UN chief warns Israeli settlement could prevent Palestinian state

[MarkLaw]

Source: The Globe and mail(Canadian)

“I am deeply troubled by Israel’s continuing settlement activity in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem,” Ban said, speaking at a news conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. “The settlement activity is deepening the Palestinian people’s mistrust in the seriousness on the Israeli side toward achieving peace. It will ultimately render a two-state solution impossible.”

The five-year break in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations was largely due to a dispute over settlements. Abbas insisted on a settlement freeze as a condition for talks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the demand, arguing that all issues should be raised in negotiations with the Palestinians.

Under U.S. pressure, Abbas eventually agreed to return to talks without a settlement freeze, though Abbas aides have said the Obama administration assured them it would try to restrain Israeli construction. Amid expectations of a slowdown, Israel’s recent announcements about new settlement plans prompted particular anger among Palestinian negotiators. Israeli officials argued that much of the new construction is planned in areas Israel expects to keep in any peace deal.

The current round of negotiations is the third attempt since 2000 to set up a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Negotiators are to draw borders, including one running through Jerusalem, agree on security arrangements and decide on the fate of millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/un-chief-warns-israeli-settlement-could-prevent-palestinian-state/article13791764/

---

The U.N. Chief, as well as Kerry and other world leaders, are repeating this same thing more often.

“The settlement activity is deepening the Palestinian people’s mistrust in the seriousness on the Israeli side toward achieving peace. It will ultimately render a two-state solution impossible.”

Kerry's warning about becoming "isolated" isn't being taken seriously.
Washington has the power to force concessions. Military and financial support could be limited or restricted in order to hasten a resolution to the dispute.

[on point]

1. Not really. The settlements will be in kind reparations to the Palestinians when Israel retreats

[sulphurdunn]

3. Retreat?

Who is going to make them retreat? The US? The idea is laughable. The Palestinian state distraction has been suckering the rubes for generations. The relentless reconquest of the "Promised Land" will continue unabated by the descendants of the same Zealots who stole it from its rightful owners thirty centuries ago.

[HumansAndResources]

8. They Demolished Everything when they left Gaza

They left nothing but rubble behind the last time. I would expect the same if and when the Palestinians in the West Bank ever get a sliver of their former territory returned to them.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. No, they did not.

They left a number of things, including greenhouses which were destroyed by Palestinians. They were asked to destroy a number of things when they left by the Palestinian government.

[branford]

2. Kerry's warnings are meaningless, and Ban is even less relevant.

This is simply a repeat of old news. Kerry is not convincing either the American or Israeli domestic audiences.

Simply, Israel is a popular, bipartisan domestic issue in the USA, both with the electorate at large and, most certainly, with Congress. Yes, Washington can force Israeli concessions. HOWEVER, the political costs to do so for the party in power would be dramatic, and the concessions, likely reversible. Republican would like nothing more than actual, public threats to Israel from Kerry (or better yet, Obama) before the 2014 mid-term elections. There is a reason why Obama went to Israel after his re-election, and does not mention the issue in his public comments (Egypt, Syria, Libya and our own domestic economic priorities also take precedence).

[MarkLaw]

4. Subsidizing Israel is not popular among American liberals.

Should Obama force concessions and establish a Palestinian state, everyone would be glad to would move onto more more pertinent domestic issues such as subsidizing employment growth, education, health care and providing more financial support to those who need it.

Obama would be lauded as a hero and relationships with regional allies would become less tense.

[branford]

5. Not popular? Really?

I live in NYC, and am politically active in the northeast. Most Democrats and liberals in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts that I've worked with are very pro-Israel. More importantly, virtually all the elected officials in the region are vocally and undeniably pro-Israel. Much of the west coast Democratic strongholds hold similar views as the northeast.

Never forget when Netanyahu spoke to a joint session of Congress he was repeatedly given a standing ovation by the entire chamber. Boehner and Pelosi looked liked bosom buddies as they effusively praised Bibi. Few presidents get such a welcome in Congress. When Obama chose Israel as his first overseas trip after re-election, it was certainly no coincidence.

Some liberals and Democrats certainly do not favor Israel, but most polls state that the majority do, at least in comparison to the Palestinians. Most conservative and independents also strongly favor Israel. Particularly given the intractable nature of the dispute at this time, few politicians of either party will burn any political capital in an attempt to settle the Israel / Palestinian problem.

Lastly, American politicians are only tangentially concerned about our "regional allies." Regardless of whether they are undemocratic Arab regimes with long histories of violent antisemitism or more peaceful Europeans, these citizens have no vote in any of our elections. Such is the nature of democracy.

[cpwm17]

6. Your definition of "liberal" is very different than many here on DU

I consider adherence to the Golden Rule central to being liberal, you obviously have other ideas.

