Israel has begun constructing a new settlement in the northern West Bank for the first time in 26 years, Army Radio reported.
The move comes on the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's first meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, despite Western calls for Israel to halt its settlement activity.
Tenders
have been issued for 20 housing units in the new Maskiot settlement and
contractors have arrived on site to begin foundational work, the radio
reported.
I think this is one of the most biased blogs dealing w/ the I/S issue and many of the comments on this site are extremely anti-semetic in nature. I am a Zionist, but I don't believe that new settlement building, or any settlements are good for Israel. They need to stop this lunacy. Settlements building is the crux of the problem (well that and the Pals inability to accept Israel and their inability to accept reality.
I remember the first time Netanyahu came to my attention. It was at the Madrid peace conference – over 15 years ago now – in which he was Israeli spokeman working for the president Shamir. The Palestinians accused the Israeli's of stalling negotiations, of not being serious, but Netanyahu said no, it was the Palestinians that were delaying, they were serious. Later it came out in Shamir's memories that the Israeli tactic at Madrid was to stall to give Israel time to build more settlements, which means Netanyahu's statements were false and misleading. Nothing seems to have changed since then, so I guess roll on the one-state.
I agree with Yoni. Bibi is an envelope pusher. Maybe its an acknowledgement that this is the last one, hopefully.
A Zionist who doesn't believe in settlement building? That's a new one on me. Surely settlement building is precisely the reality the Pals have trouble accepting?
actually many zionists don't believe in settlement building. There's this simplistic but useful division between 48'ers and 67'ers. The first think a small Israel is fine. The second like a bit more space. The first group is nicer than the second. It still thinks in terms of a jewish state though, which is 'problematic'. There's a new article on this site that is just about the 48'ers.
Right but can the 48ers exist without the 67ers and vice versa? It's all a bit much for an outsider to grasp.
You must be a rare breed within the Zionists. Would you accept to live with the Palestinians as neighbours and partners or is your vision still a 100% jews only state. Would you support allowing the people who were forced out of their home in 1948 to return and live as your neighbours and co exist in the same land. Would you live in a land where jews are a minority but fully protected and able to floursih in this land without boundaries. I disagree about your comment about this site. I have visited many and apart from a few fools who get carried away, the debate is open and many participants seem able to exchange information with open minds. Keep yours open and see what happens.
There are quite a few Israeli Jews who at least profess to believe that Israel could withdraw to the Green Line and continue to exist as a zionist state. Uri Avnery, for example. They do talk of territory exchanges on the margins, but let us assume that they mean this as literally marginal, mutually agreeable, convenience exchange, not as code for expansion. And let us not imagine that they have any widespread credibility, because they have not.
Bibi is putting it on the line. "go ahead and knock that chip off my shoulder". @ Yoni, there are some whack jobs on this site but I doubt you will find a generally more informed group anywhere
Anti-semitic how? Because we dont drink Israel's kool-aid? Or because we openly discuss what we like and dont like about what Israel does to US foreign policy, how extremist its current leaders are, how Americans are silenced with the anti-semitism screed when they shouldn't be, and how we would all welcome a healthy debate in this country about how the Israel Lobby controls Congress and the any objections to it in the media? Which is it? You must be new here.
There are a few good editorials in Haaretz today. My favorite says forget negotiations….. just do it.. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1086246.html
Victor Ostrovsky's books about it are enlightening as well. Although he mainly writes about the Mossad, he nonetheles s describes Israeli leaders' efforts at deception.
What I object to is the idea that we taxpayers might be hit up to pay to move all those settlers. That pisses me off. The last time we had to pay to move settlers, they got $250,000 to $350,000 each to move, when you know their houses hardly cost that. I want money like that spent to fix New Orleans, not move intransigents.
The last two paragraphs of the Haaretz story you link to are worth printing here:
"many of the comments on this site are extremely anti-semetic in nature" So what? Indeed, some of them are. Is there a law against that? Anyway, after the last eight or more years of anti-Muslim bigotry, Orientalism, and just plain racism, I'm ready for a little anti-Semitism. Why shouldn't Jews be included in the discourse. A Zionist who doesn't believe in settlement building? How the hell do you think Israel got started? http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2009/01/a...
but MRW, they are americans, at least many are. maybe we should repatriate them to brooklyn and the rest to stalingrad
What in thunder do you mean, "anti-semetic"? Can't you even spell?
I'm tempted to say hear, hear:) I sometimes wonder what would happen to the collective American conscious if the Nazi persecution of gays (or the mentally ill, etc.) was featured as heavily as the persecution of the Jews. Then one probably could have a genuine discussion about what 'never again' really means, and what moral lesson the U.S. is meant to take away from engagement with 'The Holocaust'*. I suspect a lot of Congresspeople's heads would just explode, though:) *(Scare quotes meant to signify the ideological construct, not denial, &c. Please don't sue me, ADL.)
You folks that believe a bi-national state is possible are utterly insane. It would be an all out civil war, the bloodshed would make Gaza look like a picnic. It would be like much the Nakba of '48 but this time I doubt anyone would back the Palestinians.
Surely they have more in common than they like to acknowledge. It's useful to start all the way on the left side, from the idea of the very friendly jewish nationalist. Okay person, nicer than most people. Desires a comfortable piece of land to turn into a little paradise, Doesn't mean harm on anyone. Doesn't need much room as long as it's a comfortable place that is 'only our kind', and that will last forever. It will be a very very jewish place. Sees that the presence of Palestinians interferes with the grand plan but hopes that a friendly solution can be found to make them go away. Can't think of any realistic solution so just sticks to the general idea of a friendly solution. Then all you have to do is wait for the realist. Also a nice person. Likes kids and music. Can't think of any friendly solution either and concludes that unfortunately the grand goal will require some unsavory actions. There is no other way. The realist accepts that other people won't be able to understand that there is a supreme (not necessarily divine) justification for the actions, and it's best to remain a bit vague to the fainthearted as well. And there's the rub. No bad guys in sight but some types of thinking are recipes for disaster. Karl Popper once wrote a book(The Open Society) on how to set up the thinking in a society to maximize the chance of disaster, and how to avoid doing that. It has at least some relevance. And one interesting attribute of this type of thinking is that it's immune, no input can change it. You look at Gaza and think that it's horrible but unfortunately there was no other choice. Or you regret what has become of what used to be such a moral country and conclude that the wrong people got into power. The basic idea of the state for Jews only remains intact, and imagine that a Palestinian state would come into being and that it would be viable(it's hard to imagine but police forces are being trained to help the Palestinians accept a bit less than viability). Well then you'd be rid of a few million Palestinians that threaten the jewishness of your state, but there remains the problem of over a million Palestinians inside Israel. They're well tucked away so you can ignore them but over time their numbers will grow and a solution will have to be found…
yes. and there would probably be Jews killing Jews. Israel has dug itself into a deep deep hole by refusing to negotiate honestly. You now have too many generations born into this quagmire and it has become monstorously complicated. My god, Likud funded Hamas during the 1st Infatada. They have screwed themselves in hundreds of ways. Wouldn't negotiate with Arafat ("not a partner for peace") I bet they would have said the same of Gandhi. Israel has avoided serious negotiations until they have to or I suspect Israel will go down in flames. They must get off their schmaltzy asses.
I agree Israel must get off their schmaltzy asses.