Netanyahu Rejects US Proposal on Reining in Settlement Growth

[Lipush]

Oh, yes, Jews wanting to build houses. The horror!

LOL.

So, can I have your house? ARE YOU OK WITH THAT?

No. And when my family's farmhouse was burned to the ground by Palestinians decades ago, I wasn't in for it either. Why do you think I'm for the Jewish natural growth?

How about Spanish "natural growth"?

Expand into France or Portugal?

No. But they can expand in Madrid and it won't raise and eybrow. Only when Jews expand in Jerusalem it has this effect.

Too silly!!

Silly? I beg to differ. You pretend the world doesn't cry out when Jews wants to build in Gilo or other neighborhoods in Jerusalem?

I'm not making this up. You can check.

 

[louie888]

OMG, how dumb are you? It's the effen hypocrisy...

 

[Humanity]

OMG, how dumb are you? It's the effen hypocrisy...

I gotta agree that 'settlers' or, following the Netanyahu philosophy, increase 'settlers' is not conducive, no matter how you try and dress it up, to helping find a peaceful solution....

Previous comments trying to liken this to others simply falls into 'dumb' category...

 

[Shusha]

I gotta agree that 'settlers' or, following the Netanyahu philosophy, increase 'settlers' is not conducive, no matter how you try and dress it up, to helping find a peaceful solution....

Serious question: why not? Why is Jewish-people-live-here-or-want to live here a problem?

 

[Humanity]

I gotta agree that 'settlers' or, following the Netanyahu philosophy, increase 'settlers' is not conducive, no matter how you try and dress it up, to helping find a peaceful solution....

Serious question: why not? Why is Jewish-people-live-here-or-want to live here a problem?[/QUOTE]

I have total belief that Jews should live in Israel... I support the existence of Israel, not because I believe or NOT believe... I would just be happy for people to live in 'harmony' and not keep bickering about land and territory...

Why I don't like the idea of 'settlers' is that they really should not be there... Naturally or otherwise...

It simply continues the 'hatred'....

Will go back to a previous comment...

When Spain needs to expand, which direction? France or Portugal? And...

Which country will be more accepting?

 

[Shusha]

I have total belief that Jews should live in Israel... I support the existence of Israel, not because I believe or NOT believe... I would just be happy for people to live in 'harmony' and not keep bickering about land and territory...

Why I don't like the idea of 'settlers' is that they really should not be there... Naturally or otherwise...

It simply continues the 'hatred'....

Why? Why shouldn't they be there? Why does the presence of Jews somewhere continue (or cause) hatred? What's the foundational issue here?

 

[Humanity]

I have total belief that Jews should live in Israel... I support the existence of Israel, not because I believe or NOT believe... I would just be happy for people to live in 'harmony' and not keep bickering about land and territory...

Why I don't like the idea of 'settlers' is that they really should not be there... Naturally or otherwise...

It simply continues the 'hatred'....

Why? Why shouldn't they be there? Why does the presence of Jews somewhere continue (or cause) hatred? What's the foundational issue here?

Don't isolate my comment...

Deal with the whole or none at all...

I don't hate Jews OR Israel....

So, maybe ask someone else?

I guess the fundamental issue is 'settlers' and the continuation of this 'illegal occupation'...

 

[Shusha]

I didn't deal with the expansion of Spain because Spain already has international borders. Its not relevant, imo.

 

[Shusha]

Don't isolate my comment...

Deal with the whole or none at all...

I don't hate Jews OR Israel....

So, maybe ask someone else?

I guess the fundamental issue is 'settlers' and the continuation of this 'illegal occupation'...

I'm not saying you hate Jews. Or Israel. I don't think you do.

I'm asking why the presence of Jews is a problem.

 

[Shusha]

Let me put it another way. There are LOTS of Arabs in Israel. Are they a problem? Why or why not?

 

[Shusha]

And, btw, I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, Humanity . I just want to clearly articulate the problem.

 

[Humanity]

Don't isolate my comment...

Deal with the whole or none at all...

I don't hate Jews OR Israel....

So, maybe ask someone else?

I guess the fundamental issue is 'settlers' and the continuation of this 'illegal occupation'...

I'm not saying you hate Jews. Or Israel. I don't think you do.

