Netanyahu Rejects US Proposal on Reining in Settlement Growth

[Lipush]

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?

Did you know that the Palestinians who fought for the demolishment of Am on a hadn't lay a foot there in ages? Those Betselem, representing all that is evil in this affair, called them out to prove that generations ago the land belonged to their grandparents, just so that the Jews will be forced out. Originally these people could not care less about Amona. They saw an opportunity to fight the settlers and went for it.

Back in 2005, 8000 Jews wer e expelled from their homes, which caused a rift among the people. No sane Israeli leader will take the suicide political step of destroying the city of nearly 50,000 people.

Ma'ale Edumin is seen, even by the far left, as part of Israel. Land exchange can be done with small settlements, not large cities such as this.

 

[Humanity]

Did you know that the Palestinians who fought for the demolishment of Am on a hadn't lay a foot there in ages? Those Betselem, representing all that is evil in this affair, called them out to prove that generations ago the land belonged to their grandparents, just so that the Jews will be forced out. Originally these people could not care less about Amona. They saw an opportunity to fight the settlers and went for it.

Sorry, isn't that what Jews argue for the creation of Israel? The land USED to belong to us and now we want it back?

Ma'ale Edumin is seen, even by the far left, as part of Israel. Land exchange can be done with small settlements, not large cities such as this.

I'm not suggesting that the city should be 'traded' in a land swap BUT it should be taken into consideration as part of the negotiations.

 

[Shusha]

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'...

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.

I'm trying to get you to see this in a different light. Instead of thinking about the past (that is any sort of idea about what "should" be Palestinian land or what is "considered" Palestinian land based on old wars and outdated UN suggestions), I want you to think about what the Palestinians need. And what the Israelis need.

The Palestinians need a contiguous territory which incorporates as many Arabs in the entire territory as possible. They need some sort of land access to Jordan. They need some sort of access to Harim al Sharif. There is no specific square mile of land that they need just because it fits some seventy year old idea of what might have happened.

The Israelis need a contiguous territory which incorporates as many Jews in the entire territory as possible. They need some sort of guarantee of security. They need sovereignty over the Temple Mount and other Holy Places.

We need to ditch the idea that any of the land should "automatically" go to one side or the other or that one side is "stealing" land from the other. THAT is only continuing and prolonging the conflict. Instead, let's start with the assumption that no land belongs already to either party and that its all up for negotiation. Instead of thinking of a cake which is already divided -- think of a cake which has yet to be divided. Certain sections obviously make more sense to go to one side or the other, but the rest of the cake can be divided any way the parties want. Its a fundamental shift in thinking.


And...I do think that using language like "illegal settlements" is harmful to the peace process as it paints one side as the "bad guy" -- the criminal. Even though there is nothing criminal about Jews being present somewhere. There is nothing inherently wrong with a Jewish person wanting to live in Judea, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with a Filipino wanting to live in Seattle.

The settlements themselves are no barrier to peace. The barrier is in the belief that "Jews can't live on that particular square mile of planet".


(I'll save the idea of Israel's *cough cough* "expansionism" for another post later.)

 

[Lipush]

Did you know that the Palestinians who fought for the demolishment of Am on a hadn't lay a foot there in ages? Those Betselem, representing all that is evil in this affair, called them out to prove that generations ago the land belonged to their grandparents, just so that the Jews will be forced out. Originally these people could not care less about Amona. They saw an opportunity to fight the settlers and went for it.

Sorry, isn't that what Jews argue for the creation of Israel? The land USED to belong to us and now we want it back?

Ma'ale Edumin is seen, even by the far left, as part of Israel. Land exchange can be done with small settlements, not large cities such as this.

I'm not suggesting that the city should be 'traded' in a land swap BUT it should be taken into consideration as part of the negotiations.

Jews demanded the land they had direct connection too. My family didn't demand any land out of the blue. It was rooted in the land since the 1800's. So no, I don't see it as the same thing.

 

[Shusha]

Amona is a really good example of how preconcieved ideas of "Palestinian land" actually get in the way of real, practical solutions. According to my understanding of the issue, Amona was built on empty land -- land that was not built on, not used and not claimed by anyone. It was only after investigations started by third parties that it was discovered that a corner of the land may have crossed over territory which had once a part of a parcel used by a local families grandparents that it even became an issue. (And Ottoman, Jordanian and Israeli land laws are complicated, to say the least.)

