.

negotiations blowing up over obnoxious interference from loudmouth right-wingers in the US, Israel, and Arab countries.

Butch Cassidy offers to give up "some money" from his crew's heists for no prosecution.

Vladimir Putin agrees to give up "some parts" of Crimea to prevent sanctions

Saddam Hussein agrees to let "some Shia" live to lessen southern no-fly zone

Mississippi to allow "some negros" to walk in public to reduce national guard presence

Hamas says will halt "some rockets" for cease-fire agreement

Pragmatically, a few of the big ones right on the border will probably have to stay, but those deep inside the West Bank will have to be removed in any reasonable deal. Ariel in particular.

Bargaining chips. Hollow gesture, imo.

I don't believe a word he said.

the reason...the REASON Israel built those settlements in the first place was for negotiations later - which is now. It was so frigging transparent the entire time while the bombings of the cafes were going on, while the rockets were raining down on the Kibbutzim, while all the terrorist activity which many here term Freedom fighting was ongoing, Israel, always ahead of everyone else, was setting itself up for negotiating with its enemies by stretching as far as she could in every direction. Now, she will wind up giving back some of this land if a proposal is accepted and everyone will live in peace.

...and in other fairy tales,...

just remember what King Hussein said...that is King Hussein of Jordan, not Bibi, not Golda, not Ehud, not Abba: (And I'm only slightly paraphrasing) If the Israelis were to cede all of their land except for nine square inches, then those nine square inches would incite thousands of Israel's enemies to fight and die for that tiny 'territory'.

Truer words never spoken...and he certainly knew wherefrom he spoke.

But we shall see...with all the attention on the potential End of the World in Ukraine, it would be just the right time for the Israelis to offer a peace plan that would be considered reasonable by most civilized folk. As y'all know here, I have my own theories on THAT around these parts, which I will keep to myself for the moment.

Thus Israel truly has no rational basis to demand being allowed to keep any amount of them. It'd be like a car theif demanding to be paid back for the rims and spoiler he put on the car he stole. Just nonsense.

There's a lot else in there that the casual observer - who let's be honest, receives exactly one heavily biased perspective of the situation, in the US - tends to not know, about the legal statuses of things.

is not perceived as any sort of legal issue with which many wish to deal. So actions have consequences, whether one likes them or not. They weren't going to play pattycake with the hostiles, they made them pay a price on many fronts. Too bad.

Now they want to talk because their cause, if they don't have a rapprochement, is hopeless for the forseeable future and beyond. People forget that after the turning of the tide in the Yom Kippur War, where Israel was attacked on its holiest day, Israel could have annihilated the attackers but did not. I would submit that if the tables had been turned, Eretz Yisroel would have been turned into a lifeless cinder.

Israel only gets one major mistake. The oppopsing armies have had dozens and have reconstituted themselves over and over again.

This has diddle-squat to do with the legality of the settlements. Under no rubric of logic can you argue that two wrongs make a right. Nor can you tell me that the entire population of Palestine deserves to be penalized for the actions of some of their number, any more than israelis do.



Just who "they" are could be a matter of some debate. Right now it's true that the Palestinians don't have a lot to work with... but the Israelis have painted themselves into a hell of a corner too. They want to keep their West bank settlements... but the only way for even some of those to stay is if the Palestinians agree to land swaps - which both sides have been more or less amenable to (the sticking point is what land, where, and how much.) if the Palestinians don't agree to Israel's demands - and mind they are under no obligation to do so, as it is Palestinian territory being illegally confiscated - then Israel can either take it what the Palestinians say - losing those settlements - or israel can leave it, the talks fall apart, and option B becomes a very real possibility - a merging of the two to form a binational state. The israelis regard this as a loss.



Sinai and Golan were not part of Israel. Israel was not attacked; Israeli forces in occupied Egyptian and Syrian territory were, in an effort to get them out of that territory, by the nations to whom the territory belonged.



The need for US intervention on Israel's behalf in 1973 casts some serious doubt on the first part of the claim - and congratulations, Israel didn't slaughter hundreds and thousands of people, what an achievement. For the second part, that's just bullshit based on your own biases and assumptions rather than anything factual.



