Show me a link.
Yes, if you say that settlements aren’t actually settlements then Israel did indeed freeze settlement building. I can’t argue with that logic.
What I would say is that there are actual settlements in East Jerusalem, settlements that the world outside of Israel considers illegal, and settlements that Israel refused to stop building on. Israel were asked to temporarily freeze illegal building of houses in land that they’d illegally appropriated. They weren’t asked to permanently stop building, just to stop while negotiations were being held. The reason they were asked to stop building was to show good faith in the negotiations. After all, if you’re claiming that you want a peaceful settlement while at the same time you continue to illegally build on land you’ve illegally appropriated and would have to hand back in any settlement, it doesn’t convince anybody of your honourable intentions!
And they wouldn’t do it. They wouldn’t agree to a basic condition that even the United States, not exactly an honest broker in the peace process, wanted israel to agree to, not to mention various Israeli political parties.
And can you describe the settlemts in Arab Jerusalem as settlements? Let’s ask the Israelis :
*One day after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Jerusalem will not be divided, the speaker of the Knesset and several other government ministers attended a dedication ceremony for the new Jewish settlement of Ma’aleh Zeitim, in East Jerusalem’s Ras al-Amud neighborhood…
Ma’aleh Zeitim is projected to house 110 families. An adjacent neighborhood, Ma’aleh David, still in the planning stages, would add an additional 90 homes to the area, making the combined area the largest Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem. *
and
Israel defies Obama over Jerusalem settlements
Richard Beeston, Foreign Editor
Israel will defy American pressure to halt the construction of controversial Jewish housing in Arab east Jerusalem, when President Obama meets Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, in the White House today............
But any hopes of a compromise were dashed yesterday when Nir Barkat, the Mayor of Jerusalem, insisted that Jewish settlements would go ahead in spite of US objections…
His remarks, and those of Mr Barkat, were in sharp contrast to the views expressed by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, yesterday in an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful Israel lobby meeting in Washington. She said: “New construction in east Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need,” she said.
Ha’Aretz is a leftist newspaper. It doesn’t matter what you call it - any place where Jews settle in groups is a ‘settlement’ - but you’re asking me if Israel halted settlements.
It annexed Jerusalem decades ago.
Obama also said years ago that we should worry about Iran’s nuke facilities and ‘talk about it’ but not ‘talk about it’ indefinitely. So far, Obama’s middle east policies have been largely…ineffective.
It is my understanding that, post Gaza, Netanyahu was very hesitant at peace talks and settlement freezes, re: fear of a Hamas-controlled government in a new Palestinian state (not to mention his own party’s right line).
Arguing about settlements is pretty moot, unless you want me to bring up other erroneous facts, such as Abbas’s allowing of sharia-style law in the WB or his turning a blind eye to terrorism. shrug
Here’s the most right-wing newspaper in Israel calling the settlements in East jeruslaem settlements then :
I think most people would describe the Israeli settlemts in Arab Jerusalem as settlements. Whether Haaretz is a leftist newspaper or not, it’s an Israeli newspaper. I don’t see how trying to change the subject alters the fact that israel are quite clearly building illegal settlements on land in jerusalem that they illegally occupy. If you want to try and srgue that the settlements aren’t illegal or that the land they’re being built on isn’t being illegally occupied then go ahead, don’t try and change the subject.
[quote=“Dick_Dastardly, post:604, topic:582500”]
Here’s the most right-wing newspaper in Israel calling the settlements in East jeruslaem settlements then :
That is not the most right-wing paper in Israel. Besides, you forgot my point: All settlement are settlements: in or out of Israel. What’s *your *point? Groups of Jews that have built towns and communities have been called settlements long before Israel existed. A kibbutz or a town outside of Carmel is/was a [settlement](outside of Carmel), as was Gush Kativ.
That doesn’t mean anything. It’s an English newspaper that caters to overseas readers.
We have already argued that. I think at this point, it’s best to agree to disagree. If not, you are free to re-read my 10,000 comments on the subject.
And let’s stop with this 1967 borders bullshit. Pre-67 borders are 1948 borders. That’s what it comes down to, and that is not what Israel will do.
