Israel takes control of more West Bank land

[azurnoir]

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel has taken control of a large chunk of land near a prominent West Bank settlement, paving the way for the possible construction of 2,500 settlement homes, officials said Monday, in a new challenge to Mideast peacemaking.

Successive Israeli governments have broken promises to the United States to halt settlement expansion, defined by Washington as an obstacle to peace. Ongoing expansion is likely to create friction not only with the Palestinians, but with President Barack Obama, whose Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has long pushed for a settlement freeze. Obama has said he'd get involved quickly in Mideast peace efforts.

At the center of the latest expansion plans is Efrat, a settlement of about 1,600 families south of Jerusalem.

Nearly 290,000 Israelis live in West Bank settlements today, or 95,000 more than in May 2001 when Mitchell first called for a settlement freeze. At the time, he led a fact-finding mission to Israel and the Palestinian territories to find a way to end months of violence and resume peace talks.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-02-16-07-39-05

[ixion]

1. an "obstacle to peace", at best

a blatant violation of international law, and potential war crime, more likely.

[Sal Minella]

4. And will the U.S. object by suspending any of the millions in aid-to-Israel?

Not bloody likely, is my guess. I am totally bewildered at why we support the Israeli government in their atrocities/crimes.

[Scurrilous]

2. Abbas: No need for talks if settlements do not stop

<snip>

"Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas strongly criticized on Monday an Israeli decision to seize more Palestinian land in the West Bank for settlement expansion.

He said that 'unless settlements are brought to a halt, then talks (with Israel) will be meaningless and useless.'

Abbas also stressed that the next Israeli government has to accept the two-state solution and other international agreements on the Middle East conflict as a prelude to resuming negotiations.

'We cannot start from point zero once again,' stressed Abbas during a press conference with visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

The Israeli Ha'aretz daily reported Monday that Israeli plans to seize 1.7 million square metres of Palestinian land near Bethlehem to expand the settlement of Efrat, one of the largest Israeli settlements in the area."

more

[aranthus]

3. What else can he say?

If he agrees to talks while settlements are being built, and land taken, he looks weak, and he's already weak. More important, if he agrees to talks, then at least in theory, the Israelis could stretch them out indefinitely and keep building settlements. That's no way to have negotiations.

[oberliner]

5. Israel wants this land to be part of Israel in a land swap

Efrat is on the Israeli side of the border fence/wall.

[peacetalksforall]

6. OK what's the swap> Help us picture on a map with boundaries?

Abbas probably said it all - they can't start from zero once again. In living conditions and rights. In talks.

[oberliner]

7. Here is the relevant passage from the Clinton Parameters

President Clinton:
Territory:
Based on what I heard, I believe that the solution should be in the mid-90%'s, between 94-96% of the West Bank territory of the Palestinian State.
The land annexed by Israel should be compensated by a land swap of 1-3% in addition to territorial arrangements such as a permanent safe passage.
The Parties also should consider the swap of leased land to meet their respective needs. There are creative ways of doing this that should address Palestinian and Israeli needs and concerns.
The Parties should develop a map consistent with the following criteria:
* 80% of settlers in blocks.
* Contiguity.
* Minimize annexed areas.
* Minimize the number of Palestinian affected.

http://www.peacelobby.org/clinton_parameters.htm

[peacetalksforall]

8. Sorry, oberliner, your reply is hardly an answer to the opening paragraph - here:

" -- Israel has taken control of a large chunk of land near a prominent West Bank settlement, paving the way for the possible construction of 2,500 settlement homes, officials said Monday, in a new challenge to Mideast peacemaking."

What Clinton said (which one and when) sounds like a suggestion - at attempt at quantifying.

So is what ?Clinton? said a direct response to the opening paragraph.

SE of the 'prominent West Bank settlement' is mentioned in the article. So where to the Palestinians have to move to now - S of SE or E of SE? What about three years from now.

It appears to be all about taking. Let's hear the other side of the story from someone on the other side.

[oberliner]

10. Check out the Geneva Accords

Endorsed by folks on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides.

www.geneva-accord.org

[Idealism]

9. They are stealing more land just to swap it with Palestinians?

Sounds like a rough deal, elaborate would ya?

[oberliner]

11. No - that's the part they want to get in the swap - not give up

They are hoping to maintain the settlements around Jerusalem and incorporate them into Israel in exchange for land elsewhere in the country.