I'm asking why the presence of Jews is a problem.

Thank you!

And I do not have a problem with the presence of Jews...

Maybe ask one of the other nutters on this board?

 

[Humanity]

I didn't deal with the expansion of Spain because Spain already has international borders. Its not relevant, imo.

Yes, I agree... Kind of... So where are the international borders for Israel ?

 

[Shusha]

And I do not have a problem with the presence of Jews...

But you clearly articulated that "settlers" (Jews present somewhere) are a problem. So, why?

 

[Shusha]

I didn't deal with the expansion of Spain because Spain already has international borders. Its not relevant, imo.

Yes, I agree... Kind of... So where are the international borders for Israel ?

Currently they are where Jordan and Egypt start (also Syria and Lebanon, but lets leave those border disputes out of the conversation for now. Not because they aren't important, but because they are side issues, I think, to our main conversation.)

The question is where the international borders between a newly created Palestine and Gaza are. They don't exist yet. They can though. You and I both believe the two (actually three) state solution is the only viable option, right?

The two problems with the "Jews aren't allowed to be here" are:

1. That there is a "here" which already exists as Palestinian territory.

2. That any Palestine territory or State can't have Jews in it.

Those are the two things I want you to see and try to articulate why they are morally or politically superior ideas.

 

[Shusha]

Here's where I'm going with all this:

IF you look forward, rather than backward and

IF you think solutions rather than history and

IF you recognize that Jewish presence is not, of itself, a problem (just like Arab presence is not a problem in Israel)

then the settlements are no more meaningful than an Arab neighborhood in Tel Aviv.

In order for a three state solution to work -- each state needs to have some sort of viable homogeneity so it can BE self-determinative. But that doesn't need to be an ethnically clean territory. It just has to have enough. So I think it is valid to say that each identity should be the majority in their state. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some cross-pollination, as it were. In fact, I think it is BETTER to have a sizeable minority in each state of the other identity. Why? Because that will foster mutual respect and appreciation. It will lessen the "otherness" of the other.

The longer we keep buying the idea that "Jews must not be on this patch of ground" the longer we prolong the conflict.

 

[montelatici]

The Jewish settlements are meaningful because they are armed fortresses. The Arabs in Israel don't have armed fortresses with Arab military and walls guarding them. It isn't going to work if people of a particular religion require that those of their religion rule. That is for all sides. The Christian Palestinians would not accept Muslim rule based on religion, for example. A single secular state could see the influx of the many Christian Palestinians now in the diaspora. They represent a third of the Palestinians worldwide.

 

[Humanity]

Here's where I'm going with all this:

IF you look forward, rather than backward and

IF you think solutions rather than history and

IF you recognize that Jewish presence is not, of itself, a problem (just like Arab presence is not a problem in Israel)

then the settlements are no more meaningful than an Arab neighborhood in Tel Aviv.

In order for a three state solution to work -- each state needs to have some sort of viable homogeneity so it can BE self-determinative. But that doesn't need to be an ethnically clean territory. It just has to have enough. So I think it is valid to say that each identity should be the majority in their state. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some cross-pollination, as it were. In fact, I think it is BETTER to have a sizeable minority in each state of the other identity. Why? Because that will foster mutual respect and appreciation. It will lessen the "otherness" of the other.

The longer we keep buying the idea that "Jews must not be on this patch of ground" the longer we prolong the conflict.

Ok, let's look forward, rather than back... (Though there does need to be a historical 'hint')...

Settlers are living what is considered Palestinian territory and the settlements are considered 'illegal' under international law.

The continued expansion of settlements does not in any way help with finding a peaceful solution...

That is why they are "meaningful"...

Whether you agree or disagree on the 'legality' of the settlements is, I'm sorry to say, irrelevant. One cannot simply deny a fact that they ARE considered illegal under international law and by most of the free world...

The fact that Israel continues to build more settlements is, in my opinion, simply a continuation of Israel expansionist ideals... I use "expansionist" rather than anything more 'sinister'...

The 'One State Solution'... Well, the ONLY way that this will happen is if we end up with a 'Greater Israel' and Palestinians are forced to accept that they will not have their own 'state'...

