Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

Israel plans 1,000 settler homes in Jerusalem
About 1,000 units to be built in parts of Arab areas of occupied city that Palestinians want for their future state.



The Israeli government has said that it is advancing construction plans to build about 1,000 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem that Palestinians want to be part of their future state.

A government official said on Monday that plans include building infrastructure in the occupied West Bank that will be used by Palestinians as well as Israelis. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media.

Al Jazeera's Imtiaz Tyab, reporting from West Jerusalem, said that about 600 additional houses will be built in Ramat Shlomo and 400 in Har Homa districts of East Jerusalem.

The Palestinians seek East Jerusalem, home to the city's most sensitive holy sites for Jews, Muslims and Christians, as their future capital and oppose any Israeli construction there.

Israel has said all of Jerusalem will forever be its capital, citing historical, religious and security reasons. But the international community, including the US, does not recognise Israel's annexation of the eastern sector of the contested city.

The housing announcement could greatly escalate tensions in East Jerusalem, which has been the scene of violent unrest for months.

Under pressure

Our correspondent said Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, was under pressure by his right-wing coalition partners, who are pressing for the building of the new settlements and have threatened to withdraw their support from his government.


Tensions have been high since June, when the body of three three Israeli teenage settlers were found weeks after they were abducted by unidentified group. Israeli groups retaliated by abducting and killing a Palestinian teenager in East Jerusalem, spurring riots.
The abductions set off a series of events that led to the 50-day Gaza war.

Yair Lapid, Israeli finance minister, of the centrist Yesh Atid party issued a statement late on Sunday night opposing the timing of the housing plan.

"This plan will lead to a serious crisis in Israel-US relations and will harm Israel's standing in the world," he said.

The US has condemned similar Israeli construction in the past.

Last week US officials said the Barack Obama administration rejected the Israeli defence minister's requests to meet several top national security aides.

The administration is still miffed over negative comments that Moshe Yaalon made about the Middle East peace efforts of John Kerry, US secretary of state, and the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.
 
kid777 said:
Israel plans 1,000 settler homes in Jerusalem
About 1,000 units to be built in parts of Arab areas of occupied city that Palestinians want for their future state.
Click to expand...

The Palestinian Arabs aren't getting another state so the Israeli's may as well build in Israel's capital city anyway. End of.
 
The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here
The Obama administration's anger is "red-hot" over Israel's settlement policies, and the Netanyahu government openly expresses contempt for Obama's understanding of the Middle East. Profound changes in the relationship may be coming.
lead.jpg

Not friends at all (Reuters )
The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,” this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.

This comment is representative of the gloves-off manner in which American and Israeli officials now talk about each other behind closed doors, and is yet another sign that relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments have moved toward a full-blown crisis. The relationship between these two administrations— dual guarantors of the putatively “unbreakable” bond between the U.S. and Israel—is now the worst it's ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November midterm elections. By next year, the Obama administration may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations, but even before that, both sides are expecting a showdown over Iran, should an agreement be reached about the future of its nuclear program.

The fault for this breakdown in relations can be assigned in good part to the junior partner in the relationship, Netanyahu, and in particular, to the behavior of his cabinet. Netanyahu has told several people I’ve spoken to in recent days that he has “written off” the Obama administration, and plans to speak directly to Congress and to the American people should an Iran nuclear deal be reached. For their part, Obama administration officials express, in the words of one official, a “red-hot anger” at Netanyahu for pursuing settlement policies on the West Bank, and building policies in Jerusalem, that they believe have fatally undermined Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace process.




Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.” (These are verbatim descriptions; I keep a running list.) But I had not previously heard Netanyahu described as a “chickenshit.” I thought I appreciated the implication of this description, but it turns out I didn’t have a full understanding. From time to time, current and former administration officials have described Netanyahu as a national leader who acts as though he is mayor of Jerusalem, which is to say, a no-vision small-timer who worries mainly about pleasing the hardest core of his political constituency. (President Obama, in interviews with me, has alluded to Netanyahu’s lack of political courage.)

