Is Israel Too Strong for America?

[citizen k]

Well the question is if freezing settlements or pulling back would bring about real peace. 

Whether it brought about real peace or not, wouldn't freezing settlements be the right thing to do?

[Neil]

Well the question is if freezing settlements or pulling back would bring about real peace. 

Whether it brought about real peace or not, wouldn't freezing settlements be the right thing to do?

What makes you say that?  Settling is morally ambiguous.

[Admiral Yi]

Whether it brought about real peace or not, wouldn't freezing settlements be the right thing to do?

If you start with the premise that seizing real estate is wrong, then freezing settlements is a half measure at best.  They should be giving the land back.  (I don't know how much of the land was seized, how much was bought, and how much was confiscated for particpating in attacks.)

[Hansmeister]

Does anyone here honestly think that creating an independent Palestinian state will stop the bloodshed in the middle east? Neither side wants the other on it's holy places, and neither side tolerates the other side being there, so this living side-by-side in rainbow dreamland is not going to prevent the bloodshed.

I can't even think of a solution for such people. Let them get on with it.

Actually the Israelis have been quite willing to let the Palestinians control the temple mount, indeed they do so today.  The problem is that that isn't enough, the palestinians demand that the Israelis deny that the temple mount was ever an israeli holy site - i.e. deny their heritage and their legitimacy -  and this is a precondition to any peace talks.

In short, the Palestinians have a pre-negotiating position that make peace talks entirely impossible, not that that would stop our resident jew-haters from blaming the israelis.

[Hansmeister]

Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.

???

I thought we were talking about concessions leading to a decrease in violence.  What does Meir's comment have to do with that?

She's a    no further explanation needed.

[Jos Theelen]

Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.

???

I thought we were talking about concessions leading to a decrease in violence.  What does Meir's comment have to do with that?

No, we were talking about concessions improving the situation. And clearly the situation is better now for the Israeli, compared to 1969. And I also think the situation is better for the Palestinians, compared to 1969.
You stated that the situation 10 years ago was worse than the situation 40 years ago.

[Jos Theelen]

I didn't. I looked it up after you posted, using Google.

I thought to save myself the time, since you quoted it I assumed you were quoting it from somewhere.

OK. I am not so much interested in context, but more in intentions.
What was the intention of Golda Meir, when she said that? To promote a Palestinian state?
And maybe you can also explain what the intention is of the Israelian government to expand the settlements? The only intention I see is to grab more and more land. To expand the occupation.

[Sheilbh]

Well the question is if freezing settlements or pulling back would bring about real peace.  That is the case to be made.  Right now there is zero evidence to support that case unfortunately.  Hence my frustration.

You seem to always be dealing with Gaza, but the situation is entirely different from Gaza. 

Israel has committed numerous times to stopping settlement growth - both to the Palestinians and the US - now they say that they actual meant to stop growth that wasn't organic.  We're not asking for them to do something new, we're asking for them to follow through on what's been agreed.

I don't believe settlements do not have majority support in Israel but the several hundred thousand settlers are a very loud and influential lobby, given Israel's system a strong enough minority can hold things up in a big way.  But no-one's pushing for unilateral disengagement here, a la Gaza.  We want them to stop building so that negotiations can move forward.  Chances are some settlements will have to be dismantled but others will, effectively, become a part of Israel.

As I say the Palestinian Authority are believed to have made the most progress against militants in the West Bank, they've been cooperating with Israel far more and their security forces have got better.  The EU, US and Israel agree that the Palestinians have never really achieved this much on security and that they genuinely are making progress.  So that's different from Gaza.  But, I also think it's unfortunate that for many years during Arafat's time we say that we want the Palestinians to crack down on militants to start taking security more seriously and that's the obstacle to peace; we say much the same thing in the early years of Abu Mazen.  When there is genuine process we can't reciprocate with even a freeze on settlement expansion.  I think that's a mistake.

True, but recall that not so long ago, when the Israeli government was both able and willing to fulfill its agreements, it was still very difficult for there to be real peace.

Absolutely.  But then, for the most part, the Palestinian authority wasn't able or willing.

Indeed - especially when those images are manufactured.

Some are, some aren't.

[Berkut]

Indeed - especially when those images are manufactured.

Some are, some aren't.