Have they, now? I'm sorry but are you living in 1951 or something? What opposing armies? Since the Armistice in 1949, Israel has only fougght the armies of Syria and Egypt - when Israel invaded Egypt in 1956, when Israel attacked Egypt in 1967 (which also resulted in some Jordanian forces being activated, as Israel invaded and occupied the West bank as well), and when Syria and Egypt attacked the territories occupied by Israel. Both times that Israel invaded Lebanon - 1978 and 1982 - there was no Lebanese military to speak of (there still isn't, really - Lebanon is a really weird country, even when it's peaceful.) I suppose if you want to count Iraq's scud missile attacks in '91, there's that.

There are no "opposing armies." Jordan and Egypt dangle off Israel's teats like starving piglets. There's no Lebanese military worth mention. Saudi Arabia wants desperately to get in good with Israel. iraq and Syria clearly have their own damned problems - and even prior to 2010, Assad had made it clear he sought diplomatic solutions to the standing war footing between Israel and Syria, rather than military.

As for mistakes, mistakes seem to be all that Israel knows how to make these days. It's what happens when you're one ofthose nations fortunate enough to have a big brother keeping you from dealing with the consequences of your actions.

But that's what it's all about: deflection and reiteration of inconsequential arguments all of which avoid the simple fact that Israel has the territory. Again, too bad for you.

The territory is not legally Israel's to negotiate with, to settle on, to use, to sell, or to do anything with. That Israel is doing so is a violation of international laws that Israel itself has agreed to abide by.

You didn't stop to think before typing that, so soon after the post you made prior, did you? You're aware that this is a text-based debate, and the curious reader can just scroll up to see what was said before? And you were just going on about armies and Israel not annihilating them and a bunch of other stuff completely unrelated to the issue of settlements or territory (and just to reiterate, factually wrong on their own merit.)

A little situational awareness; is it so much to ask?

it is a struggle for the survival of the only strip of land in the entire world which was designated to be a Jewish State, emanating from the Holocaust. You and your ilk see it as some rational process which you believe, or at least pretend to believe, can be resolved, basically by undermining the entire Nation. What is "too bad" for you is that this is NOT going to happen in your lifetime or the forseeable future. If Israel returned to the 67 Borders, gave back Jerusalem, including its most Holy site, relinquished all, she would be vulnerable to attacks of all types and would unquestionably have to fight more wars. Israel was attacked on her Day of Independence in 1948, and the attempts to destroy/destabilize her are unrelenting since that day. the Israelis know this because unlike Americans, they make a sincere effort not to make the same mistake fifteen times.

Now while we're at it, how come you don't ask Israel to give back the Golan Heights? It's not theirs according to your logic. And furthermore, since I live in Pennsylvania, which was not Penn's Woods until he got here and wrested it from what we now call Native Americans, but were called savages and worse, do I have to cede my property to the Leni Lenapes? You go first.

It's how the world works, despite your protestations and it will always work this way. You can gnash your teeth on a message board all you want, but it isn't a text-based...it is existence.

Here we are, debating the subject, via text. Point being, what you say can easily be re-referenced, so pretending you didn't say something, or stuff like that, ends up looking pretty silly.

If I had a dime for every time someone on the internet exploited the victims of the holocaust for an argument point, I would be a rich man indeed. Israel is in no "struggle for survival" and never has been. Even in 1948, the battle was being fought in territories occupied outside Israel.



And what exactly is my "ilk," PCIntern? Do tell, I'm always curious as to whom I am being categorized with

And sorry, but this is a legal issue, pertaining to Israel's international obligations, and the future obligations of a Palestinian state if such should arise. It is entirely rational, save for some extremists on either side - whether they be walleyed Derpa Derpa Jihad motherfuckers, or screeching nincompoops trying to capitalize on the mass murder of six million people.

If Israel's legally-binding obligations "undermine the nation," well tough shit. Israel agreed to take up those treaties, and is bound to them.



As I said, there are three options here. One of which will come to pass in my lifetime (I've got a lot left in me)

1) Israel and palestine settle the settlement issue via land swaps, resulting in new, even more wriggly lines on the map.
2) Palestine utterly rejects settlements, resulting in Israel withdrawing them, and some other settlement over borders.
3) Palestine utterly rejects settlements, but Israel refuses to accept the rejection - talks fall apart, Israel continues its expansion into the west bank, and all that's left is a binational state

seriously, those colonies are doing more to undermine the potential for a two-state solution than anything else in the world.