“The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars,” the official said, expanding the definition of what a chickenshit Israeli prime minister looks like. “The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts.”

I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly. This official agreed that Netanyahu is a “chickenshit” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. “It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

U.S. officials had described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, pompous, and “Aspergery.” But this was the first time I'd heard him called “chickenshit.”
This assessment represents a momentous shift in the way the Obama administration sees Netanyahu. In 2010, and again in 2012, administration officials were convinced that Netanyahu and his then-defense minister, the cowboyish ex-commando Ehud Barak, were readying a strike on Iran. To be sure, the Obama administration used the threat of an Israeli strike in a calculated way to convince its allies (and some of its adversaries) to line up behind what turned out to be an effective sanctions regime. But the fear inside the White House of a preemptive attack (or preventative attack, to put it more accurately) was real and palpable—as was the fear of dissenters inside Netanyahu’s Cabinet, and at Israel Defense Forces headquarters. At U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, analysts kept careful track of weather patterns and of the waxing and waning moon over Iran, trying to predict the exact night of the coming Israeli attack.

Today, there are few such fears. “The feeling now is that Bibi’s bluffing,” this second official said. “He’s not Begin at Osirak,” the official added, referring to the successful 1981 Israeli Air Force raid ordered by the ex-prime minister on Iraq’s nuclear reactor.

The belief that Netanyahu’s threat to strike is now an empty one has given U.S. officials room to breathe in their ongoing negotiations with Iran. You might think that this new understanding of Netanyahu as a hyper-cautious leader would make the administration somewhat grateful. Sober-minded Middle East leaders are not so easy to come by these days, after all. But on a number of other issues, Netanyahu does not seem sufficiently sober-minded.


Another manifestation of his chicken-shittedness, in the view of Obama administration officials, is his near-pathological desire for career-preservation. Netanyahu’s government has in recent days gone out of its way to a) let the world know that it will quicken the pace of apartment-building in disputed areas of East Jerusalem; and b) let everyone know of its contempt for the Obama administration and its understanding of the Middle East. Settlement expansion, and the insertion of right-wing Jewish settlers into Arab areas of East Jerusalem, are clear signals by Netanyahu to his political base, in advance of possible elections next year, that he is still with them, despite his rhetorical commitment to a two-state solution. The public criticism of Obama policies is simultaneously heartfelt, and also designed to mobilize the base.

Just yesterday, Netanyahu criticized those who condemn Israeli expansion plans in East Jerusalem as “disconnected from reality.” This statement was clearly directed at the State Department, whose spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, had earlier said that, “if Israel wants to live in a peaceful society, they need to take steps that will reduce tensions. Moving forward with this sort of action would be incompatible with the pursuit of peace.”

It is the Netanyahu government that appears to be disconnected from reality. Jerusalem is on the verge of exploding into a third Palestinian uprising. It is true that Jews have a moral right to live anywhere they want in Jerusalem, their holiest city. It is also true that a mature government understands that not all rights have to be exercised simultaneously. Palestinians believe, not without reason, that the goal of planting Jewish residents in all-Arab neighborhoods is not integration, but domination—to make it as difficult as possible for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem to ever emerge.

Unlike the U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, I don’t have any hope for the immediate creation of a Palestinian state (it could be dangerous, at this chaotic moment in Middle East history, when the Arab-state system is in partial collapse, to create an Arab state on the West Bank that could easily succumb to extremism), but I would also like to see Israel foster conditions on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem that would allow for the eventual birth of such a state. This is what the Obama administration wants (and also what Europe wants, and also, by the way, what many Israelis and American Jews want), and this issue sits at the core of the disagreement between Washington and Jerusalem.