The 'Two State Solution'... In my opinion, is not something that sits well with Israel... I believe that Israel does not want this as it wants the whole area...

The 'Three State Solution'... Is possibly my prefered solution... Creating an area that is Palestinian AND Jewish and, well anyone and everyone who wants to live there... Leaving Israel as a Jewish state and Gaza as a Muslim state (If thats what is wanted)....

Looking at the future NOT the past for a solution, Israel simply cannot continue with its 'illegal' settlements, in the same way that Hamas cannot continue to fire rockets into Israel.

 

[Lipush]

Here's where I'm going with all this:

IF you look forward, rather than backward and

IF you think solutions rather than history and

IF you recognize that Jewish presence is not, of itself, a problem (just like Arab presence is not a problem in Israel)

then the settlements are no more meaningful than an Arab neighborhood in Tel Aviv.

In order for a three state solution to work -- each state needs to have some sort of viable homogeneity so it can BE self-determinative. But that doesn't need to be an ethnically clean territory. It just has to have enough. So I think it is valid to say that each identity should be the majority in their state. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some cross-pollination, as it were. In fact, I think it is BETTER to have a sizeable minority in each state of the other identity. Why? Because that will foster mutual respect and appreciation. It will lessen the "otherness" of the other.

The longer we keep buying the idea that "Jews must not be on this patch of ground" the longer we prolong the conflict.

Ok, let's look forward, rather than back... (Though there does need to be a historical 'hint')...

Settlers are living what is considered Palestinian territory and the settlements are considered 'illegal' under international law.

The continued expansion of settlements does not in any way help with finding a peaceful solution...

That is why they are "meaningful"...

Whether you agree or disagree on the 'legality' of the settlements is, I'm sorry to say, irrelevant. One cannot simply deny a fact that they ARE considered illegal under international law and by most of the free world...

The fact that Israel continues to build more settlements is, in my opinion, simply a continuation of Israel expansionist ideals... I use "expansionist" rather than anything more 'sinister'...

The 'One State Solution'... Well, the ONLY way that this will happen is if we end up with a 'Greater Israel' and Palestinians are forced to accept that they will not have their own 'state'...

The 'Two State Solution'... In my opinion, is not something that sits well with Israel... I believe that Israel does not want this as it wants the whole area...

The 'Three State Solution'... Is possibly my prefered solution... Creating an area that is Palestinian AND Jewish and, well anyone and everyone who wants to live there... Leaving Israel as a Jewish state and Gaza as a Muslim state (If thats what is wanted)....

Looking at the future NOT the past for a solution, Israel simply cannot continue with its 'illegal' settlements, in the same way that Hamas cannot continue to fire rockets into Israel.

First, there is a need to differ between two issues- first, the building of new settlements, and second, the expansion of settlements already existing.

While I can see why people thinking that building new settlements is not helpful, what I find more critical to discuss is the second issue.

There are settlements, like Ma'ale Edumim for instance, which is obvious are going to belong to the Jewish state. Ma'ale Edumim, which is considered by many as part of United Jerusalem, in not going to be demolished, even though some Anti- Israelis wish otherwise. Therefore, their expanding should not be an issue, but for some reason it is.

Your opinion?

 

[Humanity]

While I can see why people thinking that building new settlements is not helpful, what I find more critical to discuss is the second issue.

Do you think it unhelpful continuing the building of settlements?

There are settlements, like Ma'ale Edumim for instance, which is obvious are going to belong to the Jewish state. Ma'ale Edumim, which is considered by many as part of United Jerusalem, in not going to be demolished, even though some Anti- Israelis wish otherwise. Therefore, their expanding should not be an issue, but for some reason it is.

I'm not sure why it is "obvious" that it is going to belong to the Jewish state when, at present, it doesn't does it!

This one is a pretty good example too... I believe that there were over 1000 Palestinians displaced during the 90's for this city?

The city is still built OUTSIDE of the state of Israel... And there in lies the whole issue...

From a personal perspective... I have no desire to displace nearly 40,000 Jews from the city, that would just be ridiculous, but it would need to be included in negotiations for land swap agreements further down the line.

Expanding the city you don't see as an issue... But at what cost? At WHO'S cost? More displaced Palestinians?