk]

Re: US Takes Tougher Tone on Israeli Settlements in New Report

I think it's about time that the US stood up to the building of settlements which force the Palestinians to migrate somewhere else. They don't have to stop building the towns if they don't want to but they have to make them open communities rather than Jewish only settlements. The conflict is being fueled by Jewish or Palestinian supremacy. The Jews are forcing the Palestinians somewhere else and the Palestinians are carrying out attacks on the Jewish people. The idea that one of these groups are superior to the other has to stop in order for there to be peace.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Re: US Takes Tougher Tone on Israeli Settlements in New Report

I think it's about time that the US stood up to the building of settlements which force the Palestinians to migrate somewhere else. They don't have to stop building the towns if they don't want to but they have to make them open communities rather than Jewish only settlements. The conflict is being fueled by Jewish or Palestinian supremacy. The Jews are forcing the Palestinians somewhere else and the Palestinians are carrying out attacks on the Jewish people. The idea that one of these groups are superior to the other has to stop in order for there to be peace.

That's a great idea.

Ok to have separate "stabbing" and "no stabbing" sections of the buses or would that be racist?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

In my view, this new move holds a great deal of promise by putting a heavy responsibility on Israel for their "Devil may care" attitude on their part of the continued violence.

I think the report's criticism of Israel will just amount to empty words.

I also think that is proper and correct (that this criticism of Israel will only amount to empty words). Land For Peace means that the Palestinians only get the land when they agree to make peace.

So long as the Palestinian government will not make peace with Israel, there is no actual reason for Israel to give up any land, and it seems reasonable for Israel to use the land for themselves in the meantime.

If one day in the future we actually have a Palestinian government that is willing to make peace with Israel, then Israel can withdraw settlements from any land that they hand over to the Palestinians, just like they once withdrew settlements from the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Re: US Takes Tougher Tone on Israeli Settlements in New Report

I support these sorts of measures to bring pressure to bear on Netanyahu to meaningfully engage with his Palestinian counterparts in Ramallah.

The Palestinian government is the party that refuses meaningful engagement. Israel tried to make peace many times.

Were there to be actual pressure on Israel because of the obstinacy of the Palestinian government, not only would that be profoundly unjust, it would be the trigger for some nasty violence in the region. Very bad idea.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Re: US Takes Tougher Tone on Israeli Settlements in New Report

Well, we don't know that because it hasn't happened yet.

We do know because it has happened. Ariel Sharon tried withdrawing unilaterally to see if that would result in peace.

Needless to say, peace did not result. I rather suspect that Israel is not willing to give it another try.

Once Israel is forced into retreating a bit, then we can measure the results.

Any attempt to force Israel to withdraw from land will result in full-scale war with Israel.

If you want Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, the only way to achieve it will be through peaceful negotiations, where Israel receives peace in exchange for giving up land.

 

[Tigerace117]

I think the report's criticism of Israel will just amount to empty words.

I also think that is proper and correct (that this criticism of Israel will only amount to empty words). Land For Peace means that the Palestinians only get the land when they agree to make peace.

So long as the Palestinian government will not make peace with Israel, there is no actual reason for Israel to give up any land, and it seems reasonable for Israel to use the land for themselves in the meantime.

If one day in the future we actually have a Palestinian government that is willing to make peace with Israel, then Israel can withdraw settlements from any land that they hand over to the Palestinians, just like they once withdrew settlements from the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula.

That's rather one sided. There's hotheads on both sides of the equation and neither government can stop everyone. You hear about the guy who got sentenced to life in prison for burning that Palestinean kid alive?

The point is that Israel won't ever be able to gain peace if they continue the way they are going. It's more or less an open secret that they have nuclear weapons at this point. They certainly aren't in danger of being destroyed.

But every time they fire rockets more or less at random into the Gaza Strip to try and kill militants who have already bugged out they create a number of new enemy fighters.

Yitzhak Rabin, if you'll recall, wasn't killed by a Palestinean.

 

[justabubba]

That's rather one sided. There's hotheads on both sides of the equation and neither government can stop everyone. You hear about the guy who got sentenced to life in prison for burning that Palestinean kid alive?

