Biden Says Israel Settlements Raise Questions About Commitment To Peace

[Purveyor]

Source: Reuters

Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:35pm IST
By Patricia Zengerle

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden called on Israel's government on Sunday to demonstrate its commitment to a two-state solution to end the conflict with the Palestinians and said settlement expansion is weakening prospects for peace.

"Israel's government's steady and systematic process of expanding settlements, legalizing outposts, seizing land, is eroding in my view the prospect of a two-state solution," Biden said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a leading pro-Israel lobbying group.

Biden said he did not agree with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government that expanded settlements would not interfere with any effort to settle the conflict.

"Bibi (Netanyahu) thinks it can be accommodated, and I believe he believes it. I don't," Biden said.

Read more: http://in.reuters.com/article/israel-palestinians-usa-idINKCN0WN04M

[elleng]

1. Good.

[hollysmom]

2. long over due comment

[oberliner]

11. The comment has been made frequently

Biden and other members of the Obama administration (including the president himself) have said the same thing for quite some time.

[RiverNoord]

15. But then they nonetheless pledge allegiance to the 'eternal'

American commitment to be 'Israel's strongest ally.'

Isn't that... a bit disturbing? I don't believe any American president has ever declared an 'eternal' commitment to another nation, in any respect. If we are so utterly committed to the 'security' of Israel, why don't we have a ratified treaty stating such. I mean, 'eternal' is a pretty big deal - shouldn't that be backed up with the actual force of treaty?

[geek tragedy]

17. That sort of comment won't be made by Hillary's administration though. nt

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. he wanted to say

Your actions prove you are lying.

He's learned to tone it down, lol.

[giftedgirl77]

4. 😂😂😂

[Spitfire of ATJ]

5. Watch AIPAC claim Biden wants to march all Jews into the ovens.

[oberliner]

9. It was Huckabee who made that remark

And it was in reference to the Iran deal.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. Drama queens all.

[Xolodno]

6. Only thing Bibi cares about is Bibi.

He wants to hold on to power as long as he can. Agitating the Palestinians keeps the violence up, which keeps the fear up....which plays into the Israeli electorate. If he made a peace deal and the violence was quelled, they would actually start paying attention to their economic issues....which would no doubt give him the boot.

And then there is the other issue, Hamas. Lets face it, there probably isn't a peaceful solution there between PA and them.

[EndElectoral]

7. I wonder if Hillary will echo Biden's sentiments to AIPAC

[TowneshipRebellion]

25. What do you think

the answer to that question is? Somehow I think Drumpf and Clinton are shucking and jiving for AIPAC's blessings just like the good little corporatists they are. Sanders basically told them where to go with his absence.

[floppyboo]

30. she called BDS malicious

and something to the effect of universities being punished for supporting it. Bleah

[markj757]

8. I'm going to miss a lot about the Obama administration....

but his willingness to give Bibi the diplomatic finger after being repeatedly lied to and insulted, is one of the things I will miss the most. It's the first time in my adult life we had a President who spoke the truth about how the world views Israel's policy and treatment of the Palestinians. And put America's national security above all else in the middle east, for example the Iran deal. Hillary is already kissing Israel's butt, and she hasn't even won the primary. I swear if Trump wasn't such an asshole I would at least think about voting for him because of this issue alone. I'm just going to have a hard time going back to how things were with Israel before Obama. We are going back to a President pushing a false narrative that Israel can do no wrong, while the Palestinians can do nothing right. I'm just so disgusted with Hillary's speech to AIPAC.

[oberliner]

10. Obama's speech to AIPAC was the same as Hillary's speech

Here it is:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

In fact Obama's speech was a bit more hawkish than Hillary's.

[geek tragedy]

20. No it wasn't.

Obama:

Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps — consistent with its security — to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements — as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis.

Clinton:

Everyone has to do their part by avoiding damaging actions, including with respect to settlements.

Clinton either (a) doesn't give a fuck about Palestinian men, women and children or (b) is pretending to not care about them in order to pander to supporters of Israel.

By the numbers:

Mentions of Palestinians' rights, injuries, deaths, suffering, or needs: Zero.

Mentions of "Palestinian terrorists": 2

There's zero daylight between Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu, other than Netanyahu gives the two-state solution better lip service.

[oberliner]

23. Yes it was

Obama:

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

Clinton makes no such demands. In fact, she does not even mention Jerusalem at any point in the speech, nor does she say that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

[geek tragedy]

24. Clinton couldn't even put "Israel" and "settlements" in the same sentence. nt

[markj757]

22. Please don't make it seem....

as if there is no difference between him and Hillary on this issue. Obama went to AIPAC and told them that the final deal for a 2 state solution with Palestinians will be based on the 1967 lines with some mutually agreed upon swaps, and was booed. He spoke a few times in front of AIPAC. But more than his speeches in front of AIPAC, his policies and how he has governed including his often tense relationship with Bibi speaks for itself. And if given the opportunity, I think he will support a UN Israel-Palestine Resolution before he leaves office.