Armistice lines are not borders, first off. You do know this, which is why they're called "armistice lines," right? You know that Israel has never legally annexed the territory occupied by Jewish forces outside the Jewish partition line in 1947, correct? They tried at Lausanne and were shut down by the US, Turkey, and France. At least you seem to realize that Jerusalem isn't part of Israel either, which is a start.

Again, you are basing your argument on bias and ignorance. I suppose it's not your fault, there's a hell of a lot of both among Americans with regard to the subject. For instance that "indefensible borders" stuff? Nobody violated Israel's borders. Ever. Between 1949 and 2014, no one violated the armistice lines, ever - except Israel with its invasions of Egypt in '56, and its invasion of Egypt, Syria, and the west bank in '67. And of course its invasions of Lebanon. In 1973, an attempt to re-take Sinai and Golan was made by Egypt and Syria but - obviously - Sinai and Golan are no more part of Israel than Gaza or the West Bank are.

Even if the actual borders of Israel are "indefensible" (whatever that even means) this gives Israel no right to take territory from elsewhere for itself. Those are the borders it declared to the world, those are the borders the world recognized, and Israel gets to live with it until another sovereign entity agrees to cede or trade territory to Israel.

Also, whence the assumption that "Israel would unquestionably have to fight more wars?" I can only guess this is based on some sort of prejudiced view of Arabs, or that ignorant notion of Israel being a helpless, hapless babe in the desert.



Well no, aside from a single missile attack in Tel Aviv, Israel was never attacked in 1948 (there were some troop movments around lake Tiberias and in the Negev, but no related combat). Israeli forces in occupied territory were attacked. And interestingly, only because the Arab states had planned to intervene in the civil war as soon as the British ceded rule of the territory - they didn't know Israel was going to declare independence on the same day.

The goal of the Arab League was to restore order in the territory adjacent to them - ethnic civil wars are bad neighbors. Israel wound up being a monkey wrench, especially after its recognition by the three relevant powers, essentially forcing the League to adjust for piecemeal coordination in territory outside Israel, or risk censure by conducting an invasion and occupation of Israel - they opted for the former, which in addition to poor command and coordination, contributed to their loss.



This fantasy that Israel is perpetually at risk of destruction is almost as stupid as Christian Americna fantasies of being persecuted endlessly. Hell, it's less fantasy and more fetish, honestly. The only potential for israel to be "destroyed" is if you're one of those people who believe racial integration destroys a nation, meaning the potential of a binational state is "destruction." But as I pointed out above, if such an end is reached, it'll be because of Israel's own decisions.



Israel has ~221 repeated mistakes in the West Bank, mistakes it made 21 times in Gaza, three times in Sinai, and dozens of times in Golan. Israel has also invaded its neighbors eight times. I don't know how many assassinations it has carried out, but those sort of mistakes probably number more than fifteen. There are several hundred children currently in Israeli military prisons, each arrest a mistake.

As i said, mistakes are pretty much all Israel makes anymore. When you don't ever face consequences for your actions, you get sloppy, I guess.



It's not theirs according to any logic. Syria's been making this demand since 1967, and they are fully in the right to do so. Right now though Israel and Syria are not engaged in talks over the issue, while Israel and Palestine are engaged in talks over the settlements of the west bank.



With the exception of the Walking Purchase, land acquired from the Lenape in Pennsylvania was sold by them to Penn in what the lenape at least considered fair deals - and they signed on to the treaty behind the Walking Purchase, making it binding, even if it was fraud (see the 2004 and 2006 cases the Lenape brought to court.) I would argue with the court on the point of fraud being permissible, but that's an ethical rather than legal argument.

The territory Israel has "wrested" was not sold by sovereign powers (non-sovereign sellers can't cede territory to another nation; a landowner on the US-Mexican border can't alter that border, basically) and there is no treaty in place granting Israel legal title to any of that territory. Acquisition of territory through war is not permissible under the treaties binding Israel to the United nations.



I find it interesting that someone who makes frequent references to the Holocaust tries for "might makes right" arguments such as this. Again, do you think about what you're saying before you say it?