-----------------------

snip
 
Israel and the U.S., like all close allies, have disagreed from time to time on important issues. But I don’t remember such a period of sustained and mutual contempt. Much of the anger felt by Obama administration officials is rooted in the Netanyahu government’s periodic explosions of anti-American condescension. The Israeli defense minister, Moshe Ya’alon, in particular, has publicly castigated the Obama administration as naive, or worse, on matters related to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Last week, senior officials including Kerry (who was labeled as “obsessive” and “messianic” by Ya’alon) and Susan Rice, the national security advisor, refused to meet with Ya’alon on his trip to Washington, and it’s hard to blame them. (Kerry, the U.S. official most often targeted for criticism by right-wing Israeli politicians, is the only remaining figure of importance in the Obama administration who still believes that Netanyahu is capable of making bold compromises, which might explain why he’s been targeted.)

“The Israelis do not show sufficient appreciation for America’s role in backing Israel,” the head of the Anti-Defamation League told me.
One of the more notable aspects of the current tension between Israel and the U.S. is the unease felt by mainstream American Jewish leaders about recent Israeli government behavior. “The Israelis do not show sufficient appreciation for America’s role in backing Israel, economically, militarily and politically,” Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, told me. (UPDATE: Foxman just e-mailed me this statement: "The quote is accurate, but the context is wrong. I was referring to what troubles this administration about Israel, not what troubles leaders in the American Jewish community.")

What does all this unhappiness mean for the near future? For one thing, it means that Netanyahu—who has preemptively “written off” the Obama administration—will almost certainly have a harder time than usual making his case against a potentially weak Iran nuclear deal, once he realizes that writing off the administration was an unwise thing to do.

This also means that the post-November White House will be much less interested in defending Israel from hostile resolutions at the United Nations, where Israel is regularly scapegoated. The Obama administration may be looking to make Israel pay direct costs for its settlement policies.

Next year, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, will quite possibly seek full UN recognition for Palestine. I imagine that the U.S. will still try to block such a move in the Security Council, but it might do so by helping to craft a stridently anti-settlement resolution in its place. Such a resolution would isolate Israel from the international community.

It would also be unsurprising, post-November, to see the Obama administration take a step Netanyahu is loath to see it take: a public, full lay-down of the administration’s vision for a two-state solution, including maps delineating Israel’s borders. These borders, to Netanyahu's horror, would be based on 1967 lines, with significant West Bank settlement blocs attached to Israel in exchange for swapped land elsewhere. Such a lay-down would make explicit to Israel what the U.S. expects of it.

Netanyahu, and the even more hawkish ministers around him, seem to have decided that their short-term political futures rest on a platform that can be boiled down to this formula: “The whole world is against us. Only we can protect Israel from what’s coming.” For an Israeli public traumatized by Hamas violence and anti-Semitism, and by fear that the chaos and brutality of the Arab world will one day sweep over them, this formula has its charms.

But for Israel’s future as an ally of the United States, this formula is a disaster.

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/2/

Game-changer.
 
Sweden becomes the first important Western EU member state that has recognized Palestinian state. Except the symbolics, I struggle to see how this can change anything, as long as all European superpowers and US are on the other side.
 
Last edited:
Israel's biggest weakness is its democracy. Aside from the demographic timebomb within its borders, political parties looking for votes are always going to focus on short to medium term problems. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are happy to play the long game. Both sides are happy with the status quo because they both see themselves as winners within their chosen timeframe. The Palestinians are probably gonna come out on top eventually, though. Israel is going to be forced into deciding between apartheid or a secular state, and neither is going to end well for them.

Israel holds all the cards right now, militarily and politically. But it can't play them because its hamstrung by public sentiment. The stupidest thing it can do right now is to drain the reservoir of goodwill it built up after WW2, but that's what it's been doing by killing thousands of innocent civilians in an unnecessary war every couple of years or so. The Sweden move will be the first of many.
 