[azurnoir]

15. The aim is to incorporate all of Jerusalem in to Israel

which the Palestinians will never agree to and the Israeli government knows that, as to land elsewhere do you call connect the dots a viable state, how many checkpoints between those dots? Why don't Israel and the Palestinians trade off a chunk Gaza for a chunk of the West Bank?

[oberliner]

23. It's all about Jerusalem

I would agree that is always going to be the most thorniest sticking point.

[iconicgnom]

12. Israel wants this land. Period.

[oberliner]

24. Land for peace, right?

How about it?

[iconicgnom]

13. They take the land of Palestine because they believe it is theirs by God-given right.

They are, after all, Zionists. What, of all earthly things, of all earthly politics, could dissuade an enormously powerful group (relatively) from following what they believe to be a path defined and justified by the word of God? An end defined by God includes an intrinsic justification for any action required to achieve it.

Zionism might be one of the most primitive and tribal of all political concepts, totally unfit for the emerging modern era of a "global village" where all races and creeds must needs live together equally and harmoniously. But wow, does it ever provide an enormous opportunity for the word parsers, the propogandists whose job it is to sow confusion re. myriad fine points about the meaning of key terms, and to deny key terms a legitimate role in the common overarching narrative. Words like, e.g., "Zionism". For these, value judgements re. "facts" are irrelevant to fulfilling the ineluctable will of God.

[Vegasaurus]

14. You don't understand the first thing about Zionism

before you go spouting off untruths, it is time to educate yourself.

[iconicgnom]

16. I've been educating myself.

By the way, have you exercised your right to Aliyah? Apparently there's still plenty of free land. I recently viewed an interview with a mayor of one of the many West Bank settlements, and she sounded as righteous as any Zionist posting to DU, and was saying that the settlements thrive on new immigrants.

[Vegasaurus]

17. Zionism has nothing to do with Jews exercising their right to Aliyah (unless they choose to)

settling in the WB or whatever other idiotic point you think you are trying to make.

Zionism is merely the support for a homeland for the Jewish people in Israel.

Zionism is well supported by members of the US congress, and others across the globe.

[LeftishBrit]

18. This only applies to a small minority of Zionists.

Most of the original Zionists were secular.

Zionists are all who think that Israel should continue to exist as a Jewish homeland. There is a long continuum between one end of the spectrum of Zionists ("The land of Palestine is ours by God-given right!") and the other end ("A secular binational state would be the ideal, but a two-state solution is the only one that could possibly work at the present time" - my own view.)

Both ends of the scale are, I would say, relatively unusual. The intermediate view, "Israel is our country and we have a right to what we have, and we're not giving up more than we need to - but we do realize that we'll need to give up some land", is probably by far the commonest.

Even the Right do not mostly have the religious-tribal view that you propose. Lieberman is secular, and indeed ready to give up some land for a Palestinian state - unfortunately he wants to dump the Israeli Arabs onto it! The Likud are hawks, but they are not religious-righties (with a few exceptions like Feiglin whom they finally threw under the bus!)

[iconicgnom]

19. You describe a scale that plays just one tune.

Even you can't really believe the fine points that you recite attempting to distinguish from the Judaic religion. How do you think the scale you describe, and the fine points that you argue, sound to some Palestinian watching as a Zionist rides an armoured bulldozer, clearing the new land that the Palestinian was forced to flee from? What about arguing these fine points to a Palestinian waiting at one of the many checkpoints? To a Palestinian whose child walked too close to the wall? To a Palestinian whose farm was cut by a Jewish only highway linking the myriad new settlements? Do you think that Palestinian cares that LeftishBrit calls that Zionist "secular", or some other adjective whose purpose is to obscure the fact of the matter while confusing the narrative? I don't. I think the Palestinian can see right through you.

[LeftishBrit]

21. It makes a difference in attempting to SOLVE the problem!

If one wants to stop the occupation with a peaceful solution, it does help to know people's motivations on all sides!

If you don't think the religious side is relevant, why did you bring it up? My view is that it's NOT highly relevant (at least at government level); and that a solution will have to be reached in the same way as to other land disputes.

ETA: I am disagreeing with you, not on whether the settlements are good or bad (I think they're bad), but the following:

'What, of all earthly things, of all earthly politics, could dissuade an enormously powerful group (relatively) from following what they believe to be a path defined and justified by the word of God? ... For these, value judgements re. "facts" are irrelevant to fulfilling the ineluctable will of God.'