What you think or suppose. Your logic only applies to the Arab-Israeli situation. You don't give a good goddam about anything else and thus you fit the profile perfectly. Oh yes and FYI if your side had won, which it never will, you would be extolling the virtues of 'might' over, well, Israel can never do 'right' so there's no point in drawing this out.

Imagine: all that talent and brain power dedicated to plain survival. Imagine if they had just been left alone in 1948 by her enemies. The whole region would have prospered. Too bad.

This isn't a hazy or subjective subject, it's all penned out very neatly - and if you understand legalese, it's clear as day. All the fantasy and invective you spout just isn't going to change reality.

enforce. Stunningly transparent is your outrage. Not a word out of you folk when your favorite regimes annihilate whole groups or stone women who have 'transgressed'. No, you save your anger for the Jews.

Neither new nor original.

As I said. Your attempts to get personal aren't changing any facts at hand, PCIntern. Israel's settlements are in violation of laws Israel has itself agreed to abide by. It has zero legal ground to demand to keep them.

Your selective and vituperative hatred of Israel demonstrates exactly what your predilections are. It is too bad for you that 535 members of the Congress disagree with you. Maybe there's a good reason for that fact.

It's hateful to say "you agreed to follow the law, so you should follow the law?" or is the hate contained in pointing out what those laws say? Vituperative? First, nice word usage. Second, it's abusive to... what, know history after twenty years study of the subject? Are you trying to convince me, or yourself?

What, exactly, re my "predilections?" Still waiting to hear about my "Ilk" too. Stop dancing around what you're trying to say and just say it, man. I mean really you're desperate to get personal, so get personal.

there have been so many of you thru the ages that it is never personal. You have an agenda and you are executing it to the best of your limited ability. It is noting new or particularly creative. Personally, I have nothing better to do today so I take a few moments to parry your weak thrusts. You know, it is funny: you in the plural sense rarely respond in threads which detail blatantly anti-Semitic statements here on DU, but if there is an OP which mentions something which may be construed as negative towards Israel, American-Israeli relations,. Orthodox Jews, you are all over it like flies on crap.

Quite frankly I do not believe that it is useful for me to feel anything personally towards you: you have never betrayed me personally, I wouldn't know you if I walked past you on the street, and what is more, you and I have no effect on what is occurring in the World today and these things are decided at levels higher than you or I could ever hope to attain. So nice try with the goading. You chose the wrong individual.

And to answer your question before you pose it: I say something here on DU because the vast number of individuals who agree with my viewpoint just don't want to get into it with those of your mindset,but don't think for one minute that there are not a vast number of individuals who are tired of the attacks upon Israel. That is why I take the time.

We're up to "my ilk," "my predilections," and now "my mindset," but you've addressed exactly nothing relevant to the topic. All you've got are these vague attempts at personal attacks, and now complaining that the subject is being discussed at all. I guess I can't blame you, as you seem extremely ignorant of the subject of Israel / Palestine, aside from some soundbites you picked up at WND or something... but the problem is you know even less about me (or my ilk, predilections, or mindset) than you do about the topic we were discussing.

So. Go forth, PCIntern. when you have read a book that isn't by Daniel Pipes or David Horowitz, seek me out again!

I'll call bullshit on that one. I'll also call bullshit on yr attempts to portray anyone who does dare to criticise Israel as being anti-Semitic.

Why doesn't Israel deserve to be criticised when it does the wrong thing? Why do you expect that on a left-wing forum, we all should support the extreme right-wing government of Netanyahu?

You have no basis to compare Scootaloo to the historic persecutors of the Jews...most of whom were European Christians, not Palestinian Arabs or any other Arabs, btw(if you were a Jewish person in North Africa during World War II, you were perfectly safe...can you say that about the Jewish residents of Europe, especially those who were denied safety and sanctuary in the U.S. and Canada(despite the fact that neither country had an excuse for barring their entry)?

Stop calling Scootaloo an antisemite. that's bullshit and you know it. The real antisemites were people like Balfour and Truman, who backed the creation of a "Jewish homeland" because they wanted THEIR countries to be as close to Judenrein as possible-or the congressmen and senators who passed the restrictive immigration quotas in 1923(quotas that SHOULD be called the Jewish Exclusion Policy, since that was pretty much their sole intent)that ended up dooming the Jews of Europe to the gas chambers. THOSE were the true enemies of the Jewish peoples...NOT the Arabs of Palestine, who had nothing to do with any of that, OR with the Holocaust, OR with the tsars and their pogroms, OR with the Inquistion or the establishment of the ghettos.

