Arab-Israeli Conflict: Part 1

[weed]

The anti-semitism in this thread is shameful. .

perhaps I missed these posts, can you source where?

 

[mcveteran81]

perhaps I missed these posts, can you source where?

underneath all the veils....

 

[Rod1]

I believe this to be true as well. Military gear is definitely handy, but it's not like the MIC doesn't get billions if not trillions tossed its way every monetary cycle. 38 billion over several years is a drop in the bucket for us.

Its still money that could very well be spent in America, so Israel should be thankful to have an ally that spends money on them without expecting nothing in return.

Instead of calling them traitors when it calls Israel on chilling the fuck down.

 

[ILLogic]

A nation just a little larger then the size of Rhode Island, is not easily defensible regardless of what they have. Especially if all of their military assets are located in that same tiny area.

At some point *size* does matter when it comes to warfare. They would be in serious trouble if the ruskies, turks, and irans came knocking on there door wanting in.

Yet they haven't, and your hypothetical scenario remains just that. This makes your dismissal of the $38b in aid even more laughable since it is the reason why they don't "come knocking".

 

[IppoMakanuchi]

We've been over this.

The U.S. abstained. And it should have voted yes.

God damn the right is retarded on this issue. If you're not sucking Israel's cock 24/7, you actively support genocide against them.

The settlement expansion is illegal. It's fucking illegal. They do not own that fucking land. You can't build on land you don't fucking own.

Damn people.

 

[panamaican]

No, and that's the sticky point: the U.N consider the Israeli occupation in ALL the captured Arab/Palestinian territories beyond the 1949 Green Line to be illegal. Not just in the West Bank, but other places like the Golan Heights as well.

That is why Isael is angry: The U.N want to strong-arm them back to the original partition borders that they accepted 60 years ago, but the Arabs rejected and went to war over.

But didn't Israel adopt this settlement strategy in an attempt to force the issue? Sort of like our illegal immigration conversation - they're already here/there and it would cost too much to remove them therefore let them stay.

This is where the 2 positions strike me as not particularly favorable to Israel. If, and that's a big if, they are building new settlements specifically to force the issue...why would anyone, except Israel, defend that (it would just be squatting on an international level)? If they're not purposely encroaching on this land then I can completely understand their position.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

The anti-semitism in this thread is shameful. .

Antisemitism floats around the war room from time to time for sure.

 

[Arkain2K]

Kerry Rebukes Israel, Calling Settlements a Threat to Peace
By DAVID E. SANGER
DEC. 28, 2016

​

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Wednesday that the Israeli government was undermining any hope of a two-state solution to its decades-long conflict with the Palestinians, and said that the American vote in the United Nations last week was driven by an effort to save Israel from “the most extreme elements” in its own government.

With only 23 days left as secretary of state, Mr. Kerry, the former presidential candidate who made the search for peace in the Middle East one of the driving missions of his four years as secretary, spoke with clear frustration about Mr. Netanyahu’s continued support of settlements “strategically placed in locations that make two states impossible.” But he spoke knowing that the incoming administration of President-elect Donald J. Trump may well abandon the key principles that the United States has used for decades of Middle East negotiations.

“The status quo is leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation,” Mr. Kerry said, his voice animated. He argued that Israel, with a growing Arab population, could not survive as both a Jewish state and a democratic state unless it embraced the two-state approach that a succession of American presidents have advocated.

The speech came at a moment of tension between the United States and Israel, on a scale rarely seen since President Harry S. Truman recognized the fragile Israeli state in May 1948. In a direct response to Mr. Netanyahu’s barb over the weekend that “friends don’t take friends to the Security Council,” a reference to the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from a resolution condemning the building of new settlements in disputed territory, Mr. Kerry said the United States acted out of a deeper understanding of the alliance.

“Some seem to believe that the U.S. friendship means the U.S. must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words, our own principles — even after urging again and again that the policy must change,” he said. “Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect.”

Mr. Kerry usually speaks in the careful words of diplomacy, being careful not to publicly name names, or put choices in the harshest terms. He dropped most of those niceties on Wednesday, especially about Mr. Netanyahu’s government.

“The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-state solution, but his current coalition is the most right wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its most extreme elements,” he said. “The result is that policies of this government — which the prime minister himself just described as ‘more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history’ — are leading in the opposite direction, towards one state.”

It was a remarkable moment in the American-Israeli relationship, and it was a remarkable moment for Mr. Kerry.

With his presidential hopes dashed after his loss to George W. Bush in the 2004 election, Mr. Kerry saw his time as secretary of state as a chance to make a true change in the Middle East. In three weeks, his near-constant travels around the world will end and his energetic diplomacy will suddenly terminate. He has one major accomplishment under his belt — the Iran nuclear deal — but he could not achieve his goals on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, or in the Syrian civil war.

Mr. Kerry cast himself as one of Israel’s greatest friends, and cited a lifelong commitment to the country. But he said he had to “save the two-state solution while there was still time.”

“We did not take this decision lightly,” he said of the United Nations vote.

For Mr. Kerry, the speech was also a rueful valedictory. As soon as he took over from Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in 2013, he plunged into the tar pit of Middle East peace negotiations with an enthusiasm neither his predecessor nor President Obama shared. The goal was a nine-month negotiation leading to a “final status” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the summer of 2014.

It never got that far. Despite scores of meetings between Mr. Kerry and his two main interlocutors, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Kerry and his lead mediators, Martin Indyk and Frank Lowenstein, could not make progress. They blamed both sides for taking actions that undermined the process, but the continued expansion of the settlements was one of their leading complaints — an effort, in the American and European view, to establish “facts on the ground” so that territory could not be traded away.

