Skip to main content

View Diary: Peace Now: Increased Settlement Construction Since Annapolis (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, it does not discriminate. Rather, (0+ / 0-)

    a settlement freeze acknowledges the reality that peace with the Palestinians requires their having their own state alongside Israel in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with its capital in East Jerusalem. The presence or absence of a settlement freeze conveys to ordinary Palestinians the extent to which Israelis have internalized this reality.

    •  How does that lead to 'peace'? (0+ / 0-)

      84% of Palestinians, in a recent poll, supported the attacks on the Mercaz Yeshiva.

      Assuming a 'state' for the Palestinians, at present, does nothing other than empower jihadists, I fail to see how making the West Bank judenrein is anything other than a human rights nightmare.

      You keep telling me that a 'two state solution' somehow will lead to 'peace.'

      Why would a Holocaust deniar who praises the Mercaz massacre (Abbas/Abu Mazen) do anything to promote peace,' especially in light of the hate regularly presented in the Palestinian media and schools presented as fact?

      And peace at what cost?  Why is it worth ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes?

      •  Because Israel will survive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        another American

        How are you suggesting that Israel holds onto the West Bank AND achieves peace, short of ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian there?  Where will they go, Jordan?  Black September part II?  That just plain doesn't work, even aside from it's basic monstrosity.

        "Why must we transfer jews instead of palestinains" might sound good in the national union offices but it doesn't work in the real world -- in the real world, the overwhelming majority of those settlements must be evacuated at some point and allowing further construction is to go in the wrong direction and make eventual withdrawal even harder.

        •  I addressed that elsewhere (0+ / 0-)

          See this:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          The settlements and Territories have nothing to do with whether Israel is 'democratic' or not.  The land was won in an attempted war of annhilation and those who attempted this annhilation have showed they have the same desires today.

          Why should they be empowered and even rewarded for their attempted destruction of Israel?

          What should happen to the Palestinians in the meantime?  Well, no good will come of things unless and until the hate education is addressed.  Address the hate education and incitement and wait a generation for ACTUALLY peaceful people to be in power.

          It is the only solution that will result in less than total bloodshed.

          •  I agree that Israel had the right to seize the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            another American

            territory, given the rules in play at that time.  What's more, I think Syria can gently go fuck themselves in regards to the Golan Heights because they've waived whatever right they might have had to that land through continued aggression.

            That all being said... you can't just keep people under occupation forever as your express goal.  Where's your plan lead?  A generation from now we give demographic control of Israel to the suddenly peaceful, tasteful and better dressed Palestinians?  Maybe they'll convert to judaism and acquire western sensibilities in the meantime?  Yeah, right.

            It's either 2 states or transfer if you want Israel to survive -- and transfer is unacceptable so better get used to the idea.

            •  Israel is not 'seizing' territory (0+ / 0-)

              This land is already considered Israeli, and it is lawfully purchased.

              Why do Jews not have the right to lawfully purchase land, but Arabs have that right?

              What if the goal of the Arabs is to wipe Israel off the map 100%, and giving them a 'state' only enables them to further this goal?

              What if a 'two state solution' is a nice thought to tuck at home at night, but in fact is in reality nothing more than an ethnic cleansing of Jews and non-peaceful resolution?

    •  Also, "peace" through discrimination (0+ / 0-)

      You somehow believe 'peace' can be achieved by discriminating against Jews.  'Peace' is possible when Jews, but not Arabs, are prevented from buying land in and around Jerusalem, Israel's capital city.

      I am curious as to how it is even possible for 'peace' to be achieved if it is achieved through discrimination against Jews, as well as ethnic cleansing of Jews.  If the other side demands this to occur, is that not itself proof positive they do not want nor believe in 'peace'?

      •  You are overstating this (0+ / 0-)

        'Peace' is possible when Jews, but not Arabs, are prevented from buying land in and around Jerusalem, Israel's capital city.

        Nobody's talking about West Jerusalem or the Old City.  And land swaps should be engaged in for neighborhoods like French Hill that are clearly Israeli despite the fact that htey technically straddle the line.  

        •  The land in question... (0+ / 0-)

          ...Is in and around Jerusalem.

          So that is exactly what we are talking about.

          •  Yes but it is not all of Jerusalem n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            another American
            •  Go to Israel and see for yourself (0+ / 0-)

              The land is simply a suburb of Jerusalem and is considered 100% Israeli by most Israelis.

              It would be like telling Americans they cannot live in Silver Springs, Maryland, by Washington, DC.

              •  Been, there, seen it, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                another American

                Great view from the old city walls, I like the one from the hills on the western side of the city as well.  And that Jerusalem stone, beautiful, neatest thing in the world is a bank made of jerusalem stone mixed with glass and neon.

                And yeah if I was a religious jew it would get my goat that the mount of olives is in east jerusalem.  Not like there's much there anymore, anyways.. the Jordanian gov't and Palestinians smashed everything jewish looking they could find, rubble where the gravestones used to be.

                All that being said, yeah, gotta draw a line somewhere and it turns out that the working line carves off east jerusalem.  Exceptions should be made for jewish neighborhoods that straddle the line and arab neighborhoods that do the same, land swaps and all that.  But settlement construction should be stopped.