Dante said:
Israel's biggest weakness is its democracy. Aside from the demographic timebomb within its borders, political parties looking for votes are always going to focus on short to medium term problems. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are happy to play the long game. Both sides are happy with the status quo because they both see themselves as winners within their chosen timeframe. The Palestinians are probably gonna come out on top eventually, though. Israel is going to be forced into deciding between apartheid or a secular state, and neither is going to end well for them.

Israel holds all the cards right now, militarily and politically. But it can't play them because its hamstrung by public sentiment. The stupidest thing it can do right now is to drain the reservoir of goodwill it built up after WW2, but that's what it's been doing by killing thousands of innocent civilians in an unnecessary war every couple of years or so. The Sweden move will be the first of many.
Click to expand...

if Israel doesnt annex Gaza and Ramallah Muslims/arabs will never become a majority in Israel in any reasonable time frame.
 
Revan said:
Sweden becomes the first important Western EU member state that has recognized Palestinian state. Except the symbolics, I struggle to see how this can change anything, as long as all European superpowers and US are on the other side.
Click to expand...

Interesting seeing the map of countries across the world that recognise Palestine. Essentially a bunch of major powers that don't, with the rest of the world supporting them.
 
Cheesy said:
Interesting seeing the map of countries across the world that recognise Palestine. Essentially a bunch of major powers that don't, with the rest of the world supporting them.
Click to expand...
It is basically only Western members of EU, US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and a bunch of random countries that don't recognize it. On the other side we have Russia, China, Turkey, eastern EU members and a bunch of random countries who recognize it.

Sweden becomes the first Western EU country which recognizes it, and wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Iceland, Denmark, Luxemburg or even Ireland doing so in the near future. France would have likely done it by now if Sarkozy would had re-elected.

Edit: Apprently Iceland has done it three years ago.
 
Last edited:
Revan said:
It is basically only Western members of EU, US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and a bunch of random countries that don't recognize it. On the other side we have Russia, China, Turkey, eastern EU members and a bunch of random countries who recognize it.

Sweden becomes the first Western EU country which recognizes it, and wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Iceland, Denmark, Luxemburg or even Ireland doing so in the near future. France would have likely done it by now if Sarkozy would had re-elected.

Edit: Apprently Iceland has done it three years ago.
Click to expand...

Yeah, now Sweden have I can see a fair few other countries like the other ones you mentioned, and perhaps the other Scadinavian countries too, doing it as well and perhaps setting a trend. I imagine the likes of the US will continue not to though.
 
Cheesy said:
Yeah, now Sweden have I can see a fair few other countries like the other ones you mentioned, and perhaps the other Scadinavian countries too, doing it as well and perhaps setting a trend. I imagine the likes of the US will continue not to though.
Click to expand...

Which is all that matters on de juro part of the problem. US can veto any resolute which wants to accept Palestine as member of UN (and they'll do that unless something drastic happens). So, even that the majority of the world wants to accept it, without US that won't happen.

De facto it doesn't matter at all, as long as Israel doesn't give it blessing (at-least for the middle future). With or without a membership on UN, Palestine won't be able to function without Israel allowing it. We saw recently that membership on UN doesn't protect you, where you are significantly weaker than the agressor (Russia - Georgia and Russia - Ukraine conflicts).
 
Red Hand Devil said:
Man, why dont you just avoid threads like these?!

I try to avoid any thread about Northern Ireland because it does my head goin over the same old crap; which never changes opinions anyway.

Anyway, i dont particularly think folk can express themselves without being labelled bigoted anyway..
Click to expand...

I think the difference here is that I don't mind the labelling part.

As for "Jews storming al-aqsa", this is exactly what started the Hebron massacre. Ask the sensible posters here who excused the murder of Jews in 1929 because the Arab rioters heard a rumour that the mosques had been attacked. As things are though, Jews are still not allowed by Israeli authorities to pray on Temple Mount, 47 years after the Old City was liberated by the IDF.