The point is that Israel won't ever be able to gain peace if they continue the way they are going. It's more or less an open secret that they have nuclear weapons at this point. They certainly aren't in danger of being destroyed.

But every time they fire rockets more or less at random into the Gaza Strip to try and kill militants who have already bugged out they create a number of new enemy fighters.

Yitzhak Rabin, if you'll recall, wasn't killed by a Palestinean.

did they bulldoze his family's home for his horrific actions in the same way authorities bulldoze the family homes of Palestinian terrorists?

 

[Apocalypse]

did they bulldoze his family's home for his horrific actions in the same way authorities bulldoze the family homes of Palestinian terrorists?

If we'll ever reach the stage - and we won't - when Jewish terrorists like that guy commit the same acts of terror the Palestinians do in the same ratio they do it, meaning on a near-daily basis, this would be a valid argument, seeing that the bulldozing of houses you're referring to is an act taken to deter (and has been proven to work more than a few times) future terrorists from committing terrorism.

Since this is not the situation your argument is for lack of a better term a mere diversion made to avoid recognizing the moral superiority of Israeli society. It's like that time I've asked you 8 times to answer a question which by answering it you would admit that the moral superiority lies with the side of the argument you oppose, so you've chosen to ignore it so to not make this recognition, and it's the same here, you refuse to recognize the pointed fact that the moral superiority lies with those who put to trail and punish their own terrorists instead of those who name buildings, roads and streets after people who've done nothing meaningful with their lives aside of murdering a large amount of innocents for their ethnic/religious backgrounds. What you do not understand unfortunately is that by not recognizing this fact it's not like you make it stop being one, denying that there is oxygen in the air will not make you choke and die.

 

[justabubba]

If we'll ever reach the stage - and we won't - when Jewish terrorists like that guy commit the same acts of terror the Palestinians do in the same ratio they do it, meaning on a near-daily basis, this would be a valid argument, seeing that the bulldozing of houses you're referring to is an act taken to deter (and has been proven to work more than a few times) future terrorists from committing terrorism.

Since this is not the situation your argument is for lack of a better term a mere diversion made to avoid recognizing the moral superiority of Israeli society. It's like that time I've asked you 8 times to answer a question which by answering it you would admit that the moral superiority lies with the side of the argument you oppose, so you've chosen to ignore it so to not make this recognition, and it's the same here, you refuse to recognize the pointed fact that the moral superiority lies with those who put to trail and punish their own terrorists instead of those who name buildings, roads and streets after people who've done nothing meaningful with their lives aside of murdering a large amount of innocents for their ethnic/religious backgrounds. What you do not understand unfortunately is that by not recognizing this fact it's not like you make it stop being one, denying that there is oxygen in the air will not make you choke and die.

it appears the answer to my question is NO, israeli authorities will not bulldoze the family home of the israeli terrorist in the same way they do bulldoze the family homes of the Palestinian terrorists

in bold font i have highlighted the premise that is the subject of the next inquiry. what proof exists that the bulldozing of the family homes of Palestinian terrorists prevents future terrorism, as you insist results

 

[Tigerace117]

did they bulldoze his family's home for his horrific actions in the same way authorities bulldoze the family homes of Palestinian terrorists?

Way to completely ignore the point

 

[calm]

Re: US Takes Tougher Tone on Israeli Settlements in New Report

We do know because it has happened. Ariel Sharon tried withdrawing unilaterally to see if that would result in peace.

That is not a true statement.

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process"
"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."
"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde." "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."
--Ariel Sharon, 2004---

For a lifetime, I have watched the Jewish Folks enter courtrooms across this universe and demand the return of money, properties and artwork which were seized (stolen) from them.

Well, I think the Palestinian Folks deserve the same "Justice" and "Right Of Return" as the Jewish Folks have insisted upon.

The Jewish Folks always claim that in Palestine .... "It was too long ago and that the facts on the ground have Changed" .... but that is not what the Jewish Folks claim as they appear in courtrooms across the world and seek reparations for themselves.