                •  Why do you discriminate against Jews? (0+ / 0-)

                  Why are Jews allowed to be ethnically cleansed from their homeland, but Arabs somehow must remain on land which is their not homeland, with the goal of wiping Jews from Eretz Yisrael?

                  Why can Arabs build wherever they want, but not Jews?

                  •  Arabs aren't gonna take the rest of Israel (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    another American

                    And I've got buddies who've been in firefights to keep it that way -- I'm not jewish so not my fight although I tend to support my friends.  You should have a long convo with litho, would keep both of you busy :)

                    •  How do you know Arabs won't take the rest? (0+ / 0-)

                      It is the express position of both Hamas and Fatah to have 100% of the State of Israel.  They teach this in the schools.

                      Assuming their goal is 100% of Israel, what makes you so confident that Arabs do not seek 100% of Israel?

                      And for that matter, why should Jews be ethnically cleansed from Judea and Samaria, but Arabs still remain in the 1949 borders of Israel?  Isn't that itself a form of discrimination?

                      •  First off, talk of "Arabs" as a singular entity (0+ / 0-)

                        Is silly.  Second off, yeah, the nutters want Israel gone and the rest wouldn't mind either but it's not happening.  How is it not gonna happen?  By keeping Israel strong and not dicking around with occupying a million people just for the sake of saying you have Hebron.  Fuck Hebron, who cares, get out of there and Ariel and every other place in the West Bank and the IDF can focus on its core competency:  Being prepared to dismantle any state that looks at it the wrong way.

                        •  The reason behind lack of terror attacks. (0+ / 0-)

                          What if the reason behind the RELATIVE lack of terror attacks in Israel is that the IDF has a presence in the West Bank?

                          Taking away the IDF presence means that the chance of terror attacks increases.  See: Gaza for proof of this.

                          It is necessary for security reasons to have the IDF in Judea and Samaria.

                          Moreover, we are not even speaking about Hebron or Ariel.  We are speaking about JERUSALEM.  The increase in 'settlement building' is occurring in and around Jerusalem, in land that most Israelis see as 100% Israeli, and which most people agree would be part of the final borders of any form of negotiation with the terrorists of Hamas and/or Fatah.

                          And wouldn't any TRULY peaceful final resolution mean that Jews would not have to fear for their lives if they live and/or visit holy sites in Judea and Samaria?  If that is not the case, is that not prima facie evidence that there is no real "peace"?

                          •  Yeah, but you gotta go incrementally (0+ / 0-)

                            If that's all you have to work with.  Since eternal occupation and transfer are both unacceptable, you gotta work with what you have.

                          •  Why does that mean give up land? (0+ / 0-)

                            This increases vulnerability to attack.

                            Why doesn't it mean first requiring that the Palestinians show some real proof that they want peace and will recognize Israel?

                            Shouldn't the onus be on the attackers to show they want peace, rather than the attacked?

                          •  Well, I don't think they should get sovereignty (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            another American

                            until they do that -- until they do though, may as well quit building settlements.  Good middle ground, I think.

                          •  OKAY, now we are getting somewhere! (0+ / 0-)

                            I would agree that building in Hebron is counterproductive if Israel has no intention of holding onto this land.  HOWEVER, Israel has every intention of holding onto the land of Jerusalem and its surrounding suburbs, which already house hundreds of thousands of Israelis.  Therefore, we are faced with a different animal altogether.

                            One more thing.  The Jews who live there have tons of kids, and there is a real housing crisis.  What should be done to alleviate this housing crisis in 2008, other than building new places for these people to live?

              •  More than a dozen times, beinginng in '67. nt (0+ / 0-)
                •  Then you would know... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...These 'settlements' are considered merely an extension of Jerusalem.

                  To be against this is to be against a united Jerusalem itself; hardly a peaceful position to take, given the extreme problems that would create, as well as hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees.

                  •  Then count me alongside the Israeli government (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    livosh1

                    as ready to "divide Jerusalem" for the sake of peace. Already last October, CBS News reported:

                    CBS News correspondent Robert Berger reports Israel's deputy prime minister Haim Ramon says the Israeli government would support a division of Jerusalem. This would be a key component of an Israeli-Palestinian declaration to be made at an international peace conference in the U.S. this year. Under the plan, Israel would transfer many of the Arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

                    The truth, of course, is that Jerusalem already is divided. As a rule, Jews do not go into Arab neighborhoods and, except as workers, Arabs do not go into Jewish neighborhoods. Indeed, dividing Jerusalem jurisdictionally well may be the only way to unite the city as a living reality, that is, creating a situation under which, in practice, both parts of Jerusalem become accessible to both communities.

                    •  The Israeli government... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...Itself is part of the problem.  It has a leader with a 2% approval doing things against the will of its citizenry.

                      Indeed, dividing Jerusalem jurisdictionally well may be the only way to unite the city as a living reality, that is, creating a situation under which, in practice, both parts of Jerusalem become accessible to both communities.

                      That does not even make sense.  You now are saying that "dividing Jerusalem will unify it."

                      Do you not see the illogic to that statement?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site