(And in good Dope tradition, you’re posting about it on the Sabbath, so you won’t hear from them for a day or so 
)
Even if the situation was this cartoonishly one sided and simple, and Israel is just the poor victim of aggressive neighbours, biased media and a bullying UN (which I happen to think is a load of bull)… How does this justify the settlement-building?
Whenever this topic comes up on the dope, and elsewhere, the pro-Israel side want to talk about anything but the matter at hand.
Or is the argument that the settlements reduce the risk of rocket attacks because… reasons
It’s kind of a hijack of this thread, but I’ll just say that if settlements “achieve the same end”, then what’s the difference? Here’s what you said:
*The world wouldn’t stand for a Holocaust of the Palestinians. But, with the US backing them, they might be able to slowly squeeze them tighter and tighter, drive up the population density, drive down the economy and life expectancy, and go from there. *
You left it up to the reader to determine what “go from there” was, and since the discussion was genocide, I think a reasonable person reading what you wrote would interpret “go from there” as “wiping them out”. That is, genocide.
If you meant something different, you should have been clearer. I would classify “go from there” as, at best, weasel wording that allowed you to invoke genocide but with plausible deniability if called on it.
Let’s look at Ronald Reagan’s position on the issue: "The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.”
As has been referenced before, I think there’s a misperceptions in the US that settlements and settlers in the West Bank have general support in Israel despite the controversy - maybe how much of the world thinks the US invasion of Afghanistan was controversial, but it really is not controversial here.
I think the closer analogy would be, let’s say that the Libertarians in the US convince the President to do something like, say, withdraw the US from all treaties that don’t involve trade because they think these treaties infringe on US sovereignty. Like NATO - gone; Geneva Conventions - gone; etc.
In such a case, would all our allies be stabbing the US in the back if they didn’t support our reckless policies? I don’t think so.
Some of this settlement activity is truly outrageous, but I don’t know the details of what is in the latest round of expansions. For example, in the Old City of Jerusalem, some settlers just decided to build their own house right on top of someone else’s. The original homeowner is of course totally powerless to do anything about it, either by legal means or by force. They just have to deal with some families having seized their roof to build a few more stories, put up concertina wire and some armed guards, and start living their life right there.
That is seriously messed up.
Looking over my last post, using Libertarians as an example isn’t very accurate because they are a truly fringe group in the US. Maybe Tea Partiers is a better example because despite the fact they are out of the mainstream, they are substantially more numerous.
The US has been working on a Two-State Solution for ages. Looks like Netanyahu has given up on the idea, expecting the next US administration to support his own policies.
Honestly, I don’t see it. Sure, Peace with their neighbours is ridiculously difficult, but still the only long-lasting choice.
There are 4 neighbors. Israel is at peace with Jordan and Egypt. Peace with Syria in the state it is in right now is not realistic. And as long as Hizbullah is in charge of Lebanon, neither is peace with Lebanon.
Hamastan (Gaza) is a perfect example of what Israel WOULD GET WITH A NEW ARAB STATE WITHIN ITS BORDERS …
And what is the other option? Because having a non-state isn’t working great either.
I propose keeping the settlements, but inviting Palestinian families to have ever other residence. Let the kids play together, fall in love and intermarry. Problem solved in one generation.
Let me assure you that even if you would put the most peaceful people in the conditions they have in Gaza they would rebel and fight. Gaza is basically a 140 sq. mile prison camp barricaded by both Israel and Egypt. The population is 1.85 million. No one can enter or exit except by permission from one of the sides which is granted mainly to collaborators (and is limited anyway). They have a catastrophic water supply, electricity is more often off than on, and yes, they also suffer from a very illiberal government.
So this is what you get when you treat people like animals.
It really hasn’t.
What? Working or working for ages?
This.
The only way a solution will happen is by the international community to impose it. The Israeli trope of "solution only by negotiating between the 2 parties " is really a pretext for preserving the status-quo. Not that the Palestinians are angels.
The parameters of the solution are well-known by everyone and accepted by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians, who unfortunately are prevented by the extremists on both sides to pursue it.
This could have happened during Obama’s presidency, but he had not the spine for that. It is AIPAC who is holding the US hostage to the do-nothing position, and, as an Israeli, I pray that AIPAC’s back will be broken.
Hardly backstabbing. Leastwise not in the sense of a surprise betrayal. Israel had years and months of warning this day was coming. In this specific instance they had a couple of weeks in which to lobby against the move within the USA.
In my opinion, Israel has become the bully. Some Israelis have even called for the final solution to the Palestinian problem - the irony totally escaping them in their hatred of the native people.
Back in '67 and '73 when Israel was surrounded by enemies, they were anything but the bully and easy to cheer for. Not any more. Their actions towards the Palestinian residents was deserving of formal UN condemnation a decade ago. This was overlong in coming.
Many Israelis agree with the resolution. They know when their country is in the wrong.
The time for a two state solution may be past. I hope not since the only long term alternatives are either the complete destruction of Israel or the complete destruction of the civilized world.
I am sure there is will be many excuses
And … So wait, suddenly you want to use the hated Communists impositions and the diktat of Stalin and the Soviet Union as your moral guide. Funny, the opposition to this is what you argue other
Flexible, the morality then. Some “shining” example, then, you can get so teary eyed over.
Far Left?
It is more a case of how amazing a Far Right in the USA and perhaps in the Israel are ready to use the 1945- forward post WWII Diktat of the USSR and of Stalin as their moral guide. The forced population transfers and the Diktat of Stalin about the borders annexations by the Soviets (“kindly” compensating the Poles for the Soviet seizure of their lands with the German terrirories) is very much what cause the Western drafters of the 1949 drafted Geneva Convention was aimed at in these accords…
But now that the American Far Right have become the Pultin apologists, I suppose it is all forgiven in favor of the pretext.
Funny.
It is indeed the case that there is no Ghazan state, there is a territory the Israeli forces deliberately withdrew from as uninteresting for the settlement and extremely expensive and unpleasant for the direct occuption.
He is of course a person who in some other thread refered to London, UK without Irony to as “Londonistan”… it tells you the kind of information and thinking.
Since the vote is now on record, is there actually anything Trump can do about it? Unless the UNSC decides to vote again (and how likely is that), there is no way to erase this vote. Right?
No. But the resolution is declarative only and has no enforcement authority. Netanyahu already dismissed it.
We can rest assured that any other similar resolution in the next 4 years (at least) that comes up will get a prompt US veto.
Means matter as well as ends. Say you were a neighbor, and I wished for you to move away. Would you say that there was no difference between offering to buy your house at a large markup, and murdering you?
“Go from there” can hardly mean mass killing to a reasonable reader, when I’ve explicitly ruled it out as a possibility.
But imagine a ceaseless drumbeat of settlement building, coupled with embargos, taking over water resources, and so on. In other words, make living in the occupied territories more and more miserable as time goes by. It’s quite possible that this could drive another nation to accept and resettle refugees; or drive down the population growth rate in the territories to such a degree that it changes the implications of annexation; or cause huge numbers of Palestinians to take their chances crossing the sea as “boat people”, trying to reach Europe. No mass killing required.
Question from interested, but ignorant, Doper: Isn’t the settlement issue simply a case of “Israel promised not to encroach, and now Israel encroached and broke its promise by building settlements?”