"Genocide just doesn't fly any more. I know it isn't fair, you have every right to feel aggrieved about this, but the world's smaller, cowboys are passé, and bullies aren't heroes any more."
--Philip Slater, A Message to Israel: Time to Stop Playing the Victim Role, January 07, 2009--

"I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return"
–W.H. Auden–
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calm

 

[justabubba]

Way to completely ignore the point

actually, i am looking to see if this was a principle applied equally to the families of israeli terrorists as it is to the families of Palestinian terrorists
from the responses thus far, it appears that only the families of Palestiian terrorists are subject to having their homes bulldozed. that would indicate there is no principle of justice being exercised

 

[Tigerace117]

actually, i am looking to see if this was a principle applied equally to the families of israeli terrorists as it is to the families of Palestinian terrorists
from the responses thus far, it appears that only the families of Palestiian terrorists are subject to having their homes bulldozed. that would indicate there is no principle of justice being exercised

The guy is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. It's not like he's getting off easy.

 

[justabubba]

The guy is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. It's not like he's getting off easy.

ditto for the Palestinian terrorists

which causes me to question why the families of Palestinian terrorists have their homes bulldozed by israeli authorities but the families of israeli terrorists do not

why the disparate treatment? seems to me this kind of different treatment is - in part - what causes the US government to now take a 'rougher tone' with israeli authorities

 

[ido_]

better question
how many israelis have died of insurgent violence subsequent to oslo
versus
how many Palestinians have died due to the conflict

let's do examine proportionality, ido

Oh please, comparing death tolls again. Having more casualties doesnt make one more just.
Iraq had more casualties than the coalition in Gulf War I, does it make the Coalition's response to their invasion of Kuwait unjustified ?

If Palestinians didn't try to murder Jews they would have zero casualties (like they were supposed to following a "peace treaty" with Israel), if Israel dismantled its army it would have zero Jews.

 

[Apocalypse]

it appears the answer to my question is NO, israeli authorities will not bulldoze the family home of the israeli terrorist in the same way they do bulldoze the family homes of the Palestinian terrorists

in bold font i have highlighted the premise that is the subject of the next inquiry. what proof exists that the bulldozing of the family homes of Palestinian terrorists prevents future terrorism, as you insist results

Palestinian terrorist turned in to Israel by his father and brother | The Times of Israel

 

[justabubba]

Oh please, comparing death tolls again. Having more casualties doesnt make one more just.
Iraq had more casualties than the coalition in Gulf War I, does it make the Coalition's response to their invasion of Kuwait unjustified ?

If Palestinians didn't try to murder Jews they would have zero casualties (like they were supposed to following a "peace treaty" with Israel), if Israel dismantled its army it would have zero Jews.

from your post you infer that the Palestinians should simply accept being occupied and oppressed by another people, and demonstrate no opposition to that occupation and oppression

and yes, proportionality matters. the UN has conveyed its objection to such disproportionality to israel

 

[Cardinal]

from your post you infer that the Palestinians should simply accept being occupied and oppressed by another people, and demonstrate no opposition to that occupation and oppression

and yes, proportionality matters. the UN has conveyed its objection to such disproportionality to israel

Your method of simply ignoring parts of posts or entire posts that don't agree with you is consistently disappointing and disappointingly consistent. It has been pointed out to you that the occupation exists because the West Bank is a militarily superior strategic point, and Palestinians have given no indication that they simply won't attack the vulnerable valley below the West Bank. That is the reason for the occupation. Any criticism of the occupation that doesn't take this point into consideration is meaningless.

You also completely ignored ido's very real point, which is that if there were zero Palestinians attacking Jews, there would be zero retaliations. You seem to expect that Jews should be allowed to be murdered until some arbitrary principle of proportionality has been achieved. Which, by the way, is expected of precisely nobody else on the planet.

Now, you can either ignore my post or you can edit it so that all the relevant parts are in white so they can't be seen. Either would be par for the course for you.