It was the idea that that square mile of land was "Palestinian" that caused the entire conflict over that square mile of land. It seems to me it would be better to worry about practicalities rather than technicalities.

 

[Humanity]

Ok, look, before I start responding, in most part, I agree with you... For simplicity I have quoted each paragraph to make things easier...

I'm trying to get you to see this in a different light. Instead of thinking about the past (that is any sort of idea about what "should" be Palestinian land or what is "considered" Palestinian land based on old wars and outdated UN suggestions), I want you to think about what the Palestinians need. And what the Israelis need.

The 'odd' thing is that I am looking forward not back, which is something that, later on, you clearly are not doing!

The Palestinians need a contiguous territory which incorporates as many Arabs in the entire territory as possible. They need some sort of land access to Jordan. They need some sort of access to Harim al Sharif. There is no specific square mile of land that they need just because it fits some seventy year old idea of what might have happened.

Yes, BOTH Palestinians and Jews need contiguous territory...

They need land access to Jordan because?

Haram al Sharif is a 'special' case and will NOT be resolved by you and I having an argument over it!!

You already ventured into the past... "some seventy year old idea" ... I give a rats ass if its 70, 700 or 7000 years to be quite frank with you... Do you want me to start throwing around similar 'statements' about the Jews in Israel?

The Israelis need a contiguous territory which incorporates as many Jews in the entire territory as possible. They need some sort of guarantee of security. They need sovereignty over the Temple Mount and other Holy Places.

As mentioned above... Yes, Israel needs to have territory within Israel for Jews... "some sort of guarantee of security"? Does Israel not have enough Nukes already?

"sovereignty" over religious sites? Why? Religion is, in my opinion, does not require "sovereignty"... Sovereignty over "other holy places"? Like? Mount Nebo?

We need to ditch the idea that any of the land should "automatically" go to one side or the other or that one side is "stealing" land from the other. THAT is only continuing and prolonging the conflict. Instead, let's start with the assumption that no land belongs already to either party and that its all up for negotiation. Instead of thinking of a cake which is already divided -- think of a cake which has yet to be divided. Certain sections obviously make more sense to go to one side or the other, but the rest of the cake can be divided any way the parties want. Its a fundamental shift in thinking.

I totally agree... So, why does Israel "automatically" expect territories OUTSIDE of Israel to be theirs? The "stealing" issue I will deal with in the next comment below... But, you are right that it is continuing and prolonging the conflict...

And...I do think that using language like "illegal settlements" is harmful to the peace process as it paints one side as the "bad guy" -- the criminal. Even though there is nothing criminal about Jews being present somewhere. There is nothing inherently wrong with a Jewish person wanting to live in Judea, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with a Filipino wanting to live in Seattle.

The language of "illegal settlements" is not MY language, it is the language of international law, of the majority of this world...

Yes, of course it paints one side as the "bad guy"... If the "bad guy" is occupying territory that is not his, then, I think it's fair to say that he IS a "bad guy"...

We aren't talking about Jews being "somewhere"... We are talking about Israel occupying territory "illegally" (again, not my word!)

Provided that the Filipino has the correct documentation and visas to enter the US then of course they can live in Seattle... What's going to happen when the Filipino starts building 'settlements' for his Filipino buddies in Seattle?

The settlements themselves are no barrier to peace. The barrier is in the belief that "Jews can't live on that particular square mile of planet".

Sorry, for MOST of the world they are! That is why MOST of the world considers them illegal...

I am VERY happy that Israel exists and that Jews have a homeland where they can live, freely, happily, in a Jewish state!

(I'll save the idea of Israel's *cough cough* "expansionism" for another post later.)

Maybe, starting a different thread about "Israel's *cough cough* expansionism" Might be a good thing?

 

[Humanity]

Did you know that the Palestinians who fought for the demolishment of Am on a hadn't lay a foot there in ages? Those Betselem, representing all that is evil in this affair, called them out to prove that generations ago the land belonged to their grandparents, just so that the Jews will be forced out. Originally these people could not care less about Amona. They saw an opportunity to fight the settlers and went for it.