As Sinead O'Connor would say "fight the real enemy"...right-wing Christian antisemitism.

You owe Scootaloo an apology.

Stop equating justified criticism of Israeli mistreatment and collective punishment of the Palestinians with antisemitism. You know perfectly well that Scootaloo is an opponent of all forms of bigotry.

Actually I'm more amused, as this conversation has been pretty textbook.

maintenance of the State of Israel and its security.

I know nothing.

Scootaloo said nothing about religion or ethnicity in that statement, therefore, while it was harsh, it wasn't bigoted. It was directed towards you as an individual. BTW, I'm not sure anybody knows what your ethnicity or religion is here. I've never made any assumptions about either...since your views on the I/P issue could be held by an evangelical conservative from South Carolina.

Take a wild wild guess. I'll give you three.

Scootaloo believes Zionism to be equivalent to White Supremism
(can you imagine a Jewish movement described as such?)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=57842

I'm a civil guy these days. That is because I am on Beta Blockers.

Thanks!

PC

That was years before the cafe bombings or any of that.

It's probable that the settlements CAUSED more attacks on Israelis than they ever could have prevented.

The whole point of building the settlements was the belief that what nobody but Likud still called "Judea and Samaria" should be part of Israel. The whole purpose was annexation for annexation's sake, so that it would never be possible for Palestinians to have a state or any hope at all(it goes without saying that they have no hope for anything good in their future if they have to choose between moving to Jordan just to be citizens of somewhere or having to be stateless in their homes).

but the well-anticipated the uprising due to the funding coming from the exterior. Who made Arafat a millionaire?

as much of your argument...but it is funny. Thanks for that!

And you're welcome.

Seriously, you need to get off that "Destruction of Israel" stuff. It's high-octane fetish fuel, and as I said, it's no more realistic than the American christian fantasy of being eternally persecuted.

1948, 1955, 1967, 1973. These were for....I know! WMD's!

It can happen again...especially in this age of potential loose nukes.

This is in response to Mr/Ms Burch. I don't know anything about him/her either...

Israel is a stable state like many others, and at no risk of being destroyed. So how about you try discussing the topic of the OP, which is Netanyahu and the settlements. Do you agree with what he said?

Look, I've already given you a history lesson about those dates (and you're wanting 1956, not 1955.) I'll grant it wasn't in-depth... but I'm not being paid to tutor you, so i think it's fair. If you choose to not pay attention... well, again I refer you to the persecution fantasy.

And you admit a person can oppose both without being "anti-Israel" or an antisemite. Thank you for that.

I must have missed that...

That that was the logical conclusion to be reached from that post. Obviously, he didn't MEAN to admit it.

See what I did there?

Hopefully you've been spared too many Abbott-in-Speedos sightings.

I think Abbott's too busy trying to destroy the country right now to do any budgie smuggler photo ops

How can you take somebody else's land, acre by acre, olive grove by olive grove, with your soldiers patrolling their streets 24-7, and not CAUSE resistance? Who, anywhere, would be ok with that? Would you, if it had been a Palestinian army holding Tel Aviv and Haifa under military occupation?

You can't really believe that it was a reasonable expectation to think that Palestinians, like anybody else facing that treatment from anybody else, would be content with that, can you?

And don't start talking about why there was no "Palestinian Gandhi". Mubarak Awad TRIED to create a nonviolent resistance...and the IDF treated him just as badly as they treated the PLO. If you want nonviolence, then you have to reward it(btw, there are, in fact, nonviolent protests all over Palestine...it's a lie to say all Palestinian resistance is terrorism or even violent at all...but the American media never mention it because it doesn't fit the "all Palestinians are subhuman demon spawn" profile.

First rule of war, if you start it make sure you can win it.

Now let me really fire some folks up.

I've been to Israel and spent some time there.

I've been to Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and Syria.

I found one of these countries to be very civilized. I found one of these countries that treated their women as people. All the others, not so much.