Israel bends to the militant left often enough. It won’t allow racist right-wing Zionist parties to participate in elections, but it allows racist left-wing anti-Israel parties to participate in elections…because to not do so would make Israel an ‘apartheid state’. :rolleyes:
[quote=“CitizenPained, post:605, topic:582500”]
If it isn’t the most right-wing newspaper in israel it’s definitely right out on the right. And if they’re calling the settlemnts settlements then I think that would convince most reasonable people that the settlements are indeed settlements.
Yes, israelis have lived in groups called settlements for a long time. But the issue here is a freeze in constructing illegal settlements in land illegally occupied.
Haaretz is an English newspaper in the same way that the Wailing Wall is in London.
And if you actually want to make an argument about the settlments or the land they’re on not being illegal then go ahead. Trying to argue the settlements aren’t settlements is just silly.
[quote=“Dick_Dastardly, post:606, topic:582500”]
I’m not. I’m saying that settlements are settlements: they’re planned neighborhoods. Sure, you can call them settlements – legal ones. 
[quote=“CitizenPained, post:607, topic:582500”]
You can call them legal but the rest of the world and international law wouldn’t agree with you.
[quote=“Dick_Dastardly, post:608, topic:582500”]
Cite?
edit: IF you want to tout intl law, Palestinians would be ‘breaking’ it by going directly to the U.N. If the PA wants to act unilaterally, so can Israel. And that means the PA will lose.
I believe we dealt with the “Then fuck the rest of the world!” shit earlier.
Tell me, what power does international law have? None. Hamas violates international law constantly, and what do you want to do? There is nothing to do. Its up to Israel to deal wth it.
Not even the USA recognizes the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem.
BTW, where is that cite for Obama making freezing of settlements a precondition to negotiations?
I already gave you the cite, Damuri, where Abu said that Obama suggested it and left him up a tree.
But here’s a report where was for it before he dropped it. Obama asked Israel to stop building so they could negotiate. That is a precondition.
Edit: While I don’t know of a formal position on E. Jerusalem that’s stuck from admin to admin (besides we’ll discuss it later), Senators have repeatedly tried to recognize it. And it doesn’t matter if the U.S. recognizes E. J’lem or not. For all intents and purposes, it is part of Israel’s capital.
I don’t think Israel should have to give it up, but I think access to Jerusalem is completely fair.
Eneteressstttinggg.
SCOTUS to decide if ‘born in J’lem’ means ‘Israeli’
My bookmarked page is gone, so I went to the State Dept’s website to see if they had Jlem listed (the CIA factbook does) and nothing was listed, but this page doesn’t say Jerusalem isn’t in Israel, though lately the SD’s statements have distinguished the two.
For the love of… yet again, this is there is a claim that I’ve said something, and no cite. The standard applies as always: if Damuri claims that I’ve said or done something, please check for a cite.The question of whether or not any future Palestinian state could/should/must be demilitarized is an interesting question, to be sure.
But I’d hope that folks realize the problem with taking an un-cited assertion at face value, especially when that citeless assertion about the content of my posts comes from someone who makes it a point to talk about how he doesn’t actually read my posts.
Thanks.
Hey, welcome back. Thanks for accusing me of lying.
Maybe my memory is failing me but I remember a debate when you said that any negotiation had to be with a Palestine that could DELIVER peace and I asked if that meant they could have a military (after all how does a demilitarized state enforce peace on its terrorist populace?) and I thought your answer was yes. I remember your answer shocking me at the time but it was the logical conclusion for anyone that would demand that the new Palestinian state prevent terrorism within its borders.
Damuri,
I thought you had Finn on ignore.
You’ve certainly claimed so repeatedly.
He did not accuse you of lying. He accused you of making unsupported assertions.
Stop making everything needlessly personal.
[ /Moderating ]
If we don’t want posters announcing who is on their ignore list, we certainly don’t want third parties getting into the middle of their conflicts.
Leave it alone.
[ /Moderating ]
Huh?
I merely asked a question. Damuri has repeatedly claimed he had Finn on ignore and then just quoted him.
What’s wrong with asking him how this came to be?