Sorry, isn't that what Jews argue for the creation of Israel? The land USED to belong to us and now we want it back?

Ma'ale Edumin is seen, even by the far left, as part of Israel. Land exchange can be done with small settlements, not large cities such as this.

I'm not suggesting that the city should be 'traded' in a land swap BUT it should be taken into consideration as part of the negotiations.

Jews demanded the land they had direct connection too. My family didn't demand any land out of the blue. It was rooted in the land since the 1800's. So no, I don't see it as the same thing.

You have already said that the city is NOT within Israel but may be one day....

 

[Shusha]

So, why does Israel "automatically" expect territories OUTSIDE of Israel to be theirs?

This is the thrust of the shift in thinking I am trying to make. You are working from the assumption that the borders have already been determined. They have not. The shift in thinking is to stop working from that assumption.

Aside from the fact that it is factually incorrect (Area C IS under Israeli control by treaty and therefore by law), it is THIS thinking that is causing the conflict.

Stop thinking that the land has already been divided and start thinking -- there is all this land -- what does each party NEED from it.

 

[Shusha]

They need land access to Jordan because?

Because a Palestine which is totally enclosed by Israel would not be a good thing for Palestine. They need access to trade with the Arab world that doesn't go through Israel.

Haram al Sharif is a 'special' case and will NOT be resolved by you and I having an argument over it!!

Well, none of this will, but if you want to leave this for now, I'm okay with that.

You already ventured into the past... "some seventy year old idea" ... I give a rats ass if its 70, 700 or 7000 years to be quite frank with you... Do you want me to start throwing around similar 'statements' about the Jews in Israel?

You've misunderstood me. What I mean by "seventy year old idea" is the idea that the borders have already been established and thus that there is already territory which is Israel and territory which is not Israel. The only territory, at this point, which is not under legal Israeli control are Areas A and B.

As mentioned above... Yes, Israel needs to have territory within Israel for Jews... "some sort of guarantee of security"? Does Israel not have enough Nukes already?

Israel needs some sort of solution which prevents another Gaza. They need a way of monitoring the situation. And if they need to defend -- they need the support of the international community.

"sovereignty" over religious sites? Why? Religion is, in my opinion, does not require "sovereignty"... Sovereignty over "other holy places"? Like? Mount Nebo?

I was thinking the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in particular. If it makes you feel better think of them as Jewish historical sites instead. That's really what it is anyway. Israel (the Jewish people) need to protect their heritage.

The language of "illegal settlements" is not MY language, it is the language of international law, of the majority of this world...

In point of fact, it hasn't actually been tested legally. Its the legal OPINION of some. Its a legal opinion which doesn't bear up to scrutiny of precedent. However, that won't stop the international community from its biased treatment of Israel.

Yes, of course it paints one side as the "bad guy"... If the "bad guy" is occupying territory that is not his, then, I think it's fair to say that he IS a "bad guy"...

But it hasn't been decided yet what territory is "his". That can only be decided by treaty. Hasn't happened yet. In fact, current treaty says that Area C is Israel, pending a negotiated settlement.

Sorry, for MOST of the world they are! That is why MOST of the world considers them illegal...

Argumentum ad populum. Not valid.



Again, you have given no reason for why Jewish presence is a barrier to peace. You are just stamping your feet and saying, "but its not theirs, so Jews aren't allowed to live there!"

Why are Arabs in Israel not a barrier to peace?

 

[louie888]

Shusha

So much BS, so little time.

The Aryan, Europeans who call themselves Jews, stole Palestine from the Semitic, native people of that land, need to leave or live peacefully in Palestine... should the Palestinians still allow for that.

Bottom line!

 

[Lipush]

Thankfully you and your likes are irrelevant. Both Israelis and Palestinians hold the answers. Not delusional people like yourself.

 

[fanger]

Israel approves new West Bank settlement
A statement after a meeting of the country's security cabinet said the construction would take place in the Emek Shilo area near Nablus.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been simultaneously negotiating with the US government on reducing settlement activity.

Palestinian officials have condemned the move.

"Today's announcement once again proves that Israel is more committed to appeasing its illegal settler population than to abiding by the requirements for stability and a just peace," Hanan Ashrawi, an executive committee member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.
Israel approves first new West Bank settlement in 20 years - BBC News