[branford]

7. We may very well disagree on the definition of "liberal."

I think it really may be more of a "liberal" vs. far-left dichotomy. Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders and Bob Menendez, however, are certainly very liberal and strongly pro-Israel, as just a few examples.

More importantly, I think that it is incontrovertible that the mainstream Democratic Party is very pro-Israel, and that this position reflects wider, popular trends among the general American electorate. You certainly may not agree with Israeli positions or the American support, but it is a political reality unlikely to change in the near future. It is one of the very few issues that actually enjoys real bipartisan support. In an era where D and R's cannot agree on a name for a post office, this support is quite astonishing.

As such, I stand by my original analysis of Kerry and Ban's remarks and the unlikelihood of risky American action in the region.

[MarkLaw]

12. Politicians support Israel. The electorate

Whether it be tea partiers, leftists, liberals etc are largely anti-war and anti Israeli-Apartheid.

Are you trying to tell me that American Liberals support policies like this?

It’s stunning to look around the globe—and in the U.S.—and see the things that governments and individuals are still getting away with in the treatment of women. We were shocked to see that the Israeli government is now acknowledging a government practice of injecting Ethiopian women immigrating to Israel with a long-acting contraceptive and telling them they couldn’t come into the country if they didn’t take the shot. But it appears that in most cases, the government didn’t tell the women what the shot was, so many of them thought they were being vaccinated.
The Times of Israel details the case of a nurse — captured by a hidden camera in a health clinic — telling an Ethiopian woman that the shot is given to Ethiopian immigrants because “they forget, they don’t understand, and it’s hard to explain to them, so it’s best that they receive a shot once every three months … basically they don’t understand anything.”
http://mybrownbaby.com/2013/01/shocking-story-in-israel-ethiopian-women-given-contraceptive-shots-without-their-knowledge/

[branford]

13. Citations to anecdotes do not change political reality.

Let's try this: Do American liberal support suicide bombers blowing-up pizzerias or firing missile at civilians. It's a game that no one can win, and at this point, few care to play.

You can believe that everyone you know is anti-Israel, or should be, but basic polling and election results seem to flatly contradict your assertions. If what you say even had a sliver of truth, politicians of both parties would recoil at the mere thought of supporting Israel to protect their re-election prospects. To even make such a suggestion concerning American politics would be ludicrous.

I would also be weary of speaking for all liberals, or even most liberals, no less tea partiers, etc. As I stated previously, I'm politically active in NYC and much of the surrounding region, and support for Israel is almost an article of faith among local Party members. I certainly don't think Israel is less popular in conservative areas of the country given how many Republicans and Tea Partiers seem more pro-Israel than many Israelis.

[MarkLaw]

15. The link in my last post shows Democratic representatives rejecting Israeli gov. policy.

Last edited Fri Aug 16, 2013, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Polls, well polls say whatever the News outlet that is reporting them wants them to say.

Do American liberal support suicide bombers blowing-up pizzerias or firing missile at civilians. It's a game that no one can win, and at this point, few care to play.

Well Liberals generally support diplomacy first, but if their land was colonized by Europeans, Liberals would fight back as hard as anyone else. Most liberals see that Israel has obstinately defied international law, imprisoned Gazans and appropriated land that belonged to Palestinians. Liberals did not support South African apartheid, and they don't support Israeli apartheid. They may not like the fact that Palestinians have to fight back, but generally Liberals support anyone's right to fight back against oppression and Colonizing forces. Liberals of today certainly would not have supported the annihilation of Native American tribes by English colonialist forces, the situation in Palestine is similar.

[branford]

17. You seem certain of what "liberals" support.

My fellow Democratic party members here in NYC are most certainly VERY liberal, yet would likely not agree with your definitions, nor appreciate you telling them what is, or is not, appropriate to support or oppose.

It appears that you are expressing what you believe liberals should support. Your are free to advocate those views, but they clearly do not prevail in the party. If they did, our policies, and not just regarding Israel, would be substantially different.

As to your video, I certainly never stated that no Democratic representatives were highly critical of Israel. However, for every video of an odd representative who is vocally anti-Israel, I could link to dozens of recent pro-Israel comments by President Obama and Vice-President Biden. There aren't enough hours in the day for all the pro-Israel material from the Senate, vast majority of the House, or various governors and local officials, from both parties.

[MarkLaw]

18. Take the eviction from territories that were ancestrally farmed, it's not a liberal thing to do.

This isn't a liberal policy, and It's isn't a policy U.S. liberals support. Compare it to the liberal view on Native Americans. Colonization is wrong, genocide is wrong, and when something wrong is done you are required to acknowledge the wrong and compensate the victims. Most liberals support the expansion of tribal lands and sustenance building investments in education, housing, information access and heath care.

When the fact's of the situation are presented to voters, they would reject $taxpayer$ subsidization of foreign nations while U.S. citizens are left to tread water in a contracted economy.