[RiverNoord]

13. And that's about as far as a US. Politican can go, for some reason.

I mean, the United States has an absolute (but completely informal) commitment to the 'security' of the state of Israel, and every U.S. President apparently must state this on a regular basis.

So... Just exactly how far do our non-treaty-based absolute commitment to Israel's 'security' extend? Is there some point at which an American Vice President could say 'The government of Israel is engaged in activity which the government of the United States can no longer permit, and thus all military aid provided by the United States shall immediately cease?'

Is it... ever? What would it take? Would a complete massacre of all non-Jewish residents of the Occupied Territories of Gaza and the West Bank result in a statement like 'We do not consider the actions of the Israeli government to be conducive to a two-state solution?' Or... the expulsion of all non-Jewish citizens of Israel? Over half of the Jewish population of Israel is now in favor of this.

We do have a ratified treaty committing us and the nation of Turkey to each others' mutual defense. It's called NATO. But, when Israel committed a massacre of nine Turkish citizens and one American citizen by boarding Turkish-, American-, and Greek-flagged civilian vessels in international waters, which is an act of war, what did we do? Nothing.

So what is the basis of this seemingly eternal and unconditional commitment of the United States?

[oberliner]

14. What do you think the answer is?

In your view, what is the basis of this seemingly eternal and unconditional commitment of the United States?

[RiverNoord]

19. If I knew, why would I ask?

I sincerely don't. I don't know if it's rooted in the early 20th century Zionist movement, a direct consequence of the Holocaust, which we and our allies brought to an end, based on some sort of religious affinity (which would be quite odd, considering the Christian history of pogroms against Jews), or the fact that they have the bomb and have stated their willingness to deploy it given a much lower threat threshold than any other nuclear-armed state in the world except North Korea.

So... again, I don't know - do you have an opinion on this?

[oberliner]

21. I thought you might have a theory

I think it had to do mostly with US vs. USSR shenanigans in the 1950s and then just grew from there through security cooperation and then research, marketing, and technology cooperation more recently. Among certain religious Christians there are also various (dubious to my mind) theological reasons for the US to support Israel. The US-UK relationship is also seen as being "special" even though it doesn't necessarily provide much in the way of material benefit at this point in time. I guess the question always is should US foreign policy be based on national interest alone, or human rights, or some combination of the two or what.

[RiverNoord]

26. I didn't really have a theory, although you've helped by sharing.

Thanks for that. The dubious American fundamentalist 'Jesus appears when Israel has occupied enough land' element is bizarre, but I don't see it as viable driver of our foreign policy, as much as a tool used to whip up support for it.

I do fully agree with you that US foreign policy should be based primarily on national interest, especially when military resources are involved, as well as human rights - meaning, to me, when people with little power to resist a dangerous domination of a belligerent group, military intervention may be appropriate.

I'm not certain I agree with your assessment of the US-UK relationship, as we do have a very long history of conflict (both as foes and allies), trade, a shared primary language, as well as a legal system largely adapted from British origins (except for Louisiana). And... there's Dr. Who.

And we do have a formal, ratified mutual defense treaty with the UK.

[BillZBubb]

29. The UK rarely kicks us in the gonads when we ask for something of them.

And the UK rarely asks us for anything. That is indeed a special and useful relationship.

[SoapBox]

16. Well...

Duh!

[lark]

18. Peace is the last thing in the world little murderer and his ilk want.

WAR
WAR
WAR
is what they dream of and promote constantly. The settlements are a way of showing that even though we give them billions of $$, they have zero respect for us and use our money to break the law and steal Palestinian land and kill the Palestinians who try to stand up to them.

[Thespian2]

27. Yep! Good response...

Turn off the US money faucet pouring our tax dollars into Israel and see what Bibi does then...

[BillZBubb]

28. No Joe, it doesn't raise questions--IT PROVIDES THE ANSWER.

Likudnik Israel has no intention of pursuing any peace that doesn't give them EVERYTHING they want.

[greymouse]

31. I am shocked, shocked that someone would think the illegal Israeli settlements weaken the prospects

for peace. Actually I am shocked that anyone apparently thinks the Israelis give a damn what anyone thinks as they continue their ethnic cleansing.

[Vote2016]

32. no fucking shit

[Chemisse]

33. Good for Biden!

It's unfortunate that only a person NOT running for office can state the obvious.