 

[justabubba]

Your method of simply ignoring parts of posts or entire posts that don't agree with you is consistently disappointing and disappointingly consistent. It has been pointed out to you that the occupation exists because the West Bank is a militarily superior strategic point, and Palestinians have given no indication that they simply won't attack the vulnerable valley below the West Bank.

what Palestinian indication would be adequate for israel to recognize Palestine would not attack israel?

That is the reason for the occupation.

we disagree. however, if i posted my own rationale for the occupation it would violate the imposed martial law which limits what can be discussed

Any criticism of the occupation that doesn't take this point into consideration is meaningless.

and i agree with this. which takes us back to the earlier question about what would be found acceptable from the Palestinians to indicate they have no intent to engage in hostile activities with israel

You also completely ignored ido's very real point, which is that if there were zero Palestinians attacking Jews, there would be zero retaliations.

240 years ago, there was a people who also opposed the oppression of an occupying people. the only way they threw out the oppressors was via hostility against the occupation force
what other option do the Palestinians have to oust the occupiers/oppressors other than to visit hostility against said occupiers/oppressors

You seem to expect that Jews should be expected to be murdered in order to attain some arbitrary principle of proportionality. Which, by the way, is expected of precisely nobody else on the planet.

the disproportionality demonstrates that the two parties have a vastly different ability to inflict hostility upon the other. if this were an inter-personal relationship, we would call the stronger one a 'bully'

Now, you can either ignore my post or you can edit it so that all the relevant parts are in white so they can't be seen. Either would be expected of you.

 

[Cardinal]

what Palestinian indication would be adequate for israel to recognize Palestine would not attack israel?


we disagree. however, if i posted my own rationale for the occupation it would violate the imposed martial law which limits what can be discussed


and i agree with this. which takes us back to the earlier question about what would be found acceptable from the Palestinians to indicate they have no intent to engage in hostile activities with israel


240 years ago, there was a people who also opposed the oppression of an occupying people. the only way they threw out the oppressors was via hostility against the occupation force
what other option do the Palestinians have to oust the occupiers/oppressors other than to visit hostility against said occupiers/oppressors


the disproportionality demonstrates that the two parties have a vastly different ability to inflict hostility upon the other. if this were an inter-personal relationship, we would call the stronger one a 'bully'

And I disagree that chocolate makes people fat, and yet...here we are. Here's something you might want to consider: aside from religious Jewish extremists who believe God gave them Israel including the West Bank, Israelis don't actually want to be in the West Bank. Occupying it makes them utterly miserable. Their continued occupation is a security need, not a desire.

 

[jet57]

I think the report's criticism of Israel will just amount to empty words.

I also think that is proper and correct (that this criticism of Israel will only amount to empty words). Land For Peace means that the Palestinians only get the land when they agree to make peace.

So long as the Palestinian government will not make peace with Israel, there is no actual reason for Israel to give up any land, and it seems reasonable for Israel to use the land for themselves in the meantime.

If one day in the future we actually have a Palestinian government that is willing to make peace with Israel, then Israel can withdraw settlements from any land that they hand over to the Palestinians, just like they once withdrew settlements from the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula.

This is a new time under different circumstances with different leaders, so all we can do is exercise what we think to be the right policy and see what happens. I also think that it is folly to believe that such a move is in any way "anti Israeli": it's anti "ME BS" is what it is. How long are we supposed to be held hostage by these goings on?

 

[jet57]

Re: US Takes Tougher Tone on Israeli Settlements in New Report

We do know because it has happened. Ariel Sharon tried withdrawing unilaterally to see if that would result in peace.

Needless to say, peace did not result. I rather suspect that Israel is not willing to give it another try.



Any attempt to force Israel to withdraw from land will result in full-scale war with Israel.

If you want Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, the only way to achieve it will be through peaceful negotiations, where Israel receives peace in exchange for giving up land.

I don't think that there will be any war with a withdrawal, and the only way to solve the violence problem is with bigger teeth in my view. It's time that the west took an "enough is enough" position in these matters. I also think that we're not putting near enough pressure on Iran, as they are the North Korea of the Middle East. I will say however that I am very glad to see the Saudi's finally taking the heat that they deserve. I think that a flame thrower so to speak is the only way we're going to temper this stuff.