As to your video, I certainly never stated that no Democratic representatives were highly critical of Israel. However, for every video of an odd representative who is vocally anti-Israel, I could link to dozens of recent pro-Israel comments by President Obama and Vice-President Biden. There aren't enough hours in the day for all the pro-Israel material from the Senate, vast majority of the House, or various governors and local officials, from both parties.

Thanks for pointing that out! Special interests RULE at the legislative level. Lobbyists buy votes, its that simple. Politicians do and say whatever is necessary in front of a camera, Largely lying to the same degree they did while campaigning.


The video is representative of people organizing for the Democratic party, not lobbyists or politicians.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't add up. You are saying that liberals largely support neoconservative policies.
Fortunately in my experience this hasn't been the case.

[branford]

19. You keep on arguing what you believe liberals --should-- believe.

You are free to advocate your positions as zealously as you wish, but there is no "liberal police" that determines what all liberals must, or even should, believe. There are obviously many areas of common agreement (e.g., abortion rights, progressive taxes, etc.), but on some issues there will inevitably be disagreement, such as support for Israel and gun rights.

You can yell "Special Interest" all you like, but such overwhelming, bipartisan support, repeatedly supported by polling, is not a product of my imagination or the result of some secret cabal. You may just have to acknowledge that you have a minority viewpoint, and seek to convince others of the value of your opinions rather act self-righteously and demanding some sort of ideological purity.

[MarkLaw]

20. I listed evidence of Liberal thought and viewpoints that contradict support of Israeli Subsidization

You can yell "Special Interest" all you like, but such overwhelming, bipartisan support, repeatedly supported by polling, is not a product of my imagination or the result of some secret cabal.

100% of voters earning less than 40,000 dollars a year understand that $Money$ motivates D.C.. We also understand that the media wholly represents different but specific corporate interests.

[branford]

21. I never claimed all liberals support Israel, only that it is a very divisive topic.

And, based upon firmly established American policy, the positions of almost all our elected representatives of both parties and long-time, broad based polling, the majority view strongly appears to favor strong support for Israel.

I do not in any way doubt the sincerity or strength of your beliefs about the issue. We happen to disagree, and that is fine. I assume given our mutual membership on DU, that we agree on most other liberal and Democratic issues.

[MarkLaw]

11. Meanwhile at the DNC Israel was denounced along with their policies

Liberals want an end end to subsidization of conflict and genocide. Whether it be Israeli genocide and apartheid, or Saudi state officials terrorizing Saudi citizens.

Liberals do not support RELIGIOUS NATIONS. Israel is a theocratic religious state, it is defined as a Jewish nation.

Lastly, American politicians are only tangentially concerned about our "regional allies." Regardless of whether they are undemocratic Arab regimes with long histories of violent antisemitism or more peaceful Europeans, these citizens have no vote in any of our elections. Such is the nature of democracy.

Providing weapons, billions of dollars in taxpayer aid every year shows that legislators in D.C. are more concerned with the Saudi, Israeli and Egyptian leadership.

If they were more concerned with the American electorate, THEY WOULD SUBSIDIZE US AND OUR COUNTRY, not subsidize religious states full of people that hate us.

I live in NYC, and am politically active in the northeast. Most Democrats and liberals in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts that I've worked with are very pro-Israel. More importantly, virtually all the elected officials in the region are vocally and undeniably pro-Israel. Much of the west coast Democratic strongholds hold similar views as the northeast.

Most Liberals in Nyc and NY do not support Israel. Neo-cons like bloombug and his ilk support Israel, and as far as the media is concerned, bloombug is NY.

[Civilization2]

10. Same endless migration to a fully Jewish Palestine. There is nothing but stalling till it is done..,

How many GENERATIONS do we have to watch this dance of lies,. there is no, zero, intention of giving up an inch of Palestine to the Palestinians, the Israelis want it all, and with the aid of the US of A will take it all.

It is called migration when you keep the pressure on the local population, the oppressive treatment, the murders, and the taking of lands, and the destruction of homes, etc. to push them out. The eventual elimination of the Palestinians and the usurpation of all their lands and properties. Clearly with the continued oppression and "settlements" nothing has changed in the least. A religious state can never be a democracy.

Just my opinion make of it what you wish.

[geek tragedy]

14. The Israelis are deeply unserious about a negotiated resolution They see it as unnecessary--the

wall, the checkpoints, and the IDF are what they consider to be negotiations.

[MarkLaw]

16. Heres a vid where Netanyahoo says he won't abide by Oslo accords and American can be swayed

He never had any intention limit settlements, he only ever intended to Expand the territory so foreign settlers could occupy Palestinian land.
Netanyahoo walks in at .32

He dismisses the US as “easily moved to the right direction” and calls high levels of popular American support for Israel “absurd”.

He also suggests that, far from being defensive, Israel’s harsh military repression of the Palestinian uprising was designed chiefly to crush the Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat so that it could be made more pliable for Israeli diktats.