And the fact that so much of the West either doesn't seem to care whether they are completely bullshit or not, or is even actively involved in creating the bullshit, makes it rather hard to take their faux outrage over Israel very seriously.

Who has any credibility anymore?

[Valmy]

Well the question is if freezing settlements or pulling back would bring about real peace. 

Whether it brought about real peace or not, wouldn't freezing settlements be the right thing to do?

Point missed.  In order to freeze settlements we need to demonstrate it is in Israel's interests to do so.  There is a powerful, active, and outspoken group of people in Israel working for settlements.  Opposing them requires reasons because it takes significant energy and political capital to hold them back.

[Valmy]

I don't believe settlements do not have majority support in Israel but the several hundred thousand settlers are a very loud and influential lobby, given Israel's system a strong enough minority can hold things up in a big way.  But no-one's pushing for unilateral disengagement here, a la Gaza.  We want them to stop building so that negotiations can move forward.  Chances are some settlements will have to be dismantled but others will, effectively, become a part of Israel.

I know all of this.  The difference is the settlement lobby is sure of itself and has momentum on its side.  Those in favor of negotiation have nothing but defeats and embarrasments on their track record and are demoralized.  Right now right wing parties, religious ones even, are in the ascendancy as they never have been before in Israel.

You seem to always be dealing with Gaza, but the situation is entirely different from Gaza.

I am dealing with Gaza because Gaza is the key to the entire situation.  The situation is not diferent from Gaza the situation IS Gaza.  It is absolutely insane and ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that somehow the Palestinians can be given authority in Gaza and have that fail miserably and then turn around and somehow labor under the delusion that Israel would then be willing to do the same again in an area that is far more important to their security and interests like the West Bank.

You claim there is genuine progress going on in the West Bank...well it is alot easier to have progress when the Israelis are right there.  Would that continue if the Israelis were to leave or would we see a repeat of Gaza?   

[grumbler]

I know you meant that. I just tried to make you angry. I couldn't find the speech of Golda Meir.
Why did you ask for the context, if you had it already?

I guess what is telling about your quote is that you apparently actually thought that it is an example of something "in context."  That is such a serious misunderstanding of the concept that you should be worried.

[Jos Theelen]

I know you meant that. I just tried to make you angry. I couldn't find the speech of Golda Meir.
Why did you ask for the context, if you had it already?

I guess what is telling about your quote is that you apparently actually thought that it is an example of something "in context."  That is such a serious misunderstanding of the concept that you should be worried.

About what?

[Berkut]

I know you meant that. I just tried to make you angry. I couldn't find the speech of Golda Meir.
Why did you ask for the context, if you had it already?

I guess what is telling about your quote is that you apparently actually thought that it is an example of something "in context."  That is such a serious misunderstanding of the concept that you should be worried.

About what?

That you don't know is ever more worrisome.

[grumbler]

Point missed.  In order to freeze settlements we need to demonstrate it is in Israel's interests to do so.  There is a powerful, active, and outspoken group of people in Israel working for settlements.  Opposing them requires reasons because it takes significant energy and political capital to hold them back.

I think that you are right, to the extent that the pro-settlement movement will never acknowledge that a compromise peace is in Israel's best interests.  There is the stick, though, of refusing to acknowledge a de facto illegal change of borders, and cutting off development aid to Israel in response.

I think, in fact, that the US should insist that Israel abide unilaterally by the borders establish by the Taba "Agreement."  Certainly there would be plenty of Israelis who would welcome such pressure, and it would allow the expansion of some settlements while requiring the abandonment of others.

An even better move would be a "rolling occupation" of the west bank by the Israelis: occupy an area, build modern housing there, then "give it up" and occupy some other land, leaving the fully-furnished modern housing, schools, etc to be occupied by Palestinians.  Once enough Palestinians occupy such communities, they will be a powerful force for peace, because then they will have something to lose.  Keep it up long enough, and the Palestinians as a whole will be invested in a peace process, lest war ruin their shiny new communities.  They will need to be at peace to get the spare parts and whatnot to maintain these houses, appliances, etc.

Sure, it will be fantastically expensive, but probably no more so in the long run than not doing it.  It would eb a great stimulus to the various economies providing the building materials, appliances, and whatnot, to boot.