This sounds like saying that all Zionists are religious fanatics who cannot be influenced in their actions by ordinary political solutions. It's in fact VERY reminscent of the RW culture-warriors' view of the Muslim world. In both cases, the ultimate implication is "We can only influence them by force and violence and war, as ordinary political and diplomatic solutions cannot work with them".


'the emerging modern era of a "global village" where all races and creeds must needs live together equally and harmoniously.'

It would be wonderful if this would happen - but I see no signs of it.

So are you then against ALL forms of nationalism? And how do you propose to do away with them?

[iconicgnom]

20. "Zionists are all who think that Israel should continue to exist as a Jewish homeland."

I'm not a Zionist, yet I certainly do think that the lands that Israel occupies is in *fact* a Jewish homeland. There's incontrovertable historical evidence of this.

However, I differ from every Zionist in that I don't think that this kind of *fact* can possibly be essential to any modern state cognizant of and party to basic norms of human rights. For example, I'm of Irish descent, so in that specific sense Ireland is my ancestral homeland, despite the perigrenations of some in my family tree. Again, that much is just fact -- it isn't merely "an opinion".

This sense of "homeland" does not give anyone some kind of right equivalent to "aliyah" over that geographical region after their ancestors made the break. That notion is off the table - it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to anybody.

I most certainly differ from so-called "secular Zionists" regarding this issue, too.

[LeftishBrit]

22. What solution do you advocate then?

I would advocate a return to the 67 borders (with possibly land swaps on both sides); but not the dissolution of Israel.

Even if you think the establishment of Israel was a mistake, do you honestly think it should be destroyed *now*?

[iconicgnom]

25. I'll try to answer both responses here.

And give you due respect (that you engage in honest discussion)

The establishment of a *Zionist* state was a mistake, just as the establishment of an *apartheid* state was a mistake. I know, such comparisons are always odious, but IMO we can't do without comparisons and certainly not just because they sometimes hurt.

In posts to this DU forum various supporters of Zionism (there seems to be some consensus here) have said that "anti-Zionist = anti-semite", and also "anti-Zionist = anti-Israel". There seems to be a consensus amongst those who support the Zionist ideology, that promoting these two overlapping conflations provides a sound defence against those (like me) who would directly criticize Zionism as being a (if not *the*) cause of certain difficulties requiring solution. You read right, I said "cause of ...". Both of these conflations directly misrepresent the facts regarding common usage of these terms, and both explicitly misconstrue the meaning that I and others intend when we use terms like 'Zionist' in this context. Furthermore, these conflations contain an implicit ad hominem attack on those who write anti-Zionist arguments, suggesting that we are anti-semites who agitate for the extinction of the Jewish people in the ME, and possibly worldwide. This conflation, used as a deliberate debating tactic, is deplorable. It isn't aimed at addressing any common issue, or solving any common problem.

So let's put it on the table: in my opinion "Zionist" is no more a necessary attribute of Israel, or any other country, than "apartheid" is of SA, or any other country. (When embraced by a gov't of a country) Zionism and apartheid are policies driven by ideology, and both policy and ideology can change over time, over the evolution of a same country. Just as population and any other factor might change over time.

IMO the name of a country is immaterial. What matters are the values that a country embraces, and the means by which a country goes about ensuring that its values are promoted. I no more promote or advocate for a racist Palestinian state which discriminates against Jews, or any other group(s), than I advocate for a racist state of Israel. Eliminate the racism/tribalism and a solution common to all parties is possible. When one party demands a racist ideology and political policy as an essential condition, a sine qua non to be satisfied, because that particular party believes that it benefits from this ideology and policy, it effectively demands that racist ideology and policy be forced on all parties. Because satisfying that demand forces an unsatisfactory and hurtful state of affairs on all the other parties, it follows that any state of affairs realized by satisfying that demand must necessarily be *militarily forced*, if it's to exist or continue to exist at all.

So, 1 state or 2 state or 50 state "solution" isn't the issue, IMO - the issue is the nature of those states, that they NOT be founded on racist principles as a sine qua non.

I've written enough for now. If you insist that I do so, I'll explain why to my mind the difference between "secular Zionist" and "religious Zionist" isn't immediately relevant to solving the problem caused by Zionism itself. But in short, to my mind a person's inner justifications for promoting racist politics and policies is irrelevant to the actual damage incurred by those politics and policies. On the other hand, it can't be denied that Judaism provides a theological foundation for the the idea, and that Judaism existed at historical root of the idea.