Dahlia Scheindlin at +972 blasts a New York Times editorial that finds hope in Netanyahu’s rejection of a Knesset bill that would legalize a settlement the Supreme Court ruled was illegal.
let me make it extremely clear: Netanyahu’s commitment to rejecting the bill was not a statement against settlements. The vote was not about narrowing construction. And personally, I do not believe it was about implementing Supreme Court rulings either.
The events of the last few days – the committee debates, the Knesset vote on Wednesday and Netanyahu’s compromise plan – were about one thing only: Settlement expansion.
Scheindlin then quotes Netanyahu from a Hebrew speech:
“I am obliged to protect democracy, and I am obliged to protect the settlements. And I say to you now that there is no contradiction between the two. The law that was rejected in the Knesset would have harmed the settlements. By contrast, the framework I have I decided upon, expanding the settlement, relocating the buildings, legal defense of settlements against a precedent – this plan strengthens settlements….At the same time, Beit El will be expanded, the 30 families will remain and 300 families will join them…Those who think they can use the legal system to harm settlements are mistaken. In fact, the exact opposite is happening – instead of decreasing Beit El, the expansion Beit El. Instead of harming settlements, strengthening them.”
It isn’t hard to hear precisely to what the prime minister is saying in plain Hebrew. I wish the New York Times had listened before grossly misrepresenting the developments as a “glimmer of hope” for anyone seeking peace.
The machine runs 24/7 based on the code”this is Jewish land and the Palestinians have no right to live here”.
It’s a very impressive machine that can process dunams in an instant. It’s the closest thing Judaism has ever had to a real Golem.
Is it a surprise that Netanyahu does not see settlements as a problem, he is a right wing Likud prime-minister?
This whole charade is the result of our leftist NGO organizations attempts to hurt the settlements project and Netanyahu now acts in a total accordance with his beliefs and the political circumstances, on
one side he upholds the law (yes i know nobody here thinks much of Israeli law
regarding the West Bank but that’s not the point) which is what he should do as a
prime-minister, on the other hand he makes sure that this tactic that our leftist
NGO’s chose will be ineffective and in fact backfire.
The guys that brought those petitions to Bagatz can now take the credit for the building of those new 300 houses in Beit El (btw this place will remain our in any future settlement so it’s not even a problem from that perspective).
They did help this one Palestinian, though i am not sure how and what will he do with his new acquired land, he won’t live on it and he won’t get any compensation for
it as he should have duly received if the houses on it were not evicted.
btw this place will remain our in any future settlement
This horseshit term is now being applied to whatever Israel wants to grab. If it ever had any meaning, which is dubious, it does not now.
They did help this one Palestinian, though i am not sure how and what will he do with his new acquired land, he won’t live on it and he won’t get any compensation for
it as he should have duly received if the houses on it were not evicted.
You know just as well as everyone else here he would have received jack squat.
Tell us something OlegR, do you condem the Germanization of occupied territories in WW2? If yes, what’ the difference to the Judaization of occupied territories?
For once it does not involve genocide of millions…
You are free to search for differences from there
AIPAC,JINSA,FDD,JIHAD WATCH ,FOX news, WaPO and WSJ are the hard power projected by Israel. NYT is the soft power projected by Israel.
The NYT will blow with the wind when the wind changes. As long as Israel is “in” with the elite of the US the NYT will reflect it. Once Israel gets shafted the NYT will follow. Was the NYT an ANC supporter in the 1980s?
Yeah, even I think this is a bad idea. They’re what, moving the buildings from one place to another in the settlement? That’s one thing, but building another 851 more (up from 300) is just provocative. How about stopping the expansion for long enough to have peace talks. Start it at a unilateral one week freeze on new building starts and keep it going as long as the talks go on. Give the Palestinians an incentive to talk peace, to go along with all the incentives they have to actually make peace.
I’m torn. Either you are self-delusional or you’re just lying through your teeth, paying lip service to ideas you oppose, but can safely support nominally because they are not going to happen anyway. Pretty certain it’s the latter.
@Koshiro
You’d be wrong. Just because I don’t have a moral problem with the Israelis taking land from people that keep firing missiles at them, doesn’t mean I think it is a good idea. The reason I said “one week” rather than a longer time is that the last time a longer freeze was done, the Palestinians waited until two weeks before it ended to show up for the talks, and they only wanted an extension of the freeze.
You’d be wrong.
Or you’re just lying. Experience leads me to believe this is the case.
the Israelis taking land from people that keep firing missiles at them
“The Arab” is just a single, amorphous mass to you, eh?
Suit yourself. But I have never lied here. Very rarely been mistaken. Had differences of opinion too many times to count, but never lied.
The Palestinians are a people. As a people, they are responsible to and for the acts of their elected government. Hamas allows the missiles to be fired at Israel, the Palestinians as a people elected Hamas. The Palestinians as a people choose to be at war with Israel rather than surrendering, so the Palestinians as a people pay the price of being at war with Israel. The Palestinians as a people choose not to obey the Geneva Conventions, so I see no reason why they should get the benefits of them.
Fredblogs says:
June 7, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Yeah, even I think this is a bad idea. They’re what, moving the buildings from one place to another in the settlement? That’s one thing, but building another 851 more (up from 300) is just provocative. How about stopping the expansion for long enough to have peace talks. Start it at a unilateral one week freeze on new building starts and keep it going as long as the talks go on. Give the Palestinians an incentive to talk peace, to go along with all the incentives they have to actually make peace..
Oh-Yah, of course, those procrastinating Palestinians should totally just be given the right incentive, because had the Jews of Auschwitz been prepared to be just a teensy bit more agreeable, everyone would have lived happily ever after. All that Ziocaine must have finally blown your third brain, seriously. Or perhaps playing the stereotypical Dumb American is another Hasbara con-trick? *shrug*
link to international.ucla.edu
/They’re what, moving the buildings from one place to another in the settlement?/
Beit El is not a settlement it’s already a town by Israeli size standarts.
They will probably demolish the buildings i doubt it’s practical to actually move
them.
/Give the Palestinians an incentive to talk peace, to go along with all the incentives they have to actually make peace./
I’ll let you in on a secret Fred .
They are talking, all the time, it’s not high profile but they are talking
they have no choice but to talk after the UN debacle
and the almost 0 progress they have made with Hamas.
“Beit El is not a settlement it’s already a town by Israeli size standarts.”
It’s over the green line, so it’s a settlement.
Why do you use the Green Line and not Res 181 (or whatever) for borders?
Because the PLO has accepted the green line as the border.
link to plomission.us
Because we never annexed the Wast Bank or Gaza which is beyond the Green Line.
Why we never annexed those place unlike the Golan Hights?
Because there are a lot of Arbas living there which we don’t want as citizens
and we don’t want to drive out of there. That’s why we need a 2ss.
So you’d support 181 borders if the PLO did?
I support the rights of all people to rights (human, political, etc.) and the right to full equality. I personally don’t care if it is done in 1 state, 2 states, 10 states or whatever; so long as it’s done. But if we’re talking about 2 states: if the PLO, representatives of the oppressed people, accept that line as a border, then that’s fine by me. I have no reason to be more Catholic than the Pope.
Hamas claim to be representing an oppressed people too. Why not support their preferred borders?
“Hamas claim to be representing an oppressed people too. Why not support their preferred borders?”
Because I’m not a supporter of Hamas.
Spot the odd one out
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to images.fanpop.com
link to upload.wikimedia.org
link to haaretz.com
alfred hitchcock? lol…not really. i would guess the santa bunny?