BTW, there is not even one "human rights activist" here calling for freedom of worship there. Not even one.
 
Colin129 said:
@holyland red did you see this one?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/haaretz-re...ver-depicting-netanyahu-9-11-hijacker-1472686

At least you are allowed to openly criticise the government in Israel, and some people think it's some kind of Nazi state...
Click to expand...

We live in an inside-out, upside-down world right now. Good is bad, bad is good.

In Iran, a young woman is sentenced to jail for attending a volleyball game.
In the entire Arab world, tyranny and barbarity are at an all time high.

Meanwhile, in some UK hospital somewhere some left wing / jihadi Israel boycotter is receiving Israeli medicine (1/7 of NHS drugs are Israeli) just so he's well enough to march against Nazi Israel.
 
The end of Palestinians's daily humiliation, and their right to live in dignity. It that means racist Israel self-destructing and the creation of an other state where jews and arabs can live together then be it. I don't buy into the two state solution BS, it's great for the Israelis because in the meantime they can colonize further but in truth it just doesn't make sense on many aspects.

Also, Israel's pampers sponsored army can't afford an other 50 year struggle.
 
Lets open a thread with the title of Kurdish vs Turks, Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians to see how many of you would defend the Kurdish, been murdered by most of the countries that occupy their territory and nobody gives a shit.
 
barros said:
Lets open a thread with the title of Kurdish vs Turks, Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians to see how many of you would defend the Kurdish, been murdered by most of the countries that occupy their territory and nobody gives a shit.
Click to expand...

I'm kurdish and I care on both fronts.

You're right though, the kurdish question receives close to no attention, that's not to say we should ignore other injustices.
 
Hellboy said:
The end of Palestinians's daily humiliation, and their right to live in dignity. It that means racist Israel self-destructing and the creation of an other state where jews and arabs can live together then be it. I don't buy into the two state solution BS, it's great for the Israelis because in the meantime they can colonize further but in truth it just doesn't make sense on many aspects.

Also, Israel's pampers sponsored army can't afford an other 50 year struggle.
Click to expand...

So you're not a fan of the two state solution, but also not of the one state solution. The only solution you would like to see is the dissolution of Israel. Is that a fair take on your views ?
 
A single state solution is obviously the best solution, with a general reconciliation between Israelis and Arabs. That won't happen though because there is not a more racist bunch than Lieberman and his clique.
 
Oh yes those poor little innocent jews again. They haven't been kind to history neither.

Amazing how this generation have been brainwashed to the idea that jews are the poor little victims in the script.
 
Hellboy said:
A single state solution is obviously the best solution, with a general reconciliation between Israelis and Arabs. That won't happen though because there is not a more racist bunch than Lieberman and his clique.
Click to expand...

When the Arabs/Muslims can reconcile with themselves and not behead each other's children and blow up each other's mosques then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.

If it hasn't been amputated of course.
 
Fearless said:
We live in an inside-out, upside-down world right now. Good is bad, bad is good.

In Iran, a young woman is sentenced to jail for attending a volleyball game.
In the entire Arab world, tyranny and barbarity are at an all time high.

Meanwhile, in some UK hospital somewhere some left wing / jihadi Israel boycotter is receiving Israeli medicine (1/7 of NHS drugs are Israeli) just so he's well enough to march against Nazi Israel.
Click to expand...
All is perfectly fine in this Arab country.
 
A one state solution will never happen and is obviously a disaster. If a one state solution would work, we already would have two states. The current situation will continue until Israel annexed all land except the big cities or until there is a major geopolitical shift.
 
Fearless said:
When the Arabs/Muslims can reconcile with themselves and not behead each other's children and blow up each other's mosques then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.

If it hasn't been amputated of course.
Click to expand...

Muslims/Arab were all good before WW2 and the creation of your beloved ghost state. Your hatred for arabs looks huge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.