George Mitchell should really travel to the Middle East more often. Every time he lands in Israel/Palestine there seems to be a blockbuster leak regarding the settlements.
Kfar Adumim's sewage treatment plan predicts that the settlement will double its population "in the coming years," to 5,600 inhabitants. And in Eshkolot, the Civil Administration instructed the settlement to draw up a sewage plan adequate for a population five times its current one.
The Israeli government has not yet approved the plan. George Mitchell is reportedly currently looking for office space in Jerusalem and Hillary Clinton is arriving in the region on Monday for her first visit as secretary of state. Will this revelation come up during conversations between the US and Israel? If Clinton and Mitchell want to save the two-state solution, they better.
Weren't we just treated to the condescending Livni blathering on during a '60 Minutes' inteview about Israel and the rule of law as it pertains to the settlements? Israel continues to use the artifice of military necessity as the pretext for further expansion in the OT. Cell towers, police barracks, military posts, etc., and from each eventually sprout another illegal settlement, all justified, if you read some of the Haaretz commentary, despite international law to the contrary, on the basis of biblical imperative. And as the articles make clear, it is disengenuous to attribute expansionism to the Likud bogeyman. Implementation of the policy has been on an unerring path for decades, irrespective of which party holds power.
On a related note
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0226/p04s01-wome.html
I wonder why Israeli homes are never built on land suitable for such sites…
Can't Weiss post a headline without lying? The headline talks about a settlement bloc, not settlements.
"Can't Weiss post a headline without lying? The headline talks about a settlement bloc, not settlements."
No.
These are already existing Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria, for which Israel has proposed trading equal areas in Israel to a future Arab state.
These are already existing Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria, for which Israel has proposed trading equal areas in Israel to a future Arab state.
Ahh, so these are like IOUs in a sense? And all we need to do is wait for that promised future Arab state, should be coming any day now…
There is a continuation of building within 'settlement blocs' on privately owned Palestinian land (as defined by the state of Israel), which is illegal, and a continuation of the building of settlements on land 'temporarily' seized under military auspices, although this also contravenes Israeli and International law. Both scenarios are illegal under Israeli and International law.
How is it Jewish land? What makes it Jewish? And, in the context of the conflict, it is deemed Jewish by Israel. Not Israeli land, because that'd imply that Israeli Arabs have claim their as well.
Zionists are so transparent.
That is a very good observation LD. The choice of word reveals their racism.
You're so right MArc B. and as soon as the U.S. gives the land back to the Native Americans we took it from, Israel should follow the U.S.'s example and give back the West Bank and Gaza. Oh, and every country in Europe that has had its border shift through war in history has to give back the land they took too. And Pakistan has to give back its land to India, which it took it from.
Borders shift, get over it. The Arabs attacked Israel in 1967, Israel took a chunk of land each from Jordan, Egypt and Syria. They started a war with Israel, with the stated intent of exterminating the Jews and lost the war and some of their land.
If there weren't any consequences to the Arabs for attacking Israel, they would do it a lot more often.
Here's a little tip, if you don't want to accept the consequences of losing a war, don't start one. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
That said, I think the settlements are a terrible idea. Entirely justified morally as the spoils of a war the Arabs started, but terrible PR. I would say they are unhelpful to the peace process, but since the result of pulling settlers out of Gaza was an increase in terrorism, I'm not sure they are actually an obstacle to peace.
I think they should certainly be on the table for any peace negotiations. As in, the Arabs get the West Bank including the settlements, and Gaza, in exchange, they permanently give up any claim on the rest of Israel and stop trying to kill the Israelis.
Unfortunately, I can't see the Palestinians ever agreeing to a deal that includes them permanently giving up any claim on the rest of Israel or living up to a deal that includes "no killing Israelis".
Unfortunately, I can't see the Palestinians ever agreeing to a deal that includes them permanently giving up any claim on the rest of Israel or living up to a deal that includes "no killing Israelis".
This after your extensive dealings with Palestinians? Or your extensive exposure to hasbara?
I would say they are unhelpful to the peace process, but since the result of pulling settlers out of Gaza was an increase in terrorism, I'm not sure they are actually an obstacle to peace.
I actually do agree with you here: Israeli terrorism did increase dramatically after settlers were pulled out of Gaza as a prelude to further settlement expansion in the West Bank. Since no settlers remained in Gaza, it became much easier for Israel to indiscriminately bomb targets in Gaza and put the entire territory under an 18-month long seige in an open-air prison.
As The Arabs See The Jews
His Majesty King Abdullah
The American Magazine November, 1947
Summary:
This fascinating essay, written by King Hussein’s grandfather King Abdullah, appeared in the United States six months before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In the article, King Abdullah disputes the mistaken view that Arab opposition to Zionism (and later the state of Israel) is because of longstanding religious or ethnic hatred. He notes that Jews and Muslims enjoyed a long history of peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, and that Jews have historically suffered far more at the hands of Christian Europe. Pointing to the tragedy of the holocaust that Jews suffered during World War II, the monarch asks why America and Europe are refusing to accept more than a token handful of Jewish immigrants and refugees. It is unfair, he argues, to make Palestine, which is innocent of anti-Semitism, pay for the crimes of Europe. King Abdullah also asks how Jews can claim a historic right to Palestine, when Arabs have been the overwhelming majority there for nearly 1300 uninterrupted years? The essay ends on an ominous note, warning of dire consequences if a peaceful solution cannot be found to protect the rights of the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.
As the Arabs See the Jews
Unfortunately Abdullah spent a few minutes of 1951 being shot and torn limb from limb by Palestinians who were rather upset about his unforgivable decision to agree to a cease-fire in the 1948-9 war.
That is a very good observation LD. The choice of word reveals their racism.
Posted by: Colin Murray | February 27, 2009 at 04:25 PM
So Colin is intimating that Phil Weiss is a racist. How interesting
You're so right MArc B. and as soon as the U.S. gives the land back to the Native Americans we took it from,
Thom, I am not sure what your point is frankly. Israel owes its existence in large measure to international support and the implementation of international agreements under UN auspices. Its boundaries were established by international agreement. So what's the gripe when Israel is criticized for ignoring international law relative to its borders, and moreover violates its own High Court's decisions regarding settlements. Israel is at war with itself as much as any other country.
"Here's a little tip, if you don't want to accept the consequences of losing a war, don't start one. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
There are also consequences to winning wars of aggression, such as Israel's attack on Gaza two months ago. Israel may have tried to keep out reporters, but nowadays everyone has camera phones and video cameras. Israel can't hide what it did with guided munitions, white phosphorous and steel flechettes. The whole world knows and world opinion is shifting–against Israel.
War of aggression? Hamas fires 100's of missles into Israel and you call Israel's response a "war of aggression?" The only consequense is having to deal with antisemitic morons.
Take my water
Burn my olive trees
Destroy my house
Take my job
Steal my land
Imprison my father
Kill my mother
Bomb my country
Starve us all
Humiliate us all
BUT
I am to blame
I shot a rocket back