I would visit Israel at the first opportunity. The rest, never again.

"The spoils of war": you've pegged the moral retardation meter, and your knowledge of history isn't any better.

Why do you post at a liberal website?

Reality sucks but it is reality. All most all nations on this earth have been shaped by war.

I stand by what I said.

Rule number one when you start a war, make sure you can win it. There is no reset button or redo's. You may not like the outcome but it will last a long time.

You can't hold Palestinians responsible for the choices the leaders of the other Arab countries made.
And it wasn't a legitimate expectation that the Palestinians would accept Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as the permanent state of affairs.

You state that you are part Native American. Fair enough. Your ancestors were crushed. They didn't reconcile themselves to the post-Ghost Dance status quo as a just resolution of matters. They have simply waited until the time was right to press their case. Resistance among Native Americans to the genocide whites inflicted upon them never ended in their hearts. And I support, as do huge numbers of other people, Idle No More and other Native American/First Nation resistance groups(do you?)

Native Americans have never accepted white settlers saying "we won...deal with it" as the end of the discussion.

The Irish didn't. the peoples of India didn't. The peoples of Africa haven't. Even the Scots aren't accepting the Act of Union(which the English crown passed by bribing the old Scottish Parliament to vote itself out of existence)as the last word.

Why expect Palestinians to accept something nobody else in the world seems to?

And the issue is occupation and subjugation...not whether Israel has a better society than Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Syria.

Over time the Palestinians have been a problem for Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. All of these countries have basically run them off because they caused them too many problems. What has to happen now is that they all have to quit playing the "no state" game. Egypt recognized Israel as a state many years ago but they are the only one in that area who has. The rest of the surrounding arab nations must also recognize Israel as a independent state.
The Palestinians have to stop all attacks, period. Then Israel has to generously give up some of the lands they took in the wars and help the Palestinians establish their own state. This must be done with both recognition and help of the Israelis.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, syria, jordan,and iraq. must all recognize and enter into a pact to protect both Palestine and Israel as independent states and as allies.
Iran is not going to like this at all. But for lasting piece to happen this is what must happen.

To the victor goes the spoils is so 19th century, though conservatives tend to cling to it when it suits them.

Do I need to spend the time to correct that with a few pages of links?

You have the shovel and are digging the hole your are in for this discussion. Let me get some popcorn and I'll watch you continue.

Lets start with the Ukraine and international laws and any one of several treaties involved.

Ok I"m comfortable. Begin.

and Israel won their wars. So apparently you support Israel's wars of conquest and Israel's continued victimization of the victims of its wars of conquest.

You have no standing to condemn any atrocity committed by any nation against any people at any time in history.

So you'd have been ok with Britain holding onto India, Ireland, Hong Kong and half of Africa for the rest of eternity? Those were all spoils of war, too.

And before you bring it up, I'm NOT ok with the theft of land from Native Americans and the attending genocide involved in that. Neither is much of anybody else who calls for self-determination for Palestinians. We're consistent on the need to address all acts of colonialism and colonial-minded arrogance...nobody should be able to take anybody else's land and then keep the people whose lands they've taken in servitude and submission. It's wrong everywhere.

I said what is true. In this world war shapes countries almost all of the time. It has been that way for centuries. It is still that way.
It is called reality.
When you attack a country in hopes of destroying them it is stupid to believe that they are going to pat you on the head and give you land that they won with their treasure and blood.
That is not the reality of this world.
When you start a war there is not a reset button provided in case you loose.
I'm mixed blood Native American but I'll let you slide on that for now, but I do have another question for you.
Why hasn't Jordan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia given the Palestinians land for their homeland or substantially helped them out in their goals?

because, a lot of times, people who want to shut down criticism of what Israel does to Palestinians use the "What about what the U.S. did to Native Americans" meme as a way of accusing people of having double standards.

No disrespect to your heritage was intended...I suppose I assumed(based on your arguments)that you were of European ancestry. Sorry.

I was born into a multi-racial family that has just got more mixed since then. I've lived in 11 different countries. I do not do strict ideologies well because they are never nearly pure in application.
I'm a realist with hopes that we can make things better but in the mean time we have to deal with the way things are.
Few things actually offend me from a racial standpoint. Things have happened but you either deal with them or go nowhere in life.