In the years since, the population of the settlements has expanded rapidly. The effort to get talks going again never gained the slightest momentum. But Mr. Kerry’s warning, that a collapse would lead to another intifada, also did not come true. Instead it has led to stagnation and a hardening of positions.

Mr. Kerry wanted to deliver Wednesday’s speech more than two years ago, current and former aides say. But he was blocked from doing so by the White House, which saw little value in further angering Mr. Netanyahu, who has opposed any speech that might limit Israel’s negotiating room or become the basis for a United Nations Security Council resolution to guide the terms of a “final status” deal.

Now, after a remarkable confrontation with Israel after the Security Council’s passage of a resolution condemning Israeli settlements as a flagrant violation of international law, Mr. Kerry appears to have concluded there is nothing left to lose.

Mr. Netanyahu has accused the United States of “orchestrating” the vote, and his aides have said that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama effectively stabbed Israel in the back. Israeli officials have said they have evidence that the United States organized the resolution, which the State Department denies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/us/politics/john-kerry-israel-palestine-peace.html

 

[ILLogic]

underneath all the veils....

Quote the antisemitism or retract your accusation. Simple.

 

[Rozko]

No, and that's the sticky point: the U.N consider the Israeli occupation in ALL the captured Arab/Palestinian territories beyond the 1949 Green Line (euphemistically referred to as the "Pre-1967 borders") that they gained during the Arabs-Isarelis wars to be illegal. Not just in the West Bank, but other places like the Golan Heights as well.

That is why Isael is angry: The U.N want to strong-arm them back to the original partition borders that they accepted 60 years ago, but the Arabs rejected and went to war over.

Israel won the land in 2 wars the UN can pound sand.

 

[ILLogic]

underneath all the veils....

Cowardly

 

[mcveteran81]

Its still money that could very well be spent in America, so Israel should be thankful to have an ally that spends money on them without expecting nothing in return.

Instead of calling them traitors when it calls Israel on chilling the fuck down.

You realize that the U.N is trying to have the lines drawn back to 1947 and would totally f*ck Israel in every way conceivable? They have every right to be pissed, no one gives a damn about money when you have no place to lay your head or you have to worry about it getting caved in. Rhode Island nation just got allot smaller man, this should be a no brainier.

 

[mcveteran81]

Yet they haven't, and your hypothetical scenario remains just that. This makes your dismissal of the $38b in aid even more laughable since it is the reason why they don't "come knocking".

You would be a fool to trust in the benevolence of your neighboring nations around you, especially when your sitting on a jackpot of gas and oil. Start thinking a little more critically man. 38 billion for a few years is shit compared to the strategic nightmare in country location and now U.N policy they face that will greatly outlive the poultry 38 Benjamins they got.

Think outside the box for once.

 

[weed]

underneath all the veils....

by your logic, then Netanyahu & co. are anti-Americans. calling our president a traitor, undermining him etc. that's the truth of the matter.

being an anti-American is worse than being an anti-semite, & every other form of racism & prejudice. why? because we are a nation made up of people from all over the world. you hate on America, you hate on all of us. & Israel has made it clear she doesn't give a fuck about the rest of the world.

 

[Orgasmo]

The issue will resolve itself when Arabs become the majority of Israel's population in 30 years. I doubt Israel would even exist 50 years later. Less than 6.5 million Jews surrounded by 400 million Arabs. The outcome is inevitable.

 

[mcveteran81]

by your logic, then Netanyahu & co. are anti-Americans. calling our president a traitor, undermining him etc. that's the truth of the matter.

being an anti-American is worse than being an anti-semite, & every other form of racism & prejudice. why? because we are a nation made up of people from all over the world. you hate on America, you hate on all of us. & Israel has made it clear she doesn't give a fuck about the rest of the world.

The rest of the world clearly does not give a "f*ck" about them either so what's your point? You actually think americans approve of what Obama has done. You would be surprised Nate Diaz style my friend.

 

[Arkain2K]

But didn't Israel adopt this settlement strategy in an attempt to force the issue?

No, the Israelis couldn't care less about the issue anymore. They've won. The State of Israel is recognized internationally, minus a handful of backwater Arab countries which they don't really care about. Now they're just slowly building on the formerly Arabs land that they gained during the wars against the Arab invaders. This is the status quo @Kafir-kun spoke of earlier.

The table has turned, so to speak. Now it is the Arabs and Palestinians who are desperate for a Two-State solution, begging and praying for the same 1949 borders that Israel once accepted while the Arabs and Palestinians rejected and waged wars over.

 

[gespenst]

Israel betrayed Obama when Netanyahu came and spoke to our congress to undermine our nuclear deal with Iran.

It was actually Iran's deal. In no place it is "our" deal. Or you are speaking from there?

Also, did you ever read Podesta emails internal assessment of this "deal", dumbass?

 

[weed]

The rest of the world clearly does not give a "f*ck" about them either so what's your point? You actually think americans approve of what Obama has done. You would be surprised Nate Diaz style my friend.

your logic is off. the rest of the world is tired of Israel's shit. the rest of the world > Israel.

if you don't think our relationship with Israel is unAmerican I don't know what to tell you.

 

[panamaican]

No, the Israelis couldn't care less about the issue anymore. They've won. Now they're just slowly building on the land that they gained after the wars. This is the status quo @Kafir-kun spoke of earlier.

The table has turned, so to speak. Now it is the Arabs and Palestinians who are desperate for a Two-State solution.

See, I thought the settlement issue started as some Israelis trying to force the issue without the government support by occupying land and then over time the government started funding people to occupy the land.

If that's true then why the change of posture from the government? Also, isn't this a relatively recent development given when the war ended?